Publishing as Aftercare

Workshop

[14.00]

[10 min] Setting the scene: Conversation between Franzi and Mitsi about grief and publishing

Mitsi and Franzi only recently met online
Franzi currently writes an essay on aftercare
her research is on grief and publishing
Mitsi will start curating an exhibition on vocalizing grief collectively.
Conversations during preparation were also about publishing with etherpad and Octomode specifically.
Interference is part of the etherpad experience.
Grief can be messy too.
There seems to be a correlation connecting publishing in the etherpad to the experience of grief.
Mitsi points to the book tending to grief and the ongoing grief of colonization.
we talk about grief when we lose someone but grief can come from generations before us, specific events, political events
franzi coming from german context, grief takes place in private, it’s silent
in other cultures grief may interveve with other forms of live
What about the politics of grief? There is also climate grief, grief of revolutions that didn’t go well, things that we lost.
in greek context, there are communal aspects to grieving
the collective aspect of grief is interesting to mitsi and also the political aspect
franzi questions and finds it challenging what to ‘put out there’. and what feels too vulnerable. what is ok to publish?
what is interesting for other people to encounter? how to define the ‘public’
you might not always want to publish to peers
on the notion of aftercare, a moment to process what happened before, can be done alone or with other people The notion of aftercare coming from BDSM. Before you engage in kink or powerplay you clarify before and after what everyone needs, drawing lines what is possible and what isn’t.
You can talk about what went well and what went wrong afterwards, its important for groups, relationships, releasing and acknowledge that things can go wrong
varia installed mediation to acknowledge that things can go wrong, and most likely will. Aftercare also relates to healing, repairing.

The invitation is to everyone is to reflect on aftercare in relation to their research something they brought

Etherpad Landing

[14.20]

0. Follow the link to arrive at the Octomode pad: https://lepa.hackersanddesigners.nl/aftercare/pad/
1. Where are we? [reading line 8-40 together]
2. Pick a nick name (or not)
3. Pick a color (or not)
4. The collective Etherpad experience can be turbulent. If you prefer a calmer space, you can create your personal pad here: https://etherpad.hackersanddesigners.nl/ or here: https://etherpad.phdarts.eu/ and add the link here if you want to be found:
5. What is Markdown?
6. Transition to spatial landing [turn off projector]

Spatial Landing

[14.30]

Prompts

[14.40] Just do it!

[7 min] Is there an aspect of your research that could benefit from being made public or published? Please describe how it might develop or gain from broader exposure.

Possibly the method of research, which maybe comes from a place of consistent birth, or unfolding, or ever expanding. And I think maybe birth is the proper metaphor here, because in birth there is, at first, no recollection of what was. These only come through observation, of maybe knowing a context, and historicities emerge through development. The eyes have a form that resemble my own, but the spark in them is my mother’s, and the color of them belong to my sister. And in this a sort beautiful reconstruction. And sometimes improvisation is described as such, that which is in statu nascendi. And anyway I was trying to talk about improvisation but time is a thing.

i’ve been doing some research into the Russell Tribunals of the late 1960s and 1970s. They are highly relevant in relation to current people’s tribunals and attempts to challenge existing legislation and the state of jurisprudence. The Third Russell Tribunal on the state of civil liberties in West Germany, and the debates it triggered, really resonate with the current McCarthyite clampdown on free speech (and intellectual and artistic production) in Germany, in the name of “Staatsräson. This historical case is worth to being reexamined and discussed in public.

My experiences in the past years with applying concepts and methods in education. It would first be beneficial to have them listed, second to gain insights myself in what I did and what happened and third to receive feedback. A first try-out last year in a symposium, in which I talked about recent experiences, led to the idea to combine my experiences in the past 10 years. What I am looking for? I look for the common thread, for unnoticed developments in working methods and insights, but also for what does not work.

Caeso: I have dedicated quite some time to teaching myself Peircean semiotics and ended up coming with sort o a semiotic model of inquiry. However, as I am no expert, I am not very confident about it even though, for my own needs has been extremely useful to develop it, especially in its visual version, as a diagram. I could really benefit from publishing it as a way of getting feedback and identifying conceptual flaws to it.

In my artistic practice, things happen performatively — as processes that I design before they happen, anticipating how they might unfold when people enter these playful situations. Design supports this liveliness of the now. It transmits, but it also enacts. And I wonder how to capture these feelings, embodied knowledges, memories, and social dynamics in words — in written sentences, in an essay. So that it can become a method for making design happenings or embodied performative communications. What it can gain from being exposed as written text is that it might activate the reader’s imagination in new, non-visual, non-designerly, and unexpected ways. That would be fantastic!

The play that was performed by Alex happened in places that are institutions. Once at KABK and the other time at the Netherlands Photo Museum. The first time it was published with an audience of mostly artistic researchers and the second mostly with artists or art enthusiasts, collectors etc. I would like the play to take place also in the public space. That doesn’t have predictable and stable audiences, *educated in art and philosophy-. As I have conversations with the audience of the play afterwards, not only for aftercare but also to gain reflections for my thesis, it would help massively to gain the perspective of participants from outside the bubble that I exist in.

In general I am not sure, in which way the research could benefit from being public, because for that it has to have a somewhat finished form, that leaves spaces (playgrounds) for others to join and contribute, but the structure of the research should be there already, right? I think though, since I am on a journey of reevaluation of past experiences during my upbringing, I’m already planning on having several conversations with people that shared those moments with me, to compare my reconstruction of these past conditions to theirs, since they very often don’t share my attached experience of alienation. (°レ°)

One of the aspects of my research that I am most keen on publishing — and with that, open it up for a collective re-construction, discussion, dissensus perhaps — is a set of transversal media practices or tools (not sure yet how to call them) that invariably cross the situated, the personal, the intimate space as fertile ground for research. Specially under research circles — and here I include not only artistic research, but also research in and through media, media art and theory, etc — tends to operate in the social or barely disciplinary spheres. The intimate, the personal, is left behind… and it matters because, doing research in and through art practice is invariably situated, in a sense that the researcher (and theirs/hers/his) own particular situation in time and place and culture is a starting ground (and often times end ground) for research.

If publishing meas adding to a discourse I guess publishing one’s research is necessary to develop it further. The questions is, if or how this discourse can be continued, like what a response could look like. While adding to the discourse that is happening between all publications all the time seems to vague and abstract, a more focused exchange through publication could take place through other forms. Time’s up… what other forms?

I always share my research in collective public environments. It is important for me to translate and to find language, meaning words, that are not precise, and always scapes, aiming to capture the embodied practice or the movement research in images, scores, intructions fabulations, storytelling , body constrictions, movement development, tissues visualization. To publish in this context makes public this findings and gives them an afterlife. The matter of care is an entire different issue for me.

Resisting is not the case in my case. I wish I could be published. Who gets the right to be publish and to think about alternative ways or the complexities of becoming your own archived memory. There are many aspects that are not shareable in a way. The speculative aspect is a way to deal with deeper wound, and there is no care in this wound, but it leads the research, but we will never talk about a wound that can not be treated sepciallly as an artistic context. In my practice with the Somatic Laboratory, many things can not be publish, not as a resistance, to resist what? But as a protection of the people who are part of the practice, who share unwritten stories, experiences, traditions, knowledges….I don’t think in my case has to do with resist. Resist to be captured?

And then there is something about producing more and I am maybe focusing on trying to remenber something my I always transplanting my research in public sharings…I consider performative settings also a way to share the research findinds

An aspect that stays behind the kitchen curtain that could benefit from being public is the FOOLING AROUND practice, or fictioning the most unrealistic scenarios, sometimes even absurd. It is about making a counterfactual history — what-if-history—alongside futuristic speculations and thinking about absurd consequences, grotesque musings about unheard-of traffic jams, scenes of not-working innovations, what can go wrong?

To reach my studio I have to cross a barrier, those red and white ones that organise traffic and separate train traffic from cars, bikes and pedestrians. Sometimes I wait like 20 Minutes facing the Güterbahnhof, where my studio is and a lot of others artists work. Sometimes these moments become social, we chat or we just exchange a gaze or smile. Sometimes it feels lonely and lost and excluded, when I’m waiting there in the rain no train approaching for felt like hours. These kind of ‘un-moments’ or forced breaks make me very nervous sometimes, especially in times of feeling overloaded with work to do: the mean thing I can see already my studio, know, what I will have to do there, but this stupid barrier keeps me away from it and forces me to interact with others and smalltalk. Publishing the ‘barrier as an artistic research thinking practice’, and thinking further what I had started in my IWP, namely: the barrier as a place of transition from the known to the unknown, the implicit and the explicit, trains of thoughts and so on…making the moments at the barrier an active practice of thinking and relating would gain

Artistic researchers may want to make their research public because our tradition is not powerful enough to support research. Therefore, every publication helps. Publications are part of establishing a structure. In other words, artistic research is praxeologically the act of doing.

Thinking about grief, I am thinking about death. Recently, I read about death. The Death of the Author and the Death of the Landscape. To kill a picture can be liberating. The shock of their dying creates space for other imaginations. The act of killing a picture is brutal but contributes to the metamorphoses of the collective image.

In the attempt to relate my own embodied experience of work with the historical dimension of the workers’ movement, I have conducted extensive research in the archives of the House for the History of the Ruhr in Bochum, Germany. The archives, located in the former headquarters of the miners union, hold an extensive collection of materials that are mostly gathered from union archives in Germany and Europe. One day the archivist, who has become a friend of mine, showed me the room where the so called varia – three-dimensional objects – are stored. Here I found in a small grey cardboard box a button from a protest by the German union for the paper, chemistry and ceramics workers. On the button there is an illustration of a yellow lemon. The slogan arranged around it states: “Mein Netto macht mich sauer” (My pre-tax income makes me sour/angry). I have a lemon tattooed on my leg. It was the first tattoo I made on real skin. ( I first thought you mean the supermarket NETTO , which also would fit I guess :))

written connections between graphic design and grief. verbalizing their connections, their uneraseable bond. for i hope to influence a view on graphic design that might focus more on less efficient modes within graphic design. as a practice of communicating and discussing losses, failures, repair, things to still learn, and hold, to care for rather than selling, knowing definately, communicating certainty–clearity.

I wonder if I stress process so fiercly because I have troubles finishing up. I would need the contexts of exhibitions, invitations etc to finalise as otherwise I would stay in the realm of becoming, doing, testing, consuming. With process in my mind, I do love making public, though, using journaling and diary writing as one part of writing in my PhD, having public moments through out the process, but I suspect as a way to label them as results as well. But lately, I’m more intrigued by the question of what not to publish. What might gain depth by staying opaque? What benefits from remaining unseen? (And yes, I wish I’d written the second prompt first.)

In my research there are traditional knowledges about how to collectively process grief. About how the action of building together, and having a comment vision helped community to regroup after suffering from nature disaster.

There are strains and ways of knowledge making in my research that are coincidental to my PhD dissertation that might benefit from being made (more) public. I am currently working on a contribution to a conference about theatre and philosophy together with Alice Lagaay. Titled Not Dead Yet. Rehearsing Finite Futures, our performative lecture will explore conditions of work, methods of thinking, arts of bodily transformation, boundaries and (in)tolerances, grief and its rituals, synchronicity and sickness, repetition, rehearsal, and the building of resilience…Part of the preparation is a series of voice notes and emails we sent each other over the past few weeks. I would like to explore ways of making those public/shable.

Two years ago, I started writing fanfiction about Elder Scrolls Online as part of the practice component of my research. I never did, but in hindsight I realise it would have been perhaps beneficial to publish it as a way to illustrate some of the workshops I did relating to the topic of fanfic writing as a method to analyze and deconstruct ideology in videogames. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it would have been interesting to understand what, if any reactions, this piece of writing would have gotten if it had been published in a platform like Archive of Our Own.

I’ve been thinking of the heart (felt) through macrobiotics. As pharmakon. Or as Crip metaphor, maybe. As muscle, the heart pumps blood throughout the body, supplying oxygen, removing waste, maintaining rythm. Yet beyond physiology—emotionally and as language—it can be open, closed, strong, weak, heavy, hollow, light or breaking. It can quicken in fear. It can soften in love and harden with loss. I came across a series of macriobitoc self-massage exercises. Sit down and gently rub your cheeks …

Dealing with the psychological impact of living under censorship—restricting and/or silencing the expression, making public/publishing is empowering and therapeutic.

[7 min] Is there an aspect of your research that resists being made public or published? Reflect on why this might be the case.

The inherent insecurity of not knowing a damn thing about anything at all. Or the amount of time I spend looking at a cursor blink on a screen, which is always in sync with that which is perpetually out of reach. But I guess we are all walking backwards into an indefinite future. And.. wait maybe thats the nice thing about not knowing. Ambiguity is delicious in some ways. Fucking scary too. Deliciously scary. Or frighteningly delicious? Its too bad ‘scaringly’ isnt a word because thats fun to say. Especially ‘scaringly delicious’ Anyway ok bye.

In the Colonial archives of Bengal, violence exists in many forms. The most violent are probably the photographs themselves. The visualisation of this violence faces a lot of resistance from being published. Not just due to external forces but also internally, there is always at least a hesitance if not resistance. The questions are not always about ethics or control, but also effectiveness. Do they always become effective representations of the content of my research? Or are they counterproductive? Do they carry more potential for becoming a spectacle? Can it switch off thinking, reflecting and imagination? But if we don’t show them then we abandon that reality.

I’m asking myself what public we’re talking about. A group of friends and or peers? Or public as in an anonymous group, potentially anyone? I think it helps to at least start with the certainty, that some things will not be published, because an imaginary public might produce pressure, fear, etc. that prevents certain paths to be walked. Just do it (like Nike says?) and then think about what to do with it. Ach, I’m not sure.

personal issues that are dealt with in the work, in sublayers, implicitly. They are layers of deep vulnerability and their publication would expose myself and personal life too much. Also it would take too much space from the actual topic that is research on artistic modes of thinking. (Although -of course- personal experience influences the way one thinks)

I am now in the dead mode. And I am not sure if this is the topic that I really wanna reflect on and talk about. I think the idea of ciruclation which is part of death and dying might be more relevant at this moment. I feel a bit to forced to publish something that I am not sure yet if it is ready for publishing.

˜Of course when dealing with themes such as the intimate, the personal, etc, I’m confronted with the question of what to include into a publication (and here that means: my phd thesis and its artistic presentation).˜ The aspects that I mostly feel an inner resistance toward publishing are those that expose details that quite frankly, are murky, liminal, difficult ˜even for me˜ to grasp or articulate in words. Perhaps it is in that resistance that I find the potential not to “run away” from publishing, but in finding the right medium that sheds light — gives a particular perspective or entry way to it — that enables others not only to experience a fragment of such “inefability”, but make it their own, or within a larger argument or agenda in question. I guess this is why poets speak through imagery and emptiness.

Yes, the artworks themselves. A core part of my artistic research deals with identifying or even creating possible ways to avoid/delay/complicate/minimize alienation and approppriation by the same system that it wants to distance itself from. In a way, that implies making things not very ‘publishable’ in a conventional way, which is different than saying that it shouldn’t be made public. The problem is that this seems to have the same result.

Work, ideas or quoted words of students, without their consent. For the rest everything can be published: my own joy, doubts, fear, mistakes and everything that can be relevant for the purpose of publishing, that is to say: for gaining a better understanding of the possible applications of my research and getting feedback on my own experiences and the experiences of the readers.

In the first Russell Tribunal, on Vietnam, which took place in Stockholm and Roskilde in 1967, Vietnamese people stripped in front of the jury (chaired by Jean-Paul Sartre) to reveal their napalm burn marks. Among the people showing these modern stigmata was a nine-year old boy. A photo of this moment has been published repeatedly over the years, and is probably the most famous image of the tribunals. Recently, I got access to film footage that shows this moment. It is a hard watch. Today’s people’s tribunals would rightly not adopt this scenography. It is important to discuss these changes in the tribunal form, but I do so without re-publishing the photo or the film footage.

the parts that keep resisting being public, when connecting graphic design and grief for me, are the ones that lay open my own chest in a way, that i am not certain, whether i will be able to close them by myself. so the resisting stories always only resist, when being uncertain about my own connection to the room i am publishing into. it is certainly connected to how i imagine people thinking of me and my own vulnerability. to be precise, the things resisting might also be the things that have not yet found language, that make me stutter, not being able to tell the story beautifully so others can feel as well, but still be fragmented in their storytelling. still unconnected. this also bears the possibility of people asking: “well, but how is this connected to your reserach…?”

Part of this reevaluation of my upbringing in rural Bavaria will have to concern people close to me, friends, family and darker things that happened in my village. Regarding friends, that will come up in this process, I think I am able to evade confrontations by fictionalising certain aspects of shared experiences, but regarding family members, that will certainly see my dissertation or final publication, I am unsure how to navigate around confrontations that do not seem productive to me, as they just concern things from the past that can’t be changed right now. ᯓ✦

I struggle to imagine how to make pubic the clandestine aspects of my research, these wild-grown inquiries, the windy, unstable vagabond scavenger methods. It is a mystic who makes these hypothesis, whose research is deeply gnostic, withdrawn, nesting in the secret hiding place. But the mystic knows so well how to fool around, so perhaps I want to do sort of a paradoxical move - to publish what is meant to be hidden, unspoken, whispere,d and roared silently.

No, no resistance to being public. Just craving a safe space to think longer, to get lost, to be unproductive. And taking agency for slower development than the one that exists in the design and education contexts. If I’m here to scrutinize every bit of it, it might uncover all my struggles, blind spots that might be challenging to deal with, hidden privileges that I might not yet be aware of, all my fears and kinks that I have never wanted to surface. So the question is rather editorial: how deep do we go? And if we go there, are we ready to be self-exposed? How safe, imperfect, and uncertain do we want to stay as researchers who should author the dissertation at the end? Are we being responsible by not going there, or is this exactly the moment of coming out in certain epistemological and ontological super-scary ways?

For political reasons, some refections about how self-organization were able to enhance social-ecological systems’ resilience are too sensitive to publish in my country . I need find another way to describe it.

Suzanne: All of the above, the topic of the conference contribution and the published paper that might result from it, will remain separate from the PhD research I am conducting. I would like to explore ways of making their obvious interconnectedness public. I am wondering if the reasons they aren’t/will not be connected are self-imposed. Is the separation, institutionally or otherwise, produced by me? Which doctoral regulation or institutional mentality is keeping me from bringing the experimental, collaborative mode of thinking and writing into the dissertation?

A lot has to do with timing, I guess. Some practices flourish precisely because they aren’t conceived to be made public, at least not at the start, or even halfway through. Maybe later, or in another context, they’ll surface. But how to get the timing right? Is it about feeling secure enough to share? Or do I simply chose the wrong public when scrutiny is what I fear?

I have never published two tiny games I made while researching F/LOSS tools like Bitsy, Tic-80 and Twine. They are available if you have the URL (I guess this means they are public), and I might have brought one as an example of ongoing research/practice to one of the colloquia, but I never had a moment where I “published” them. They are small experiments, and while I believe that processes should also be made public (perhaps even more than the finished work) I really hesitate to take this step when it comes to these experiments. I guess deep down I feel like I don’t deserve to publish a videogame, no matter how tiny it is, or how shitty it is, because of how shitty it is, because I am not a “gamer”.

I’ve been hesitating and really commit writing (down) abiout Jean-Luc Nancy’s L’Intrus. On his writing about surviving a heart transplant: his own heart transplant, both before and after surgery. Something about being ‘closed open,’ about the gift (gif) of a foreign heart, ~~but was it ever reallly his to begin with? I come back to macrobiotocs; ‘modern medicine has developed many methods to diagnose the heart, yet~~ in some cases, the physician’s presence even caused […] abnormally rapid heartbeat.’

I foreground feelings or felt emotions as a tracing tool when investigating how censorship twist the remembrance of history. But sometimes I feel that it’s on the one hand too personal; on the other hand too bonded with a certain social-cultural context which is too demanding (instead of inviting) for people from different backgrounds.

Fresh thoughts are difficult to publish. When is a project ready for publishing and to what audience? Is sharing a thoughts in a conversation already something published? It is also a question of scale and audience.

I have always been unsure about the autobiographical dimension of my research. Although it is central to my approach to the subject of work under conditions of digital capitalism, and I develop concepts from embodied positions that are fragile and vulnerable, I am controlling the degree to which my own story can fully interweave with the research. There is photograph that I took while working in the UPS shipping warehouse in Portland, OR. It’s a selfie. I am wearing old clothes that I didn’t mind getting dirty. I haven’t shaved in few weeks. In the foreground you can see the digital device , attached to my forearm, that guided me through my package loading work.

I don’t mind to br out of context and would be great to share the same shelf beside Darwin and Carl Linnaueus

[7 min] Take some time to read through others’ responses. If you’ve created your own pad, consider whether there are parts of your writing you’d like to share or add to the collective pad.

Setting conditions for publicness

[15.20]

[10-15 min] A few examples of how different communities of practice establish conditions for publishing, releasing, or circulating their work.
* Case: DIY Zine culture
* Case: Boatema Boateng “The Copyright Thing Doesnt Work Here” (2011) https://dokumen.pub/the-copyright-thing-doesnt-work-here-adinkra-and-kente-cloth-and-intellectual-property-in-ghana-0816670021-9780816670024.html * Case: Open source software community, changing perception of openness over time (CC4R example) https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html

Prompt

[15 min] Formulate a few rules or conditions that would guide how your work is shared, circulated, or published.

Imagine the public as a turbulent arena, something you can only anticipate or influence to a limited extent.

Think back to the previous reflections on openness and limitation—what influences your decisions about what becomes public?
Consider:

• The temporality of publishing: How permanent or fleeting should your work be?
• Your conditions for reuse: How can others engage with or build on it?
• Pathways of circulation: How does your work reach others?
• If your work sat on a library shelf, who or what would you want it next to?
• Who are your peers, and where do you want to position yourself among them?
• Are you addressing your peers—or perhaps deliberately speaking outside of that circle?
• Do you aim to contribute, debate, antagonize or risk being taken out of context?

Whatever my final outcome will be should be shared in way that enables discourse; doesn’t anticipate certain interactions and interpretations; exposes grievances or statements coming from an emotional rather than a rational position as such, without negating them, since they are part of the experience; allows me to be difficult, confusing, uncomfortable (for me and for others); invites others to share their perspectives and to contribute, creates entrances into its system but not as a service usable without complications, investments or endurance. ಠ_ಠ

The temporality of the play is relevant for me, one of the reasons why it is not documented or filmed in any other forms. The temporality creates the haptic experience and attention, and what is preserved is more the feeling of participation within the participant themself. It is important for the moment to be fleeting because otherwise it becomes a memorised archive which is what I wish to challenge through my work as well. At this moment they cannot reuse the play itself, but they are open to reuse the images that are given to them during the play. So partly, defragmented aspects of the work itself not in its entirety. Through invitation and an open door to that moment. But they are needed to be present in that moment. It would not sit on a library. The question of the peers hold less relevance for this particular work The hope is to generate as much debate and discussion as possible. Decontextualisation, recontextualisation and antagonism is welcomed.

If done well (including care, a spatial organisation that plays with the hirarchies and roles each one comes with, etc.) I do like the format of the symposium or conference, as those can be dense forms of coming together and exchanging orally, which means temporarily. For publishing to be understood as a conversation, each publication as a contribution to a conversation, crtitique, response, feedback need to be cultivated in a way so they are productive and not destructive – which is of course easier said than done and would include a general societal shift.

Regarding the reuse of published work, it’s quiet similar: The small hip hop artist sampling a beat is something I welcome; every collage, montage, assemblage whatever needs other material / material by others. No one ever works alone. But google taking etherpads code sucks. Don’t know how / where to draw the line. As long as what is published can be capitalised, there needs to be conditions for reuse. Also it’s fun to list everyone who influenced your work, even though they might not be quoted directly, and even though, sadly, we probably always forget someone.

If my selfie would become part of my work, it should be shared in a moment of complicity and solidarity. It would be semi-public, a well-kept secret amongst me and a selected audience. But how do I assure this semi-publicness, do I make it a challenge to encounter this picture? (As a child I was reading these German interactive crime novels called Kommissar Kugelblitz. You are invited to solve the case alongside the main protagonist and you could check if you had guessed right with a red piece of foil, that would reveal a hidden message on the page. Perhaps putting in the (mental) work like that would be a condition to see the image.) The lemon on my leg presents an ambiguous blueprint for a semi-public vulnerability. While tattooing it, I was literally hurting myself, and being vulnerable with myself. It is public sometimes, published/exposed when I go swimming, when I wear shorts, when I’m naked with someone.

Terms and conditions of use:
1.1 This work is meant for public and irrestricted access, but no one but the author is allowed to decide if, when and what to financially profit from it.
1.2 If a subsequent work is sufficiently different as to be rendered new and different, and properly credited, people are free to use it as they want except in the following cases:
1.2.1 For-profit institutions and coorporations are not allowed to change, modify, expand, remix it in any way.
1.2.2 If you are an asshole, in its multiple ways (fascist, misogynist, racist or filled with other kind of prejudice), you may not use this material in any way but for changing yourself.

Use-me, abuse-me as long as you feedback. conditions for now: sharing not only from my side; rather being in a sauna than on stage stipping. problem of condition: not everyone feels comfortable in a sauna and there are not always saunas around to begin with. also nakedness in academia is not something i always feel comfortable with even though it feels necessary. could it be, that academia is not the context to publish within right now? to start going to the sauna and maybe even stripping down on stage rather in a strip-club than in an auditorium.

It must be easily accessible. It must be present at that certain place (the barrier). It must be to grasp quickly/easily (because time is limited). Somehow people must be activated (through questions, prompts..?) It would be permanent, but changing constantly through who’s there, who is experienced in the practice and knows more context and who doesn’t know anything about it and joins the first time. the amount and mix of participants and even the weather. Through the repetition and everyday situation for everyone who visits the area regularly it will become more and more familiar. People will be confronted with the practice of thinking at the barrier regularly and probably try things out. I’m not sure if I want to edit this. Maybe it’s nicer to keep it the way it came out of my fingers…..

I am interested in having different moments for reflection when sharing and publishing. However, when it comes to printing I am very picky and here I become a perfectionist. Sharing research in progress in print is tricky for me. Print is a manifestation on paper, it’s embodyment is final and can only be erased by taking action. Print is exitig but also scary.

Let’s risk being taken out of context. The dialogical acts of questioning and debating are what’s needed for such a work to emerge. Therefore, the accessibility to peers and fellow researchers is crucial. FYI: My competitiveness, playfulness, and vitality are strange instruments. Or rather measures that slip past any terms or conditions. They pierce the systems I’m meant to perform and create within, rewriting their borders as they move. Have these forces sculpted me into a millennial creature, a child of the speedy capitalism of the Eastern Bloc in the ’90s? Are they the dangerous contours of being a woman who dares to imagine? Someone, please, help me not to fold entirely into myself. I do care about you, about the world, about unproductive collectivity—deeply. Even if I sometimes act like a bitch.

I try to work with editors, publishers etc. whose practice I appreciate - who create forms of publicness that I can relate to, that I can imagine being part of and contributing to. Each context has its specific possibilities and limitations. Sometimes it turns out that the collaboration was based on a fundamental misunderstanding, or on a temporary alignment. When it comes to books, I do appreciate publishers who are still invested in print, although it becomes an issue when they try to prevent the circulation of digital copies (as PDFs for instance). Print and digital, legal and other-than-legal should coexist and complement each other. It may turn out that somebody half a world away is making photopied versions of your stuff. While I don’t like the feeling of working on something in isolation, looking for generative contexts and forms of publicness, I also believe in the Adornian notion of the book or message as a message in a botlle that can reach unknown addressees and have unexpected effects - which can include misreadings, antagonistic responses and all kinds of uses and abuses.

I;m somehow scared of publishing in writing. Having everyhting to do with the idea that this single thing must hold a ‘final’ version of an idea forever, maybe. Or, with an ethics of porosity: allowing others and myself to add and reinterpret forver–letting my writinh become rather than declare something. ANd if it must be on a boolsheld i’d love for it to always lean (over) but never stand (up).

For anything you find in here and wishes to bring somewhere else: 1. Reference your path back to this place; 2. Tell me about the lands and places and seas you’ve crossed with it; 3. Make it part of your own world, in your own words; 4. Publish it again, or not: it’s your choice.

It depends on the part of the work, and in order to answer this question I will actually refer to a different aspect than the ones I have mentioned before. Part of my research practice is developing syllabi. I would like to publish these as Open Educational Resources (although I haven’t quite made a decision yet about the exact framework). I want them to be released under some form of copyleft licensing, but as to the exact conditions this is the first time I am properly thinking about it. Modify, share-alike and attribution might be part of these conditions. Some form of non-commercial might be part of it, but this is where I would need to do some further thinking, as there are nuances and contexts I wouldn’t want to exclude that might fall under the ‘commercial’ umbrella. For sure, not-for-profit. NEVER FOR PROFIT.

Consider the risk of sharing the sensitive part of my research. I would prefer it is temporary in a way that it able to disappear on my command. And only share with people who have my approve. Or somehow to have another form of authorship that is identifiable, in the same time has no link to me personally or officially.

The FOOLING AROUND is a transient practice. Thus, it should include an extermination timer —a period during which the persona is public —and an explicit rule on how it vanishes from public view. Others can easily reuse the script for the FOOLED scene by mentioning the framework. The fooling happens at a site specifically for the people around, forming a circle, a magic circle, perhaps even a circus. Historically, peers of this practice are fools and jesters who were doing upside-down hanging in the temporary autonomous zones or in the carnival time. However, the a-historical nature of FOOL-AROUNDING technique insists that the life is a circus (not a fair) all the time, it requires suspension of the walking and talking, (walkie-talkie-foolie-roundie) habits, that wait for consistency.

[15.40]

[7 min] Possibility to reconsider: You can go back and edit your initial statement. Use the following markings as you revise:

• Strikethrough to indicate parts you’d rather not make public or prefer to keep unreadable.
  
• Bold to highlight or emphasize what feels most important.
  
• Italics to soften or downplay certain parts, or mark something as minor.

Move through your text and mark up sections accordingly. What should remain visible, what should fade, and what should stand out.

Sharing moment

[15 min]

Publishing is scary, things being forever open and in circulation; the things i want to publish and i dont want to publish are close to each other. Personal autobiographic things, are ways to connect but also vulnerable; where and why to draw the boundary is delicate, a semi public mode of encounter would be ideal, maybe difficult for research; wrote first privately and then switched and put it public; writing about rules made me think about authorship: censorship in some contexts is determining why is authorship important to me in the first place; its not only about authorship but about accountability, how to do that is difficult; putting something out there incognito to be safe?; what kind of public do we talk about?; does it mean everyone? anonymous group of everyone or within a group of friends, the answers would be different; we dont know who our audience is (in the context of this research?); thinking about grief… prevented from thinking about own research, noise in the room was difficult; if you want to develop a personal thought it can be difficult to be together with people in a group; is testing an idea with peers/friends a way of making something public? to really experiment i have to be by myself; i brought things to the pad that were already there somewhere; messing around in each others texts, you make a dialogue, less about ownership, inpersonal realm of writing, when my thinking is taken by someone else, and taking in an other direction, its fun maybe it was an assumption that i could mess with others texts.

[17.30-18.00] Possibly markdown moment for those not cooking, preparing zine for print

Colophon

Workshop at Varia
Printed at KIOSK

Fonts: Latitude, Director, BackOut, Abordage, Promocyja
Typefoundries: Velvetyne, Public Domain

October 2025