README biennale.NO

we aim to be the largest biennale in the world. 😍 😂
and the smallest...
it deals with fundamental and pressing questions regarding reality, epistemology, ontology, phenomenology.








backhand notes




i'll start think about https://biennale.no/ how to continue to play 
dead. there was an article on ai and algorithms from which i grabbed 
onto a sentence about the limitations of algo, "there's much theory 
that proves existence, but which doesn't give you any formula for how 
to find it." that could be a start. or what about finding something 
without the means of proving that it exists?
it could be a participatory biennale where people discuss how to 
implement it, since this is already a challenge since it's not 
supposed to take place, etc.
it poses an ontic question, what is real, and how does it relate to art.
why shouldn't the biennale take place? what does it mean that it 
doesn't take place? then what are we doing here? we're trying to find 
solutions for a biennale that doesn't take place! what solutions are 
there? why are we looking for a solution? because it's awkward that it 
doesn't take place? awkward for things to not exist? what's the 
problem, can't we just say it's virtual, virtually real? isn't that 
straightforward? but it's still uncomfortable that it doesn't exist. 
in what sense does the biennale exist and in what sense doesn't it? 
and with non-existent works? what? form is emptiness, is form? does 
the art need to exist to be art? can we define it negatively, a 
biennale which isn't a biennale? are we looking for a form more than 
content? a form of art which is not content? discontent?
teoretisk studiesirkel er et uttrykk som i dag har negative 
konnotasjoner.
growing objects out of nothing
+:

conceptual art festival
you submit instructions for art rather than art
for instance code, or language
could there be some incentive to create the art?
or a two-side participation, as idea / thing?

best thing for biennale.no is maybe to let people freely create 
posters and announcement for an imaginary festival

Most important, it was clear that  the formalism worked. For example, 
the position of, say, an electron, is  represented by a matrix. The 
position in this case is called an  observable. The matrix then 
dictates all the possible positions in which  the electron can be 
found, or observed. The formalism implicitly allows  for the electron 
to be only in certain positions and not in others. And  there is no 
sense of a continuous change from one position to another.  
Discreteness, or jumps from one state to another, is baked into 
matrix  mechanics. 
	In  due course, physicists were able to use the formalism to 
calculate, for  example, the energy levels of electrons in atoms, 
explain the radiation  emitted by glowing bits of sodium or other 
metals, understand how such  spectral emissions could be split into 
slightly different frequencies  under the influence of a magnetic 
field, and better understand the  hydrogen atom itself. 
	But  it wasn’t obvious why the formalism worked. What did these 
matrices map  to, physically speaking? The elements of these matrices 
could be  complex numbers (a complex number has a real part and an 
imaginary part;  the imaginary part is a real number multiplied by the 
square root of -1  and is imaginary because v-1 doesn’t exist yet 
turns out to be  incredibly useful in certain kinds of mathematics). 
How could the  physical world be represented by things that could only 
be imagined?  Were we at the very limit of human understanding? Was a 
clear  understanding possible?

Through two doors at once 

Matrix mechanics  does not allow physicists to think of electrons as 
having clear, fixed  orbits, even if they are quantized. One can 
describe an electron’s  quantum state using a set of numbers, carry 
out a whole lot of matrix  manipulations to predict things like 
spectral emissions, but what you  lose is the ability to visualize the 
electron’s orbit in the way that  one can visualize, say, Earth’s 
orbit around the sun. 
	Plus,  the formalism deals in probabilities. If a particle is in 
state A and  you measure to see if it’s state A, then, of course, the 
math says  you’ll find the particle in state A with 100 percent 
certainty. The same  goes for, say, state B. But matrix mechanics says 
that a particle can  be in some intermediate state, where the state is 
x parts A and y parts B.

there could maybe be a coin of non-coin, which only propagates through 
non existence?

biennale.NO 2022 open call for participation. the biennale doesn't 
take place, with works that don't exist.
there isn't anything special to do, but you can confirm your 
participation here and share the announcement.