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.