Thank you, thank you very much Tim. Now before everyone is running away I would like to ask the speakers of this session on stage for a brief Q&A. We have a bit of time left. Also if you have any questions to them, you can now get them ready and you will have the opportunity to ask them in a minute. Okay so one thing that I just realized, I kept this for a very late moment in this process but I forgot to introduce myself. I'm Julia Nislein and I'm based in Linz and I'm a maker and thinker and I've also been collaborating with Time's Up in the past. I'm very interested in these topics of possible futures and yeah so this is a bit my background. Now we have around yeah let's say 30 minutes for a little Q&A and just to prepare yourself we have two mics this is one thing so we have to pass it on a little Q&A. And just to prepare yourself, we have two mics. This is one thing. So we have to pass it on a little bit. And the other thing is that I would like to talk a bit about debugging. Obviously, the topic of the festival, and also something that maybe will make it possible for us to kind of combine all these topics that we've been talking about already. kind of combine all these topics that we've been talking about already. Yeah, so bugs. I'm stealing here a little bit also from the Amro website, but one thing that for me was very interesting that I never actually thought about is like, why is it called bugs? It's called bugs because there was an actual bug in an early computer that filled the entire room and this made the system crash. So bugs can be that, a kind of system that gets stuck or something that becomes visible that wasn't visible before. The debugging practice can be rebooting, can be opening the black box, kind of understanding where the problem is or what needs to be fixed in that moment. And it can also be taking away something that is bothersome in that moment. bothersome in that moment, let's say. Also, exactly here on the left, we would not see him, I guess, on the screen, but we will have Giuseppe Torre here. Hello? Yes, he's there. Great. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Can you hear him fine in the room? Perfect. A bit louder? Hi everyone. Yes, this is good. Is it loud enough? Perfect. Welcome. Giuseppe is joining us from the University of Limerick. And we will also ask him some questions. So welcome on the digital stage here. Thank you. So yeah, as I said, I would like to talk a little bit about debugging. And I think we cannot debug without thinking about hidden structures somehow. So we need to be aware of a structure before we can go ahead and fix it or identify a problem. And I think sometimes it's very hard to, like as we discussed already, like you two mentioned it, actually, Rosemary and Sophie, that it's hard sometimes to be aware of the bigger picture because we're so concerned with what is happening in our everyday life. So one thing that I was wondering and that I would also like to ask you as a first question is like, yeah, which practices have you adopted to identify hidden structures around us? Like how do you manage to zoom out of your practice? That's a very good question. I guess because, I'm just gonna start, I guess because, I'm just going to start. I guess that's quite familiar to me because my work is really very much centered on this historical perspective and a deep time historical perspective. So I'm sometimes looking at technology, like ancient technology, and thinking about things that are happening now and what could happen in terms of things that happened a very, very long time ago and how actually the ideas from much older structures and technologies or methods, stay with them, and we're very much haunted by our past and our past thinking. So I feel like maybe that's... I have the opposite struggle. I have the opposite struggle from maybe getting out of this thinking about the past and this like massive the massive scale and trying to get down much more to the minute and the personal and maybe that's kind of the direction that I'm taking right now and focusing more on the human scale and how these how they connect more this like interfacing between the scales happens but I think connecting it back to like the debugging I feel very much that maybe maybe that kind of connects to what we were talking about, just how there's so many ways of connecting to that or interpreting it, and I feel like there's, as an artist and as a thinker, I'm kind of compelled to try to debug the problems that I see or, you know, working with research problems. And then from the other side, from like the systemic point of view, I feel like often our action as debuggers, as, you know, doing this kind of work, is co-opted by the systems and the power structures that already exist. And so I feel like maybe maybe this this interfacing between different scales and then interfacing between these various systems functioning at the same time is where we can move forward from trying to trying to find better methods for connecting them. Yeah, I think my answer to this question will actually be very much in contrast to my presentation because it's really not flashy at all. My general approach is usually informed by radical constructivism and social system theory. And my question is always, why, why does this function this way and could it function in a different way? Obviously, when we talk about bugs in computer programs and algorithms, we only have the difference between it runs or it doesn't run in other kind of systems. That is not so much the case. And the bug in one system can very much have a function in a different one. So usually I'm quite unemotional about this question and just follow that line. It's probably because I'm naturally quite an emotional person and get really hot-headed about something. So it kind of keeps me from myself. So this is kind of how I debug my own process, I think, to kind of concentrate on the classic functionality, like what is this trying to achieve, what function does this have, and would it make sense to change that, is usually my approach to this. Thank you very much. I would also like to ask you two, because you actually propose a sort of, let's say, new structure, but it's definitely propose a sort of let's say new structure but it's definitely also a change of an existing structure so I will pass the mic to use that one here. So if I understood the question is how we get from like this particular issues or annoyances you find in some context? And how do you get to a grander context? Because maybe sometimes you don't have to. But if you do, I think there's two bigger pictures to look at. One is theoretical, and the other is practical. The one I mentioned before is practical. This is the first big picture question you have to ask. Is this something that's even a problem to be solved? And the other is theoretical. Is this a bug? It's a question that presupposes some theory. So if we say there's an attention crisis or something like that, these are all theories that would identify a bug, but maybe someone else in some other political camp would say, no, that's just a feature of market or something. This is how I think about it usually. Any ideas? Many different contexts. For example, the first time I started paying attention to theory, I was immediately grasped by this accelerationism framework because it kind of so neatly put everything within this accelerative structure of modernity that we are within. And it, for example, had a nice explanatory value about different processes or phenomena that are happening in our society. So especially when I know philosophy, of course, has this implementation problem, or it's too abstract, or it doesn't so much fit all the parameters or whatever I mean this is for example interesting and even how it gained a culture momentum as well even on the slides in the second presentation we actually saw I know tweets from or excerpts from Nick Land and stuff like that. So it's interesting to see how this kind of thing gains momentum because it kind of anticipates the direction through which things are kind of heading. So this kind of debugging for me is interesting if it's possible to highlight this kind of current in advance and then kind of, yeah, not travel back in time, but maybe accelerate. Thanks a lot. Yeah, maybe you can pass the mic to Tim. So I was wondering if when you build physical narratives such as Turnton that you talked about before, so you imagine stories, you imagine a possible future or even multiple, is that something that you're very aware of, that you put a small artefact that can mean an entire new world, like it can be a symbol for something much bigger than what you're actually seeing and touching in that moment? Definitely. There's a lot of... When we're building one of these worlds, there's a lot of trying to fill in as many gaps as possible, trying to have as much detail as possible. So, for instance, with the newspaper, it's filled with stories, characters, relationships between people. But there's also a lot of gap-leaving that we do. So you probably didn't notice from the pictures, because they went very quickly, but in the Medusa bar, even though there's lots of food and drink on offer, there's no prices. Because if we were going to say a price, we'd need to give a currency. If we're going to give a currency, we'd need to say something like euros. And if we said euros, that would mean, OK, we're within the European Union, there is still financial stability. We'd be saying a whole bunch of things about the future. And if we didn't use euros, if we used, I don't know, the lira, then firstly we're saying we're probably in Italy or that place that was known as Italy and that the European Union is broken down. If we use bitcoins, that would say something else completely. It would be sort of quite horrifying. So there's a whole bunch of really annoying things that come out of a simple thing like putting a price on a drink. And if you do have euros, what's the price? Does a beer cost €7.50 or does it cost €75 or is it €2,200? Because there's been hyperinflation. So many things that would come out just from a price. And there's this lovely concept of... I'm not going to pronounce it correctly. It's something like mu. It's like a Zen thing. If you unask a question, you don't just avoid the question, like politicians do, you unask it by saying it's not even going to be relevant. And by doing that, we leave all of those options open. So that means that when you come in to the exhibition and talk about the space, you can imagine that the European Union is going strong and that there's a very important bunch of things that are happening, social structures there. You might, on the other hand, have this idea that the European Union is dissolved and it's a bunch of regional governments that work together in a narco-syndicalist fashion to be able to sort of make the landmass of Europe work together quite utopially, and various other possibilities. So we'd like to keep these sort of mutsuluka... Mutsuluka, I can never say that quite right. It's about umlauts. like a courage of and around the gap, that you sort of leave some things out and let them emerge. And one of the things what you were speaking about beforehand, and I thought it was interesting that you brought up accelerationism, because in some way, when we build something like Turnton, we're jumping into a future, we're sort of accelerating to that point, and imagining a whole bunch of changes that probably won't happen in're jumping into a future, we're sort of accelerating to that point and imagining a whole bunch of changes that probably won't happen in the next 25 years, but we're sort of doing them faster so that from that perspective, we can look back on what's happening now without having to imagine whether or not the European Union has collapsed, but imagining a bunch of other things and be able to talk about what's happening now from a bit of a distance. I mean, we know that science fiction has that role it allows us to reflect upon our contemporary society by sort of turning up the volume on a few things and making it look funny like using some weird digital effects and this is like an important part of the work that we try and do as well is to sort of like turn up the volume at a different perspective and then have a bit of a an everyday look at what might happen in the future back to what's happening now so that's is that a vague idea around cool thanks a lot um so giuseppe if you can still hear us I think so. Giuseppe lectures in digital art practices, and he mentioned in a text that was sent to me before that in coding, somehow, we can never fully know it all. So we know it only once it works. And in a way, I'm very interested in if you can draw the parallel also to our kind of perspective on the world or knowledge of the world and I'm wondering if it's perhaps perhaps somehow reaching for the stars if we're really trying to unveil the big structures like do you think that this is yeah something that we should aim for hi everyone hi Julia hi everyone yeah so just to give a bit of context, what I've been studying recently, part of my research is in vague terminology would be, yes, the relationship between technology and arts, the digital worlds and arts. Now, that sounds a bit too vague to be meaningful. But to a certain extent, going down that path, I started seeing technology more. My approach to technology initially was very positive. I saw all the possibilities. And the more I got, after 20 years now, I think I've reached the other end where I see only some of the impediments that would enable. In the, to respond to your question in relation to bugs, for example. Now, having listened to all the talks this morning, also the talks yesterday, the talks this morning uh also the talks yesterday there seems to be like one understanding like a box could within the technological realm have some positive impact how could we exploit bugs no in order to um in order to bring about possible futures, as perhaps Tim would say, bugs becomes like an open scar where computational systems show what they really are, just machines that, like any kind of machine, can break at any time. Now, there is also another way of seeing bugs. Bugs as kind of something that bothers, such as the practice of debugging in gorillas, like when they remove bugs from each other. And certainly in computer science, that's what kind of bug means, not something bothersome. The computer does not does what it's been instructed to do, or perhaps I'm not instructing it well. Now, if we really want to, in my opinion, if we really want to take the positive side, kind of a positive characterization of a bug. Rather than my proposal or my view would be one, not as bogus, something that highlights the problem in the system so that some possible improvement can be made. But rather, I would see bog as interruption and the only thing that keeps us sane. What do I mean by that is that when bogs happens suddenly the dream of technology, of the virtual disappears and we are projected back into the reality we live. I can give you a very simple example. This morning while I was listening to the talks the connection broke down a few times. Suddenly while I was immersed in listening to the speaker's voice trying to understand the meaning of their message I was snapped out of it. Suddenly I was back in here in my house, experiencing a different reality. Now we can, I think at that stage, then I see bugs as the only things that perhaps keeps us sane, because as long as there are errors, as long as technology does not work, or perhaps does not work, then we have still something to latch on into what i believe is a far better far richer reality such as the reality not not me here on the screen i'm sorry to not be there i i i wanted to uh i know it seems like contradictory what I'm saying, but still, yeah, it's like, yeah, it's what saved us from the real matrix. That would be my suggestion. Thank you very much. Question to you two again, Jan and Max. Do you feel like, especially the practice of co-creation somehow, collaboration that you're proposing with your app, do you feel like this is also something that can help us to, let's say, identify things that we would like to fix or we would like to debug, but also on the other hand identify things that we would like to keep? Yeah, I mean it's kind of a prototype proposal, maybe it's more conceptual It's kind of a prototype proposal. Maybe it's more conceptual than actually practical, but it's worth a try. I don't think we can always know what the solution even is for this kind of problem. It was just like, what if we made something the opposite way? Like, this app just gives you back the same content. It doesn't try to abuse this novelty impulse that other feed mechanisms use. And it also gives this kind of right to the content to have attention. Not just the low threshold when you just put it in a folder or make it with a like. These are the kinds of things we were thinking about changing within this tool. Yeah. But yeah, maybe like I was saying before, you have this theoretical level that you can identify some sort of problems. But then the second question is, does this particular bug fixing actually fix the problem you were thinking about when you were first having your ideas. This is also a hard thing to connect back. Because every time a vague idea comes into practice, it has to sacrifice some of the vagueness and, in a sense, become more real. But it can drift in directions that you didn't anticipate. Sorry, maybe just to rephrase it a little bit, I'm realizing I made it a bit hard for you with this question. Something that you mentioned in your talk was somewhere between very open and not so open, and I think this is a very interesting one, because on the one hand we want open in the sense of inclusive, and but in a way, if it's completely open, it's anarchy, so you need some sort of closeness to some sort of design that sets limits, especially also in ways of, in this case, using the app. But especially when it comes to collaboration, there needs to be some sort of openness to make that happen, no? And I was wondering in what sense this is implemented in the app, and how, yeah, to what extent you kind of let that be an open part of that, while obviously other parts are closed, as in designed. Yeah, maybe I can add something about that. The problems that come with openness are many. I mean, if you've ever been in an anarchist organization, some of them work good, but a lot of times their channels saturate by very active individuals because time and energy isn't equally distributed and someone who can be in all the meetings and comment on every point all the time can make a hierarchy even if there's supposedly none. But the app doesn't really assume how this problem will be solved. The idea is just if people match on a content, they can communicate, and then they have to solve the problem themselves. We were thinking about what would be the next step after the match is made. Should we, like, encourage them to read or wait? So they... Or should we make a scenario, or should we just should we make a scenario or should we just let them communicate? So this is how these groups form. They can include everyone but they don't have to. This was the problem we found with reading groups. Usually they start with like 30 or 60 people, second meeting it's half, third meeting is half, and if it's a long book, yeah, it's a kind of filtering that new people don't really have a way in. So this kind of distributes the process and tries to make it less high stakes of input. I don't know if Max maybe wants to add something. To this point, I don't have anything to add, but maybe I can return to the first part of the question. And again, this is quite personal or particular, but for example, what struck me first when me and Jan were discussing the possibilities about the GIA and just kind of trying building the app trying to theorize or write what this could mean is that similar discussion happens within 20th century and even 19th century I know like phrasing framing in this way can sound like preposterous or whatever but from the start like the main Marxist idea was that like kind of communism will not kind of be developed separate or outside of capitalism but what kind of organically emerged through it and even within the 20th century we kind of have like similar battles in example I know socialist calculation debate in the I don't know Soviet Union example we know in which way it went we now potentially better understand constraints and possibilities and potentially we can respond differently this time and for example the when we are discussing here or just kind of looking for alternatives sometimes the solutions against capitalism or against imperatives of profit are somewhat too ephemeral or maybe too heideggerian like poetry will save us because it's not instrumental reason or the line of thought kind of follows this pattern whereas for example on the internet we see how memes can be a very powerful, I know, ideological warfare that can be utilized by different groups and the way this is done is really unstable and no one really has an upper hand at least fully controlling the cultural landscape. So in this scenario, I think that potentially the same holds with feedback. upper hand at least fully controlling the cultural landscape. So in this scenario, I think that potentially the same holds with feedback. It's interesting to kind of try to implement feedback loops within such an experimental organization and see where can it leads us. And if this is again, connected to the fact that capitalism, because of its extractive policies, needs to retain two restrictive systems in play, and potentially we can just see where it leads us if it's done with an open mindset. Thank you. Thank you very much. Rosemary and Sophie, Caroline. So debugging implies somehow that we identify a mistake in a system or a construct. It can be in code, but it can be in politics, in law, in norms of values. I was wondering if especially in your artistic practice, if that's something that you're trying to discuss and identify. As you mentioned before, like coming from theory, sometimes you are actually very aware of maybe the bigger picture. How does that boil down to your artistic practice? I suppose to a certain extent I'm always trying to identify an issue and maybe utilise that issue for my own good. One of the works that I presented was probably the Bozell publishing and there is too much to say about this work but essentially I wanted to make sure that some Jewish inheritance would digitally be restituted to one specific person, talk to the Austrian National Library, they were not quite helpful in that because they essentially suggested you could pay for them being digitized which to me wasn't a very um acceptable way of how to approach this so i got people to essentially legally digitize it and printed it on a stick and had a publishing event to then reintroduce it into the national library because they actually have to collect everything that is published in austria which clearly is a bug in their own system, also because I found out that they have very undefined definitions of what publishing and printing is. So a 3D print actually counted as a print publication, and me holding a publishing event for this one-time issue actually counted as the publication. And since there were more than 30 bits of the thing, that all qualified it, and therefore it had to be collected and now needs to be archived by the Austrian National Library. So I tried to find bugs that I can use for my own good. Yeah, maybe Rosemary, you want to respond to that question? That's great. Yeah, I've recently been, like, very much reflecting on my artistic practice because I'm, like, somewhat freshly out of a PhD and, like, returning to actually having time to practice and do shows and stuff. And in looking at the schizophrenia that is my artistic practice, because I realized I never specialized. I'm very kind of across the board. I realized that the defining thing about my practice is actually every project is about deconstructing tools and using the practice and the theory to deconstruct a tool in some way and kind of open it up and mess it up or, you know, break it or, I don't know, fix it, put it back together in a fucked up way or I don't know. But something that was brought up earlier was this tension between, like, is it a bug or is it a feature? And I think that's something that's, like, very political. And maybe that's, like, quite a lot what I'm focusing on right now. And something else that was brought up is you can't really predict. And I think that's the time-old story of technology, is we don't know what we're going to do. We don't know the effects of our actions. And we can try to do. We don't know the effects of our actions, and we can try to, you know, we can create a frame of reference, but we really can't say, like, I will do this, and it will have that effect, and we very often create new fires by putting one out. So I guess kind of just trying to play with that feedback loop right now and trying to look at, like because I'm specialized in AI stuff, and I'm honestly very, very fatigued by all of that discourse and even the tools. I don't really want to work with it anymore, to be honest. And just kind of trying to find how can I develop a way forward from this, like, whether it is stepping away or continuing with parts of what I've been doing before. So, yeah. Thanks a lot. We are a little bit short on time, which is why I will discard some questions, but I will ask one that is for all of you, and I would like to give the first mic to Giuseppe, because he cannot really intervene here in the physical space. So debugging obviously contains bugging, and to me it's very interesting to think of it in that way. It means annoying someone, it it means being uncomfortable and i'm wondering like do we maybe need more bugs instead of less bugs are we the bugs or can we beat the bugs well one of the things i would say in relation to that and again it might not be coherent with what i do might be against what do. I work in university in a computer science department and I do digital arts and I do philosophy of technology and that kind of stuff. I think if we are really concerned, I really like the talk by Sophie, Caroline and Rosalie, I see the kind of concerns that they were expressing towards the end, the kind of lives we live. I think perhaps if we are the bugs, if we are to really make our artistic practice meaningful, and I see, I feel the same kind of struggle and difficulties, such as analysis and paralysis and a lot of bad ideas. Perhaps there is just one last thing left, which is just abandoned technology. I don't know. That's the only way we could bug it. Just, I mean, imagine a world, I'm going back now historically to the kind of confrontation between two camps for the World Expo in Tokyo in the 70s. I think it was Tokyo, I can't remember now. And there were two camps, one pro-technology and one against, given that the warfare was about technology and the wonder of technology. A large group of international artists joined and they say, we should not participate in that effort in promoting technology. Well, they were coming from two world wars of experience in the war in Vietnam, and so they had their reason. And another camp instead that says, ah, no, technology is neutral, is as bad as the holder of it and the programmer, or bad or good. And I think discourse since then has been very much in line with the camp that participated to the warfare. We try to solve technology, the problem with technology within technology. I'm not saying that it's not possible. I think it's good. This is an effort. But perhaps as artists, where we are not necessarily concerned with strict pragmatics, one way of really speculating would be how to place positions ourselves, bogging the system by positioning ourselves outside it. That's the one thought I perhaps was instigated to me by listening to the talks in these past two days. Okay, thanks a lot. Anyone else here would like to say anything about it? Otherwise, maybe we can also open this to the audience. Are there any questions to this lovely group of people on stage? You're probably tired and you want lunch. I'll chuck something in there. Just because, yeah, thanks for talking about that technology issue. Just because, yeah, thanks for talking about that technology issue. We've tried a number of times to do, like, putting technology into, like, a turn-type environment, a physical narrative, an experiential future, and it's really annoyingly hard and difficult for a number of reasons, but it's also very hard to understand or even imagine what the technologies can be in a way that makes sense to actually have them there because it's so different. That fellow that we mentioned, the physicist Richard Gott, sort of indicates that most of the things that we have have only been around for about a decade, and that indicates that probably in a decade or two they're not going to be around anymore so looking into the future things like this are probably not going to be the relevant bits of technology and making them relevant into the future is really hard but the bugs that sort of hang around in some sense are those sort of social and organizational and political bugs and issues and they're much easier to sort of talk about in a sort of environment and to have these sort of questions around the sort of technology that's going on. And there's this lovely comment from China Mevo, once again a weird fiction writer, that we're living in a utopia, it's just not ours, which is about any time in history, it's probably like that. There's always someone who's doing the best out of what's going on. So, yeah, there's something going on there with sort of technological questions and just not really been able to talk about them into the future. But there was something else going on there as well. Thank you so much. I would say we wrap it up here. Thank you. Thank you for coming say we wrap it up here. Thank you. Thank you for coming on stage and answering some questions. Thanks a lot for your talks, too. I'm sure this can also continue here on the lovely earth that we have. I would just like to very quickly go through the program of today. I was asked to announce again that there will be workshops happening this afternoon between 4, sorry between 2 and 4.30 there will be the Commod 777 workshop happening in Raumschiff and then there will be in DH5 workshop sounding attention labor with critical debugging for which I think David had told me before there are few spots available then there will be two documentation workshops happening downstairs here, Amro times and Amro tribes then obviously the GIA workshop that we mentioned earlier happening up here in the second floor. And Chip Jansen, I think, is full, so I'm not even going to say it, but he's also going to do a workshop. Yes, I think that's it. There's a performance happening in BB15 from 3 to 6. It's called A-Space. And, well, then the evening program is going to continue check the website I will tell you again the link because I was very amazed by the website when I found it art minus meets dot radical minus openness org this is the very beautiful website I think designed by Juan, who's sitting in the back there. Okay, so thanks a lot, and have a good lunch break. Thank you.