Daniel G. Andújar / Technologies To The People

Postcapital Archive (1989-2001)

Edited by Hans D. Christ, Iris Dressler, texts by  Iris Dressler, Iván de la Nuez, Valentín Roma, graphic design by Nieves und Mario Berenguer Ros

German/English

2011. 344 pp., 523 ills.

17.00 x 24.00 cm clothbound

pub. date: September 2011 by Hatje Cantz

ISBN 978-3-7757-3170-6

Price: 35 Euro (Amazon Online)

In conjunction with the exhibition Postcapital Archive (1989-2011). Württembergischer Kunstverein Stuttgart

| A political art project in the form of a multimedia installation, open database, and interactive laboratory

The project Postcapital Archive 1989–2001 by Spanish artist Daniel García Andújar centers on the profound changes that have occurred around the world on social, political, economic, and cultural levels. Key issues are the fall of the Berlin Wall and the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. Here, Andújar examines developments after the collapse of the Wall not from the aspect of postcommunism, but postcapitalism. He is concerned with the question of how “Western” societies have changed without their former counterpart, communism, and what kinds of new walls were built through global politics after 1989 and 2001. The foundation of the project is a digital archive containing over 2,500 files the artist has gathered from the Internet over the course of the past decade.

| Ein politisches Kunstprojekt als multimediale Installation, offene Datenbank und interaktives Labor

Das Projekt Postcapital. Archive 1989–2001 des spanischen Künstlers Daniel García Andújar kreist um die tief greifenden Veränderungen, die sich in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten weltweit auf gesellschaftlicher, politischer, ökonomischer und kultureller Ebene ereignet haben und als deren Eckpunkte der Fall der Berliner Mauer sowie der Terroranschlag auf das World Trade Center am 11. September 2001 gelten. Dabei betrachtet Andújar die Entwicklungen nach dem Mauerfall nicht unter Aspekten des Postkommunismus, sondern des Postkapitalismus. Es geht ihm um die Frage, inwiefern sich die »westlichen« Gesellschaften ohne ihr ehemaliges Gegenstück – den Kommunismus – verändert haben und welche neuen Mauern durch die globale Politik nach 1989 und 2001 gezogen wurden. Das Projekt basiert auf einem digitalen Archiv mit über 2500 Dateien, die der Künstler in den letzten zehn Jahren aus dem Internet zusammengetragen hat.

Share

Daniel García Andújar describes the condition and the period after the “fall of the Berlin Wall” as an aspect of post-capitalism, rather than of post-communism. That condition, the period covered in Andújar’s project “Postcapital. Archive 1989-2001” also features the advance in information technologies and the phenomenon of the Internet.

When the students began ripping of the paving stones to throw them to the police during the events of May 1968 in Paris, they realized the yellow sand underneath the paving stones; the cobblestones. And when they also turned on the water pumps, the sand got wet. Yes, this was the “beach”. The beach of freedom, covered up by the pavement of the modern civilization of property and control. The “beach” was the “another world”, ”under the paving stones”.

In his 1998 essay “Cyber-communism”, Richard Barbrook stated “the Americans are superseding capitalism in cyberspace”. This was also the time Andújar describes as an aspect of post-capitalism. According to Barbrook, the Americans were having a different experience than that of capitalism in their daily Internet practice. This experience, which he relates to that of communism, was a consequence, an aspect of capitalism. According to Barbrook, it was capitalism itself which made the “digerati” a powerful class with high salaries, and it was the digerati who developed the information technologies, the Internet and the idea of free/open source software, as well as many other possibilities that enabled the individuals to “supersede” capitalism in “cyberspace”. Just like the scenario Karl Marx proposed for the end of the capitalism: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” 

The Internet, which used to be a “beach” (for a very brief period) for those who believed in the “possibility of another world” (if we happen to use the slogan of today), is not a different space than the “Babylon” we live in. Not anymore. It used to be a beach which was only visible to those with a vision, but also  to those who became aware of this vision and tried invading this beach to make the possibilities invisible by filling the holes in the pavement covering the beach; the holes that enabled those to be aware of the beach.

The Internet used to a “beach”!

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when we had another life there other than our daily lives.

The Internet used to be a beach for some when we were all anonymous on the Internet with the nicks we chose for ourselves. When we had our peers with their nicks they had chosen for themselves in our contact lists, instead of our high school friends and families with their ID names they didn’t even choose.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the time when netizens became masses that needed to be tracked, controlled and censored when “needed”.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until we became valuable customers on the Internet that needed to be “personalized” for Internet advertising while our “data bodies” were being tracked , captured and traded for this “personalization”, completely ignoring our privacy.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when sharing our wireless Internet connection with our neighbors was regarded as a “new form of hospitality”. Until the time that we were frightened by the threat that everybody, even our neighbors, could be “criminals” who would exploit this connection we share for “illegal” actions such as “p2p file sharing” and put the blame on us.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach when people were asking for “free, public wireless Internet connection” for everybody from local governments as a social service. Until the time that we were targeted as customers for personal broadband Internet (wireless high-speed Internet access) by GSM operators, which also simplified the tracking and personalization process for them to capture our “data body” and match it with our identity. We are even being charged separately for this Internet usage which is matched one to one with our identity.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the time when Metallica sued Napster for enabling illegal file sharing of their songs.

The Internet used to be a beach for some when there was an alternative to what Derrida calls “the impossible possibility of the gift”, for kids on the p2p networks, who were “incriminated, accused, charged and busted” for sharing the “digital gifts” (which are not subject to scarcity), without even knowing who their peers were.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the kids who share their photos online were targeted for selling convenient products of “printer docks” to “easyshare” their digital photographs by “printing” them.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the time when some young people who had innovative ideas and projects for the Internet began realizing these projects not to “realize themselves”, but with the “American dream” of becoming rich by selling these projects one day to big corporations that were already monopolizing the Internet.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until software engineering students at the universities (the universities which are also encouraged to cooperate with the industry to get patents instead of creating free/open standards and knowledge for the public) were depoliticized and educated to become capitalist entrepreneurs, without having any idea of what “GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)” is.

For some, the Internet used to be a beach until the time when the idea of “open source” arrogated the idea of “free software” and depoliticized its social context and rendered the idea and the promise of “free software” invisible.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the Creative Commons arrogated the idea of “free culture” overlooking the importance of the “share alike” and the “derivative works” approaches of the “copyleft” attitude and the economic model of the “free software” based on creating added value that also enabled the work’s commercial use.

The Internet used to be a beach for some until the “crowdsourcing” approach depoliticized the idea of “commons-based peer production” by reducing the social, economical and political context of being “peers” to the idea of being “crowded” and until the time when the idea of p2p was reduced to bare “pirate file sharing”.

For some, the Internet used to be a “beach” until the time when the “sand” was covered with the “pavement”.

It may be too late for the possibility of another world in the capitalist world we live in. It is too difficult to throw away all the paving stones on the beach without the aid of some “technology” such as a political approach to information technologies. But we can start with struggling for the “possibility of another Internet”. A “free, p2p distributed Internet” where we can be “anonymous” if we want. A free Internet like that of the “Freenet”. A free Internet where we have the right to produce, distribute, access, appropriate and share information to “build culture”. “Free culture”, not the open “source” culture. Not culture as a bare “source” of “crowdsourcing” for profit, but culture as the “commons” for peers. Not with “commons without commonality” like the Creative Commons but with copyleft commons.

Political approach to information technologies is crucial to render its potentials visible for making another world possible. If the “base”, which is the “mode of production”, determines the “superstructure”, which is culture, then “the commons based peer production” as defined by Yochai Benkler offers “a new mode of production” as stated by Michel Bauwens. Also for the case of individual production, an artist, who no longer needs the capitalistic relations of the “culture industry” to produce, reproduce and share/distribute her/his productions, provides an alternative to the capitalist mode of production based on the financial capital.  Because the artist can produce using information technology tools such as “digital duplication” (even using other “digital multiplication” methods of “digitizing” and “transcoding”) and “distributed p2p networks” that democratize the production, multiplication and sharing of that production. This “base” can determine the “superstructure” of free culture.

If “the superstructure can determine the base”, then we can begin to consider the “free culture” movement, which is influencing more and more artists to make their productions “free” (as in freedom). This also forces the “culture industry” to change the way it operates. A culture based on “donation” with free will can also constitute the real “use value” of cultural productions instead of their “exchange values”.

No matter if “the base determines the superstructure” or “the superstructure can determine the base”, we are witnessing a change in both the “base” and the “superstructure” in certain areas.

The promise of capitalism that advocates for itself through the economic problem of distributing limited resources among unlimited human desires is being attacked by both sides of the equation. First of all, the sources are not limited anymore in terms of information (once it is produced). The digital information on the Internet, which can be duplicated in infinite numbers with a “marginal cost approaching zero”, also abolishes the problem of “scarcity”, except for “artificial scarcity”. On the other hand, the idea that the human desires are unlimited is nonsense for the “commons based peer production”, where peers contribute to the production with their free will according to their own capabilities and they also benefit from the production according to their needs. Because peers do not consume more than they need. Joseph Beuys says that everybody can be an artist; everybody can be productive if they have economical and political freedom to decide what and how to produce. Both of those freedoms are granted by information technologies, if they are interpreted politically. Capitalism itself gave the economic freedom to the “digerati” that enabled them to decide what to produce and they produced the tools and ideas that constituted the “digital culture”.

The beach of “cyber-communism” as discussed by Richard Barbrook was a consequence, an aspect of capitalism. “Cyber-communism” of Barbrook was also a period of “inter-capitalism”; a period when only those with a vision realized the holes in the pavement and saw the beach underneath. It was an invisible communist interval in the period Andújar describes as an aspect of postcapitalism. But our Internet experience today is no longer what it used to be when Barbrook wrote about its potential (even practice) of cyber-communism in 1998. The Internet is being utilized by capitalism day by day. The holes in the pavement are being filled one by one. The promise of the possibility of another world on the Internet, the “beach”, is being rendered invisible again. This state of the Internet we are experiencing now is the consequence of the post-”post-capitalism”. The potential of a communist interval in “post-capitalism”; the potential of the “cyber-communism”, the beach, which has been buried under the pavement, has not been evaluated politically.

First of all,  “another Internet is possible” both as a “base” and an “infrastructure” to determine the “possibility of another world” that would be inspired by the holes in the pavement and the veiled promise of “cyber-communism”.

Even though there are still unfilled holes in the pavement, our captured “life on the networked archives” now is post_cyber-communism.

This printed version of this text contains no references since the reader may search on the Internet for any word and concept that s/he is not familiar with if s/he wants to have more information. However, online version(s) of this text that the reader can also find by searching on the Internet, are hyperlinked to the references and may have also been improved.

.copyleft!_ , 31.03.2010

.you are free to appropriate the related content as you wish, as long as you use a copyleft license to redistribute_ .however giving credits and choosing free/open formats are nice_

http://httpdot.net/copyleft_

Share

1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall and 2001, September 11… These watershed Daniel G. Andújar chooses for his network-based archive-process installation signify a paradigm shift: the paradigm shift from scale economies to capacity economies, industrial production to flexible network production, physical power to knowledge power, the nation state to transnational Empire, a unipolar world to a multipolar one, de-centralized and distributed all-encompassing net-world: This is a paradigm coined by the most recent global crisis: Global Network Capitalism…

Andújar’s choice of dates also heralds what’s beyond this paradigm. The fall of both the Wall and the Twin Towers indicate there is an “after” to capitalism. This potential future ironically feeds off the “network” concept. Because at its core, the concept of “network capitalism” embodies an antagonistic dichotomy. The network topology undermines the foundations of capitalism. The process of capitalist accumulation and profit now depends upon co-operations established online, collaborative intangible labor, innovation networks, and the development of knowledge production, access, dissemination, that is to say the process of creating surplus value through open, continuous, horizontally coordinated networks. Network means co-operation and sharing, whereas capitalism is the product of an instrumental reason dominated by competition. Capitalism is founded upon the private ownership of the means of production, while the network undermines ownership by making the means of production accessible. In Christian Fuchs’s terms we are in an interzone in which competition and cooperation co-exist in antagonism. On the one hand, information monopolies (Microsoft, Google), the digital divide, precarious knowledge labor, information warfare, electronic surveillance, Internet censorship, accumulation of reputation online, cyber hate, commodified virtual communities, disinformation; and on the other digital gift economy, file sharing, free software, open content, Creative Commons, Wikipedia, cyber protests, e-participation, co-operative virtual communities, online citizen journalism… On one pole of this dichotomy is e-participation and participatory economy, on the other e-domination and economy of scarcity.  Dominated by competition logic, transnational information capitalism succeeds in colonizing the concept of collaboration for now, through for instance, “participatory” management, team work, strategic alliances, and corporate social responsibility. This is a transition stage from a disciplinary society to a society of (self-)control. A participatory and self regulated information society based upon collaboration is in Ernst Bloch’s words a “not-yet” for now. But it is evident that the day will come when capitalism will not be here.

The fact that the data bank of images Andújar’s “Postcapital Archive: 1989-2001” installation can be searched by the audience in a network topology, that is to say the open network format of the project points to a post-capitalism web of possibilities. The meaning of each image changes by triggering an endless series of possibilities in the context of other images we correlate it with. Because the net also means possibility: with our participation, an almost infinite number of combinations have the power to change the world.
As Iris Dressler notes, “post-capital” makes reference to both financial capital and to capital cities. Thus, it depicts the transformation of both capitalism and of urban centered powers. So, what potential narratives does the Post-Capital Archive nurture in the İstanbul node?
The images in the Post-Capital Archive are not foreign to us. There are no “foreigners” in global network capitalism. No place is “elsewhere”*. The net binds the entire space. But one of the characteristics of the network is how it strengthens the nodes. Cities, especially big, multi centered, distributed cities like İstanbul have privileged functions on the net. While one of these functions is to absorb global information and culture, that is to say diversity in the geography, the other is to add localities, local singularities to the global network’s universe of values. Therefore the image-bank where we form our own possible networks, also summons our own images to us. We have images that deserve to enter the Post-Capital Archive.
Through which images does the Net-Capital node foretell İstanbul’s post-capital future? I think of 1996, the Susurluk accident and 2007, the murder of Hrant Dink. Or 1999, the Marmara Earthquake and 2010, the protests of Tekel (Turkish Tobacco and Liquor Administration) workers. Or 1997, February 28, the post-modern coup-d’état and 2009, the arrest of retired army generals… We can interpret these dates and the images they evoke based upon an axis of cooperation dominated by the logic of collaboration and build from these instances a network expanding towards our potential future. We can thus realize our part in the large and complex node of the global network, and venture to a post capital future. Because network is memory.

As Andújar says, art has to be responsible. Aesthetics is not enough. Art has to be ethical. By playing with our common mind, Postcapital Archive provokes us to partake in the future. Network is possibility…

Share

Turkey has been going through incredibly rapid and immense social, political, and cultural changes since the shift to neo-liberal economy in the beginning of the 80’s. While we have been simply going through these changes, we have neither been able to record them nor have been aware of their speed. Our lives have been transformed. To slow down the pace of these changes and to visualize such a data would enable us to understand and to confront the details that lie behind the reasons for these changes and their effects on us.

Today, media collects and distributes images for us with immense speed and magnitude. We are surrounded by these images; and more than ever, all communication technologies -as efficient apparatus of late capitalism- infuse our lives with vast attacks of images. Nevertheless, we have also learned from the same sources that the meaning of any image is dependent upon the context. It is not only the images, but also the ideologies and realities behind the images that are being created for us.

In this respect, “Postcapital” archive developed by Daniel García Andújar ironically shoots back with the same gun by detecting lapses in our perception and explanation of political, cultural, economic, social, and even technological conditions and realities. He indexes our cognitive mechanisms. Andújar’s project strives to make sensible connections between mediated images of an immense and chaotic pile. His intention is building a system that helps the viewer/user to correlate incidents of certain periods from different time slates of a decade via multidirectional links.

Thus, almost magically, the sequence in the flow of images throughout a timeline builds a certain statement, while a new syntax via another order with exactly the same images might state a completely different ideology. Hence, if we are given access to the entire archive, we acquire the potential to extract and dismiss the intentionally tweaked or altered information from a streaming media.

Nevertheless, aside from the intentionally distorted information, the tremendous speed in the flow of mediated images prevents us from perceiving and digesting such an enormous mass of information all at once. At this very point, the networks and the networked achieves of information function as the indexing engine for us. We receive, perceive, interpret or misinterpret, utilize information through networks.  It’s true that we live in achieves, but accessing and making use of their content solely depends on how much we are acquainted with and use networks.  Yet, this opportunity never allows us to be free with our actions and expressions within a network, whether a network is distributed or centralized.  Galloway argues that “without a shared protocol, there is no network”1, and draws our attention to the fact that there is no real freedom of the Internet –worldwide network of networks, which is decentralized- due to the nature of protocol (“of contradiction between two opposing machines”), which both “radically distributes control into autonomous bodies” and “focuses control into rigidly defined hierarchies.”2 Hence, no matter whether they sound democratic and non-hierarchical, distributed networks, computing technology, and protocol –as Galloway puts it- all together create the new “apparatus of control” that characterizes our contemporary setting.

For this very reason, Daniel García Andújar’s project Postcapital. Archive 1989-2001 is significant in various levels for the understanding of control mechanisms, which systematically compose our lives through networked archives and their interfaces. These archives operate in various layers of our daily perception and realization through the re-designing of life styles; procedures of auto-control; re-perception of histories; generating modes for social psychology; constructing communication channels; and particularly, through technological embodiment.

1. Galloway, Alexander. (2004). Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. Cambridge: MIT Press p.12.
2. ibid. p.8.

Share

PILOT

PILOT:3 Catalogue Out Now

info@pilotlondon.org
http://www.pilotlondon.org

Between the covers of this book you will find the work of eight-five artists from across the globe that have been championed by eighty-five of the world’s finest established and emerging curators.

What connects these artists is the enthusiasm that each nominator has for their respective nominated artist and that each artist does not have representation by a commercial gallery at the time
of nomination.

PILOT: was established in 2004 to offer a new model for showcasing the work of contemporary artists. PILOT: is run by artists and independent curators with the aim of representing artists and curators in a way that allows them maximum control of how their work is presented.

This book has been produced on the occasion of the third edition of PILOT: and shows a selection of works by each artist participating. There is also writing by each of the nominators describing why they have chosen their nominee.

PILOT:3
85 artists / 85 nominators
Exclusive texts
Paperback, 21 x 27cm, 352 pages, full-colour illustrated
Edited and published by PILOT:

Order online at: http://www.pilotlondon.org
Also available at: Franz Koenig Bookshop at the Serpentine Gallery, London; & Palais de Tokyo bookshop, Paris

Nominators:

Kitty Anderson, Frieze Projects; Xabier Arakistain, Montehermosa, Vitoria; Auto, collective; David Barrett, Royal Jelly Factory Publications; Régine Basha, curator/writer; Matei Bejenaru, initiator of Periferic Biennia; El Bodegon, Bogota, Arte Contemporáneo–Vida Social; Ignacio Cabrera, La Casa Encendida, Madrid; Irene Calderoni, curator; Canal Gallery, London; Marc Camille Chaimowicz, artist; Spartacus Chetwynd, artist; Circuit, collective, Lausanne; Stuart Comer, Tate Modern; Sarah Cosulich Canarutto, Villa Manin Centre for Contemporary Art; DAE, Donostiako Arte Ekinbideak; Jacob Dahlgren, artist; Bryan and Laura Davies, artists; Ann Demeester, DeAppel Foundation; Nikola Dietrich, Portikus; Dosmético; Xavier Douroux, The Consortium, Dijon; Tom Eccles, Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College; Elena Filipovic, critic/curator, Brussels; Mike Fitzpatrick, Limerick Art Gallery; Inge Linder-Gaillard, Le Magasin, Grenoble; Ryan Gander, artist; Colin Guillemet, artist; Na
v Haq, Arnolfini, Bristol; Larissa Harris, Center for Advanced Visual Studies, MIT; Gerard Hemsworth, Professor, Visual Arts, Goldsmiths College; Sofia Hernández Chong Cuy, Art in General; Andrew Hunt, International Project Space, Birmingham; Inventory, collective; Gianni Jetzer, The Swiss Institute, New York; K3, Zurich; Dan Kidner, City-Projects, London; Udo Kittelmann, Kunsthaus Frankfurt; Meta Knol, Centraal Museum, Utrecht; Pablo Lafuente, Afterall; Doriane Laithier, artist; Le Magasin, Inge Linder-gaillard; Nicola Lees, Irish Museum of Modern Art; Sophie Legrandjacques, Le Grand Café, Saint Nazaire; Jacob Lillemose, curator/critic, Copenhagen; Jacinta Lynch, Broadstone Studios, Dublin; Mad Woman in the Attic/Andre Sousa, Porto; Chus Martinez, Frankfurter Kunstverien; Elizabeth McAlpine, artist; Sinisa Mitrovic, Yugoslav Biennial; Antoni Muntadas, artist; Susanne Neubauer, Kunstmuseum Luzern; Ricardo Nicolau, Serralves Museum; John Peter Nilsson, Moderna Museet, Stockholm; Oficina para Proyectos de Arte (OPA); Melanie Ohnemus, Vienna Secession; November Paynter, Tate Modern; Ingrid Pfeiffer, Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt; Alan Phelan, artist; Sarah Pierce, Metropolitan Complex, Dublin; PoCA, Political Currency of Art Research Group, Goldsmiths College; Matthew Poole, Centre for Curatorial Studies, University of Essex; Simon Rees, CAC Vilnius; Alex Reynolds, artist/curator; José Ignacio Roca, São Paulo Bienal 2006; Dieter Roelstraete, MuhKA, Antwerp; Alex Sainsbury, collector; Luz Maria Sanchez, Triangle Space, San Antonio; Nicolaus Schafhausen, Witte de Witte, Rotterdam; Eva Scharrer, Sharjah Biennial 8; Brian Sewell, art critic; Chris Sharp, Flash Art; Dirk Snauwaert, WIELS, Brussels; John Stezaker, artist; Jeannette Stoschek, Museum der Bildenden Künste, Leipzig; Jinsuk SUH, Gallery Loop, Seoul; Wolfang Tillmans, artist; Mark Titchner, artist; Dan Tombs, Norwich Gallery; Phillip Van Den Bossche, Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven; Jan Van Woensel, curator; Angela Vettese, Fondazione Bevilaqua la Masa, Venice; Jinsang Yoo, critic, Seoul; Tirdad Zolgadhr, 7th
Sharjah Bienniale.

PILOT: organisers – Doriane Laithier, Colin Guillemet, Elizabeth McAlpine, Rory Macbeth, Matthew Poole, Karine Pradier

Supported by Arts Council England

Artists:

Dan Acostioaei, Cassius Al Madhloum, Tamara Arroyo, Auto, Michele Bazzana, Neal Beggs, Vanessa Billy, Cecilia Bonilla, Paul Branca, Zoë Brown, Heather Burnett and Patrick Rose, Andrea Büttner, Mauro Cerqueira, Tomas Chaffe, Jasmina Cibic, Declan Clarke, Eduardo Consuegra, Phil Coy, Brian Dawn Chalkley, Matthijs De Bruijne, Stephen Dunne, Sean Edwards, Marte Eknaes, Ruth Ewan, Jeff Feld, Daniel G. Andujar, Mark Garry, Caron Geary, Jef Geys, Beatrice Gibson, Karen Guthrie/Nina Pope, Lilli Hartmann, Geka Heinke, Christopher Ho, Saskia Holmkvist, Lisa Holzer, David Hominal, William Horner, Markus/Reto Huber, Patrick Killoran, Kira Kim, Silke Koch, Susanne Kriemann, Lisa Krivacka, La Loko, Debbie Lawson, David Lefebvre, Alon Levin, Minouk Lim, Pia Linz, Dainius Liskevicius, Johan Löfgren, Sean Lynch, Rory Macbeth, João Marçal, Virginie Marnat-Leempoels, Dean Marsh, Lynne Marsh, Stuart Mayes, Philip Newcombe, Seamus Nolan, Vanessa O’Reilly, Adam Page/Eva Hertzsch, Annapaola Pa
ssarini, Michael Pfrommer, Karine Pradier, Laure Prouvost, Tom Ranahan, Lala Rascic, Rachel Reupke, Delphine Rigaud, Douglas Ross, Edwin Sánchez, Fia-Stina Sandlund, Pablo San Juan, Jorge Sattore, Tomo Savic-Gecan, Ethel Shipton, SKART, Andrea Thal, Francisco Ugarte, Michael Van-den-Abeele, Eric Van Hove, Roman Vasseur, Vadim Zakharov

Share