Page load in progress
rdf:RDF <cc:Work rdf:about=""> dc:formatimage/svg+xml</dc:format> <dc:type rdf:resource=""/> </cc:Work> </rdf:RDF>
Recent exhibitions
'18 Dec 30-30
(DE) Leipzig

lecture, self-organized session

'18 Sep 01-30
(CH) Sarnen

show with Rüdiger Schöll

'18 Jul 03-21
(DE) Leipzig

solo show, pre-diploma

'18 Apr 20 -     May 09
(DE) Gera
Overton Window @ Haeselburg

class show (Peggy Buth / Christin Lahr)

'18 Feb 15-18
(DE) Leipzig
Filmprogramm Rundgang 2018 @ HGB

film program curated by Beatrice Schuett / Lars Preisser / Paula Abalos / Stefania Smolkina

'17 Dec 13 - '18 Jan 20
(DE) Leipzig
ID — Cultural Memory in the Present @ HGB Galerie

group show curated by Clemens von Wedemeyer / Alba d'Urbano / Peggy Buth

'17 Dec 02 - '18 Jan 18
(HU) Budapest

group show + award exhibition, as a non-competing guest

'17 Nov 11-12
(DE) Dresden

award exhibition - won annual theme BIG DADA

'17 Nov 10 -     Dec 01
(DE) Berlin

group show, participating as part of THIS IS FAKE + participation in film screening

'17 Nov 09 -     Dec 02
(DE) Leipzig
Studienpreis 2017 @ HGB Galerie

award exhibition - nominee

'17 Nov 04-05
(DE) Berlin

solo show as part of THIS IS FAKE

'17 Feb 09-12
(DE) Leipzig
Rundgang 2017 @ HGB

group project, as part of media art class of 2016

Exhibited in the SpinLab, a start-up accelerator at Halle 14 (Spinnereigelände, Leipzig, DE), the installation explicitly left the art world while staying at an arms length.

The scaffolding, as a mobile, temporary structure came into the start-up space as a questioning visitor.
This was aimed to on the one hand reach people who wouldn't usually enter a gallery and on the other hand to remain in constant (visual) contact with the subject of the installation: people who write code.

Overall view from the front
Directional speakers allow local hearing of a single interview while inviting to wander through the tangle of sound
I've asked 35 very diverse people the following three questions:

Why do you write code?

How does it affect you, that you write code?

How does it affect others, that you write code?

The installation tries to find a way to make their answers accessible, as well as questioning itself and the meaning/relevance of the questions.
rdf:RDF<cc:Work rdf:about="">dc:formatimage/svg+xml</dc:format><dc:type rdf:resource=""/>dc:title/</cc:Work></rdf:RDF>
The floor is spacially labeled to allow navigating through the directional audio tangle.
It is also one of many measures to show that there was an opinionated curatorial process determing which fragments have been selected or how they were grouped.

Labels on the floor below the directional speakers
Front: A list of questions on infinite paper / Back: the research office as part of the installation

A very long (although not infinite) list of questions I've posed myself during the process of preparing, conducting, and editing the interviews, as well as the installation itself - printed on continous form paper.


Ist die Frage "Warum schreibst du Code?" zu oberflächlich?

Sind die Fragen zu generisch um Menschen in einen wirklichen Reflexionsprozess zu lenken? Also sind am Ende vielleicht die Art und Formulierung mehr für die (mangelnden) Antworten verantwortlich als die (mangelnde) Reflektion der Antwortenden?

Wie beinflusst es die Interviewees in ihren Antworten je nach dem ob sie mich eher als Informatik-Student oder als Kunst-Student wahrnehmen?

Wie stark beeinflusst der persönliche Vertrautheitsgrad die Antworten?

Wie viel geht durch die Verwendung des convenience samples an möglichen Antworten / Bandbreite / Aussagen verloren?


Hyperscreenshot of the audio editing program

The installation tries to deconstruct it's own methodology as far as possible. By showing how the material was organized, labeled, and what terminology was employed the viewers are empowered to question whether they agree with the structure and what its limitations are.

Further this allows observing clusters and tendencies of which topics are talked about most and in what combination without reverting to a classical quantitative analysis.
As far as available, transcripts of the interviews were available to be read and studied. They present an unfiltered, uncurated, alternative (original) naration - which is more "authentic" but also very protractedand and thus harder to digest.
Full interview transcripts were available for viewers to engage further and do their own research
From my opening speech (translated):

How can I reflect the societal bearing of my curiosity on the one hand and my moralism on the other? Both have a pedagogic claim. But the key is to not indoctrinate. Rather to present a methodology along the data. Because unlike my cut, which conveys a personal view on the situation, the methodology allows to recognize that very view, further to criticize it and ultimately to form an own view - potentially on the basis of the exact same data.
»Wichtig ist auch, daß die Mimikry nicht unbedingt eine aufbegehrende oder auch nur bewußte Intentionalität voraussetzt. Im Gegenteil, sie kann Zeichen für eine völlig unbewußte Anpassung an die Bilder sein, über die das Subjekt üblicherweise von der Kamera bzw. dem Blickregime wahrgenommen wird.
Die Pose muß viel allgemeiner als fotografische Prägung des Körpers verstanden werden, derer sich das Subjekt nicht unbedingt bewußt ist: Sie kann das Resultat eines Bildes sein, das so oft auf den Körper projiziert worden ist, daß das Subjekt beginnt, sich sowohl psychisch wie auch körperlich mit ihm zu identifizieren. Dieses Bild ist im übrigen durchaus nicht immer schmeichelhaft oder lustvoll besetzt.«
— Silverman, Kaja, Dem Blickregime begegnen, in: Kravagna (Hg.), Privileg Blick. Kritik der visuellen Kultur, Berlin 1997, p. 50
Front view during the performance, showing the eye tracker and the laptop screen attached to the body [credit: Julie Hart]

2 HD screens and laptop (worn with a custom-built harness)
2 modified webcams and IR light source (attached to a custom-built head mount)
power outlet from wall attached to body (25 meter cord) runs a modified version of Pupil
Throughout the twentieth century there was a growing debate about the gaze and it's implication on society and individuals within it.
The technological developments of the early twenty-first century added a new immediacy and impact to this. The gaze itself of course always had been immediate, observable by the parties involved. But it was limited to its physical environment. Audience measurement was rudimentary. Not so in the present day and especially the internet: Knowing who sees what when had grown beyond mass surveillance. Every user of social media gets near to real-time feedback on their performance.

Results vary, but the influence of the public telegaze has been strong enough for large shares of social media users turn to (supposedly) more oblivious and private ways of exposing themselves, such as Snapchat (and the inclusion of their features into other mainstream products). Silverman's words on unconsciously posing for the camera seem to fulfill even more today, taking into account just how often each individual is photographed (or photographing themselves). And on the other side the emergence of terms such as social cooling proves that users now feel, acknowledge and fear that even looking at something is an act with strings attached.

The performance Blickregime (sehen und gesehen werden) bridges the technological and social/physical space into a performance. This format creates an actual experience of gazing and being gazed upon, a fundamental advantage. Only in involuntarily forcing bystanders to take both sides it can be achieved to gain an understanding (and hence empathy) of the ubiquitous process, the social dynamic of the regime of the gaze. The performance initially has no claim to action: merely by existing it attempts to expose the existence of the regime. In echo to Minujín's work the opening was chosen as the ideal moment of observation. The multiple layers of sehen und gesehen werden (see and be seen) unfold: gallery visitors see artworks, gallery visitors see gallery visitors, gallery visitors see the performance, the performer sees gallery visitors and artworks and everybody can see exactly how the performance sees all this, inviting the visitors to extrapolate this visibility to their own gaze and that of their surrounding. A feedback system establishes itself. The gaze is felt, spatially, physically. And as a performer I am the first to notice the arising self-censorship. Moving your eyes loses it's unconscious innocence. The sensation stays, even after leaving the apparatus. You'll never look at anything the same way anymore.
Minujín's "MINUCODEs" (1968)
Minujín's "MINUCODEs" (1968)

Installation view at HGB Galerie
Generative Online Photography, 2017
Nominated for HGB Studienpreis 2017

When viewing the website, the viewer is prompted to choose a moment. It is stored on the device and is retained indefinitely. All future actions start from this moment, it "belongs" to the viewer.

At this very moment, one of the servers performing this work retrieves images from 24 randomly selected webcams. The webcams are located in the 24 time zones of the earth, one per time zone. The database contains between 60 and 100 active webcams.

The results are presented as a triptych (responsively, so on small devices they are stacked vertically). For each image, 3 to 7 layers are superimposed. The actual composition changes with every call of the page and can be forced with the "reload" button.

Thus, every moment that is fixed in its temporal dimension encompasses an immeasurably large number of combinations of its visual archiving. Several forms of time are negotiated: local (time zones, refresh and transfer rates), technical (webcam aesthetics) and historical (the moment in general — but especially internet — development, where it is [still] possible to access a large number of single-frame based webcams worldwide).
The work is presented as a URL plot applied to the wall
View from outside into the exhibition hall
rdf:RDF <cc:Work rdf:about=""> dc:formatimage/svg+xml</dc:format> <dc:type rdf:resource=""/> </cc:Work> </rdf:RDF>
Interactive installation with VR, 2017
We have mirrors and photographs, but our self-perception is trapped within the mediality of the 'Abbildung' (image/reproduction).
With Virtual Reality this can be overcome, since vision is detached from the own body. Does this also detach and dissolve self-perception as known until today? Is this a first step towards trans-humanism?

It isn't. We recognize ourselves with even low-resolution, square-y, hollow representations of ourselves. But we don't associate with the body, can't move naturally, are awkwardly lost in overlapping physical and virtual spaces. The movement of the own body, the movement of others entering the light cube (a physical take on the chaperone usually used in VR to remind users of the physical limits) and the movement of the virtual camera are quite overwhelming.
Installation view at Neue Sortierung (Schacht Dölitz), Leipzig [credit: ? / THIS IS FAKE]
Short documentary video (1:37, no audio)
Participants experiment games within the installation
Same view, but as seen in VR

Real-time 3D data is acquired through Kinect RGBD-cameras
Multi-camera aggregation and networking is facilitated by: Kowalski, M.; Naruniec, J.; Daniluk, M.: "LiveScan3D: A Fast and Inexpensive 3D Data Acquisition System for Multiple Kinect v2 Sensors". in 3D Vision (3DV), 2015 International Conference on, Lyon, France, 2015
One key aspect missing in this documentation — so far — is the role of the person in virtual reality as a performer. On the other hand, the one-regarding-themself is in the attention of everybody not in VR. He is looked at without being able to look back. The light cube creates a physical sub-space in the surrounding (physical) exhibition space. This sub-space is usually accepted as a stage, the invisible boundaries aren't trespassed by viewers. The privacy of the own body experience, of losing oneself in immersion, of moving in a virtual environment - it is involuntarily presented as a performance.
The light cube was fitted into the industrial exhibition room to create a sub-space and stage, inspired by the in-VR chaperone
A fascinated participant of Project David
Who has ever used PGP to encrypt an e-mail? PGP was the only real end-to-end encryption mechanism available (untilt the emergence of the Signal protocol, such as also used by WhatsApp) in 2013 when Snowden made his revelations. And since PGP was and is so rarely used: isn't it more dangerous to use it, since it raises the surveillors’ attention? Project David fills this gap by engaging viewers in a playful, dadaist, yet superficial manner to generate more encrypted communication. In a fake terminal an excerpt of the Snowden leaks is presented, which no one ever really read either. The participant is reduced to play with speed and color of the predetermined output. The text is then encrypted and sent to one's personal e-mail address over the Tor network, another privacy tool. This generates encrypted traffic and spreads the colorful artwork, an undecipherable block of numbers and letters. Still this is Big Dada: no art installation will ever build a cover for vulnerable real-world users. It's a mere symbolic act against the seemingly overpowering Goliath of surveillance agencies.
Installation view at New Budapest Gallery (HU)
2016 demo video (2:37, no audio)
Exhibition view at New Budapest Gallery (HU)
The colored MIDI-controller in front of the screen
with Maria Francisca de Abreu-Afonso
Near-Fi short film, 2017
13:06, color (HD), stereo sound (PT/DE)
Written and shot in Portugal and Germany in 2015 / 2016

A young German's video camera breaks. He sees it as a sign of the disintegrating media scene and lost of trust in the news. After the right wing gains power in the 2017 elections, he flees to Portugal but remains unsure whether this was an adequate reaction. As he looks back, he asks himself if anything happened at all.
Film still
Film still
Film still
Film still
Film still
Film still