Patainstitutional Inquiries- Issues- Journal Press- Contact- Home-

Patainstitutional research. On thought sustaining environments.

Kuba Szreder

Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius
– William Blake, Proverbs of Hell

The journey of this patainstitutional issue has been long and crooked. What started in 2016 during a rather unassuming patainstituional summit in Warsaw (more on this later), transformed into a textual form on the invitation of the editorial crew of the Journal for Research Cultures in Vienna (Matthias Tarasewicz, Sophie – Caroline Wagner, and Andrew Newman), and after a long and protracted editorial process has finally found its home in the Journal of Aesthetics & Protest. One could risk saying that the temporal form followed the patainstitutional content, as the issue discusses self-organised and nomadic research clusters, which emerge at the interdisciplinary crossings of artistic circulation, academic institutions, social movements and epistemic enthusiasm. Some of them are indeed rather ephemeral, bubbles of free thinking floating on the vast oceans of neoliberal consensus, and their time rarely flows in the strait and orderly manner. The issue features inquiries into the role played by those emergent structures in sustaining research beyond the institutionalised conventions of contemporary knowledge production. The term ‘patainstitutionalism’ functions as a discussion prompter, suggesting (rather than imposing) a direction for shared inquiries, as invited authors venture into a vast realm populated by nomadic universities, social centres, fictional research institutes, activist alter-institutions, collectives of autodidacts, clusters of artists, researchers, and alike.

As already indicated, the production process of this issue was in itself quite patainstitutional. On the one hand, it assembles an amazing array of contributions, all informed by a shared curiosity and motivated by reciprocal generosity. On the other, the shoe-string self-organisation has taken its temporal toil, as the issue has been five years in the making. However, time has not taken the edge off discussions on alternative means of supporting collective inquiries. The current pandemic has made it only sharper by disrupting the flow of academic circulation and further undermining the viability of neoliberal models of research.

The term ‘patainstitutionalism’ is coined in relation to Alfred Jarry, a 19th century bohemian writer and proto-surrealist, who in his novel Exploits & Opinions of Doctor Faustroll, Pataphysician (1898 / 1996) describes pataphysics as a science of exception and uniqueness, of poetry and heightened stances of perception. According to him, pataphysics is a mode of reflection motivated by the belief that ‘the virtual or imaginary nature of things as glimpsed by the heightened vision of poetry or science or love can be seized and lived as real’ (Jarry 1996, 9). This concept was picked up by writers, poets, artists, surrealists, mad scientists and serious researchers alike. Pataphysics proved to be an inspiration for organisational innovation, with several pataphysical institutions emerging in the recent decades, most infamous being the College of Pataphysics, established in Paris after the 2^nd World War, followed by pataphysical institutes and journals in places like Buenos Aires, London, and Vlinius.

However, this legacy is only of secondary importance to our current inquiries, as the very notion of patainstitutionalism, as proposed and used here, is a result of curatorial innovation and creative translation. ‘Patainstitutionalism’ is an English translation of the Polish term ‘patainstytutcjonalizm’, a neologism created to denote the plethora of ‘mock institutions’ (Sholette 2011), ‘institutions of exodus’ and ‘institutent practices’ (Raunig 2009), ‘monster institutions’ (Universidad Nomada 2009), ‘plausible art worlds’ (Basekamp Group & Friends 2013), ‘art sustaining environments’ (Wright 2013), feminist ‘institutions of the common’ (Choi and Kraus 2017), ‘open organisations’ (Critical Practice 2011), ‘slow institutions’ (Petrešin-Bachelez 2017), ‘conspirational institutions’ (Carrillo 2017), and ‘undercommons’ (Harney and Moten 2013), which has frequented the international debates about artistic self-organisation since the early 2000s. To add even more complexity, patainstitutionalism was based on the concept of pataeconomy, popularised by the anarcho-artistic cooperative Goldex Poldex from Kraków in their inquiries into imaginative economies, specific to what Janek Sowa has called as ‘Sector Pi’ (Sowa 2009). After all those twists and turns, this notion emerges as a semi-peripheral revenge on the dominant language of art theoretical debate, a linguistic blowback to the predominantly English-speaking universe.

But it is not a joke, just as pataphysics was not just a pun. Patainstitutionalism proved to be a handy conceptual tool to support research about the vast realm of alternative modes of sustaining art beyond the field of art, conducted during the exhibition Making Use. Life in postartistic times (Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw, 2016)¹. During this exhibition, the Free/Slow University of Warsaw, a mock university, which I had co-initiated years prior, organised not only a cycle of seminars (Readings for Users of Art, an updated version of Readings for Artworkers, a seminar series which we had run since 2009 in Warsaw²), but also convened the First Warsaw Patainstitutional Convention³. This - modest in size and unambitious of magnitude - international summit was organised in May 2016 in Warsaw as part of a series of events gathering representatives of various self-organised collectives in arts, research and beyond. I mention it here to emphasise the embeddedness of research in practice of self-organisation, which (mis)uses and (re)uses official infrastructures to sustain their operations. Most of the authors and reviewers, who agreed to contribute to this issue, were involved in public programmes of Making Use, one way or another. The very connection between Free/Slow University of Warsaw and the editorial team of the Journal of Research Cultures was established there and reinforced by reciprocal invites further on. Also, the connection between JoAP and this issue has been established in a similar manner during the Anti-fascist Year (2019-2020), a collective initiative that evolved in the aftermath out of the Making Use. The collectives involved in the Anti-fascist Year contributed to the special issue of JoAP Culture Beyond Itself (2020), and thus the connection was made that supported the patainstitutional research on the crooked journey to its final destination. Most of the contributions included in this issue tell strikingly similar stories of reciprocity, shared projects, collective exchanges, conferences and seminars, self-organised in the spirit of radical pragmatism, using whatever means at hand to sustain art, research and activism in their intertwined forms.

As the readers will quickly fathom, the authors do not follow one definition of what art, research, or activism might be or are. Instead, they try to re-organise apparatuses regulating the production and dissemination of knowledge and art. Following with this premise, as an editor I set an epistemic and methodological aspect aside, deciding not to ponder meta-questions about the nature of knowledge and knowing, focusing instead on the experimental and politically embedded means of its production and dissemination.

In this editorial choice, like in so many others, I follow here with the lines of inquiry prompted by the embedded research of Free/Slow University of Warsaw. By engaging in this practice in detail, I hope to highlight certain issues, which are pertinent in the entire project of patainstitutional research, and resurface in narratives, operations and discourses featured in other contributions. F/SUW was established in 2009 resulting from a cooperation between Bogna Świątkowska, the artistic director of Bęc Zmiana Foundation in Warsaw (with which F/SUW used to be affiliated) and myself, working since then as one of the curators of F/SUW. The team of F/SUW has consisted of a programmatic board (Joanna Figiel, Michał Kozłowski, Janek Sowa, Szymon Żydek) and a multitude of collaborators. As an informal initiative, F/SUW has not maintained official structures, has not had a charter or legal status, linked only by shared values and research culture. This ethos is expressed in the official blurb of the Free / Slow University of Warsaw:

F/SUW is a nomadic centre of interdisciplinary studies, critical reflection, and independent thinking about art and society. F/SUW operates in parallel with official centres of artistic and academic education. Its principle is to combine theory with praxis and culture with its social context. F/SUW is an informal research centre, within the framework of which we experiment with various forms of the generation and communication of knowledge (Free/Slow University of Warsaw 2009).

F/SUW’s approach to knowledge production was inspired by the Walter Benjamin’s programme of ‘refunctioning’ (German: Umfunktionierung) of the apparatuses of artistic production, formulated in his seminal essay Author as producer (Benjamin 1970). In the similar spirit, the F/SUW fashioned itself as a patainstitutional platform of authors/producers, who committed themselves to the critique of the political economy underpinning artistic and educational factories. The emergence of F/SUW was motivated by a reflective dissent with the conditions of cultural production in Poland, regulated by grants and over-production of one-off projects. The initiators of F/SUW approached these problems from the position of precarious art workers. The general political line of F/SUW was best expressed in the Manifesto of the Committee for Radical Change in Culture, in which members of F/SUW wrote:

For the Polish authorities, culture appears to be just another life-sphere ready to be colonized by neoliberal capitalism. Attempts are being made to persuade us that the 'free' market, productivity and income oriented activities are the only rational, feasible and universal laws for social development. This is a lie. (...) It is not culture that needs 'business exercises' it is the market that needs a cultural revolution (Committee for the Radical Change in Culture 2009).

During the opening speech of the First Patainstitutional Convention, I quipped that F/SUW is neither particularly slow nor free, definitely not a university, and not even based in Warsaw. It is pataphysically elusive, and yet, just as Greg Sholette pinpointed while discussing mock institutions, even though they seem to be rather light-hearted in appearances, they try to fulfil social functions of ‘serious’ institutions, which are being dismantled by neoliberalism or are getting dysfunctional (Sholette 2011, 13).

Even though Free/Slow University could not be considered a ‘university’, the research it conducted followed methodological premises of critical, materialist, engaged, reflective research. In this context it is important to reinstate that patainstitutional does not automatically mean pataepistemic. Patainstitutions as research sustaining environments can support various forms of knowledge. Some might resemble epistemic anarchism, nomadic knowledge disrupting state-apparatus and disciplinary conventions. They are alike poetry and art, insights generated in the heightened states of consciousness, which Jarry mentioned in his surrealist treatise, quoted above. They involve multi-authored generations of textual references, evoking spectres in archives and cabinets of discursive mirrors. In other circumstances, the alter-institutions sustain forms of activist science, organic intellectualism, and action research. They test various modes of collective research in practice, learn by doing, applying a hands on approach. They formulate sober, materialist, reflective critique of political economy. Patainstitutional platforms sustain forms of research, which cannot be easily dismissed as a lack of knowledge, a simple untruth or a doxa. In fact, the forms of knowledge produced might be more, and not less, rigorous, critical, and accurate than the ones procured in and for neoliberal academia. For example, Free/Slow University of Warsaw engaged in the critique of the unreflective application of the notion of ‘creative class’ and ‘creative industries’ in Polish academic circles and gonzo-science of state-commissioned reports, which had dominated Polish cultural politics since the early 2000s. Another ambition of F/SUW was a re-introduction of materialist thinking into art theory, analysing economic underpinnings and social contexts of artistic circulation, approaching artists as art workers rather than romantic geniuses, discussing precarity, considering class distinctions – topics side-lined in the polish debates about contemporary art in the first decade of 2000s.

To discuss the diversity of research practices, Isabelle Stengers proposes to consider the field of academia as a complex ecosystem, with different ecological niches, in which varied forms of thinking can be sustained (Stengers 2005). This concept resembles the already mentioned notion of art sustaining environments – described by Stephen Wright as cooperative networks, which enable conceptualisation, materialisation and collective reception of various forms of art, some of which differ significantly from what is considered, collected and presented as art in established institutions, galleries, and events (2013). Following this analogy, patainstitutions could be considered as thought sustaining environments, in which varied communities generate, share, discuss, and implement knowledge; a kind of human meshwork, in which general intellect crystalises, theories are discussed, and critical practices are reflectively developed. Moten and Harney call this fuzzy, social structures as undercommons (2013), a rather undefined and yet tangible sociality in the process of formation, not yet instituted, rather instituting or even instituent, to refer to Raunig’s concepts of ‘instituent practice’ (Raunig 2009).

People engender patainstitutional thought sustaining environments in response to an identified dysfunction of official institutions, just as Sholette suggested in the case of mock institutions. Otherwise, they would simply advance in institutional ecosystems as they find them. The forms of research propagated by F/SUW were, at least initially, passively discouraged in the respective fields of art and academy. On the one hand, the critique of political economy of creative industries was suppressed in quantitative social sciences, econometry and gonzo-consulting, all directly involved in propagating the mythos of the creative class. On the other, art academies in Poland used to play an important role in reproducing romantic ideologies of art, rather than critically questioning them. The resulting, minoritarian position of critical, materialist discourse on artistic production was one of the gaps that F/SUW aimed to fulfil. I refer to it as a specific example of more general tendency, to illustrate the thesis that patainstitutions emerge driven by a perceived lack in discourse, an urgency to which they respond to by self-instituting new thought sustaining environments.

This urgency is often provoked by the transformation of knowledge production in the spirit of neoliberalism, which is a recurrent trope in the programmatic documents of many patainstitutions and theoretical accounts of self-organisation in art and research. The European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies in Vienna, Universidad Nomada in Madrid, Edu-factory in Italy, Copenhagen Free University, Praktyka Teoretyczna in Poland, Critical Practice in London, all criticise what they perceive as capitalist subsumption of knowledge economy, competitiveness and atomisation caused by unreflectively imposed research excellence frameworks, precarity of working conditions, bureaucratisation of artistic research, inherent stupidity of the regime, in which you either publish or perish. Krystian Szadkowski analyses the privatisation of knowledge commons (2015). Gerald Raunig criticises industrialisation of knowledge production (2013). Stefano Harney and Fred Moten dissect western mega-universities as logistical institutions, in which studying is replaced by commodification of knowledge (2013). The list of criticisms and misgivings about neoliberal academia is a very long one, constituting the core drive of many patainstitutions featured here.

But it is important to consider the particularities of a context, to which patainstitutions respond. Just as their respective fields of operations differ, motivations diverge. F/SUW for example did not respond to a situation in Western mega-universities, but rather to an intellectual self-indulgence of para-feudal academic structures at hand, accelerated by neoliberal mock-modernisations. But to say that universities at large are educational factories, monolithically neoliberal or entirely dominated by sinister forces, would be a gross overstatement. F/SUW, just as many other patainstitutions, does not function in separation from the field it questions, but rather redirects flows of knowledge to causes and initiatives considered as important yet neglected by the academic mainstream (such as precarity in sectors of art and academia). F/SUW has cooperated with the main Polish universities and museums, which provided infrastructure and resources, secured funding from municipalities and ministries, used methodologies and conventions embedded in the academic field. The core team of people animating F/SUW worked or were supported by universities or art institutions, conducting their patainstitutional research in their free time.

The hybrid position of F/SUW is not an exception but not a rule either. Some other patainstitutions, when operating in more hostile institutional environments, or when openly critical of official institutions, self-institute as alternatives to state apparatuses. They are self-styled monster institutions, which plant monsters in existing institutions, disrupting their power dynamics (Universidad Nomada 2009). On the other hand, many other clusters, like Critical Practice, featured in this issue, function in affiliation with larger institutions. They operate as critical niches of more extensive ecosystems, prone to the structural tendencies described above.

Such clusters create pockets of free thinking in the academic circulation, breaching the logic embedded in parametric systems of research bureaucracy, creating extra-institutional patainstitutions. Often, they aim to reclaim universities to build knowledge commons, replace the competitive logic of academic publishing with the ethos of peer to peer collaboration and socially embedded research. In this way, patainstitutions seem to respond to paradoxes of neoliberal transformation of knowledge production. On the one hand market logic is introduced in the field of academia, marketisation of previously autonomous social fields being one of the main tenets of neoliberalism (Foucault 2010). However, this marketisation only rarely overcomes self-referential character of academic exchanges, it rather stipulates them even further, while enabling capitalist capture of the values thus produced, in the field of arts and humanities, often by the means of corporate publishing, a typical mechanism of capitalist capture. Academic publishing commodifies research, industrialising the worst elements of scholastic enterprise (like separation from politics and daily concerns of social world at large) while disassembling its autonomy. This double bind of competitive self-referentiality is a twist on classical notion of academic distance, founded on, as suggested by Pierre Bourdieu, a separation of scholars from the daily worries of ‘normal’ people (Bourdieu 2000). This logic of academic practice was a cornerstone of critical autonomy, guaranteeing freedom of scholastic pursuits, even if at the price of distance from everyday politics. Obviously, such a notion of scholastic practice was not being universally acclaimed, criticised as a form of white, masculine privilege by feminist and Marxist scholars, who responded by developing more politically reflective, interventionist and qualitative methodologies in human and social sciences, like for example the scholarship around diverse and community economies (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020). But the modes of neoliberal subjugation only indirectly influence methodologies or contents of research. The materialist critique of academic apparatuses assesses not what scholars say about their own doings, but rather what scholars tend to do when they say what they say, no matter if they are Marxists, feminists, or postcolonial thinkers. And in order to maintain academic trajectories, they have to publish or perish.

When F/SUW organised its 2011 edition on educational factories and artistic industries, the industrialisation of time in art and academia alike was one of the most pressing issues addressed. The free/slowness, though it sounds as yet another conceptual joke (in Polish the word ‘wolny’ means both free and slow), was a core drive of this patainstitutional research cluster. F/SUW was established in protest against the project-related modes of artistic (and academic) production, in which people are too busy making one project after another and many projects in the same time, to actually reflect upon the economic and social underpinnings of the system, in which they are inclined to over-perform, following modes of critique developed by other materialist and feminist thinkers (Dimitrikaki 2013; Kunst 2015). This core drive embedded the research of Free/Slow University in the practice of authors/artists/producers, upon whose political and economic conditions it reflected, with aim of changing them as part of a larger social transformation. If considering the etymology of the term ‘skhole’, which in ancient Greek meant time freed for the unbridled pursuits of knowledge, Free/Slow University was a scholastic enterprise at its very best. But just as Christopher Brunner suggests in his notion of ‘slow research’, the free/slowness should not be understood as lack of activity (Brunner 2012). The collective of F/SUW practiced free/slowness as an active, industrious, generous pursuit of practically embedded knowledge. This feeling of freedom manifested not only in the research projects of Free/Slow University, but especially in drifts and summer camps, which were organised periodically by the team of F/SUW over years, called by Janek Sowa as iterations of ‘undisciplined unacademic zones’ (Sowa 2016), in nod to the concept of temporary autonomous zones of Hakim Bey (2003). In such endeavours, the initial sense of pataphysical institutionalism re-emerges, as such activities are driven by poetic wanderlust, playful sociality and thrift for knowledge, which official institutions cannot satisfy.

 

Kuba Szreder is a researcher, lecturer and interdependent curator, based in Warsaw, working as an associate professor at the department for art theory of the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw. In 2015 he was awarded PhD by the Loughborough University School of the Arts for the thesis about social and economic underpinnings of independent curating. He co-curated many interdisciplinary projects that hybridize art with critical reflection and social experiments, such as exhibition Making Use. Life in Postartistic Times (together with Sebastian Cichocki, Museum of Modern Art, Warsaw 2016). He actively cooperates with artistic unions, consortia of post-artistic practitioners, clusters of art-researchers, art collectives and artistic institutions in Poland, UK, and other European countries. In 2009 he initiated Free / Slow University of Warsaw, with which he completed several inquiries into the current conditions of artistic labor, publishing readers (Readings for Artworkers vol 1-2 [2009-2010], Joy Forever. Political Economy of Social Creativity [2014]) and research reports (Art Factory [2014]). Since 2012 he has actively cooperated with OFSW, an artistic trade union in Poland, co-running campaigns that targeted dismal labor conditions in contemporary art. In 2018, together with Kathrin Böhm, he established the Centre for Plausible Economies in London, a research cluster investigating artistic economies, with which he conducted research projects (Re:drawing the Economies [2018], The Art of Cooperativism [2019-2020]), and published articles and visual essays (Icebergian Economies of Contemporary Art [2020]). In 2018-2020 he was a member of the core team of Anti-fascist Year, a coalition of over 150 art institutions and informal collectives that protested rising authoritarianism. In 2020 he co-initiated the Office for Postartistic Services, the aim of which is to make use of artistic competences in support of progressive social movements. Editor and author of books, catalogues, chapters and articles tackling such issues as the political economy of global artistic circulation, art strikes, modes of artistic self-organization, instituting art beyond the art market and the use value of art. His most recent book The ABC of the projectariat. Living and working in a precarious art world, will be published by the Whitworth Museum and Manchester University Press in the Fall of 2021.

Bibliography

Basekamp Group & Friends. 2013. Plausible Artworlds. S.l.: lulu.com.

Benjamin, Walter. 1970. “The Author as Producer.” New Left Review, August 1970. http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=135.

Bey, Hakim. 2003. T.A.Z. the Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Autonomedia.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brunner, Christoph. 2012. “Slow Practices - 11 Theses.” In Practice of Experimentation. Research and Teaching in the Arts Today., edited by Brunner Christoph and Giaco Schiesser, 56–67. Zurich: Scheidegger & Spiess.

Carrillo, Jesús. 2017. “Conspiratorial Institutions? Museums and Social Transformation in the Post-Crisis Period.” Wrong Wrong Magazine, June 26, 2017. http://wrongwrong.net/article/conspiratorial-institutions-museums-and-social-transformation-in-the-post-crisis-period.

Choi, Binna, and Annette Kraus. 2017. “Unlearning Institution: Do as You Present (or Preach).” In How Institutions Think: Between Contemporary Art and Curatorial Discourse, edited by Lucy Steeds, Paul O’Neill, and Mick Wilson, 66–78. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Committee for the Radical Change in Culture. 2009. “Manifesto of the Committee for the Radical Change in Culture.” Variant, October 15, 2009. http://www.variant.org.uk/37_38texts/1ed_2manifest.html.

Critical Practice, ed. 2011. Parade: Modes of Assembly and Forms of Address. London: CWC.

Dimitrikaki, Angela. 2013. Gender, Art Work and the Global Imperative: A Materialist Feminist Critique. Rethinking Art’s Histories. Manchester ; New York: Manchester University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 2010. The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-1979. Edited by François Ewald and Alessandro Fontana. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Free/Slow University of Warsaw. 2009. “Free/Slow University of Warsaw - Culture Not Profit.” 2009. http://www.wuw-warsaw.pl/oprojekcie.php?lang=eng.

Gibson-Graham, J. K., and Kelly Dombroski, eds. 2020. The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Harney, Stefano, and Fred Moten. 2013. The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study. Wivenhoe: Minor Compositions.

Jarry, Alfred. 1996. Exploits & Opinions of Doctor Faustroll, Pataphysician. Boston: Exact Change.

Kunst, Bojana. 2015. Artist at Work, Proximity of Art and Capitalism. Winchester, UK ; Washington, D.C: Zero Books.

Petrešin-Bachelez, Nataša. 2017. “For Slow Institutions.” E-Flux Journal, 2017. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/155520/for-slow-institutions/.

Raunig, Gerald. 2009. “Instituent Practices: Fleeing, Instituting, Transforming.” In Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique, edited by Gerald Raunig and Gene Ray, 3–13. London: MayFly Books.

———. 2013. Factories of Knowledge, Industries of Creativity. Semiotext(e) Intervention Series 15. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

Sholette, Gregory. 2011. Dark Matter : Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture. London; New York: Pluto Press.

Sowa, Jan. 2009. “Goldex Poldex Madafaka, or a Report from the (Besieged) Pi Sector.” In Europejskie Polityki Kulturalne 2015. Raport o Przyszłości Publicznego Finansowania Sztuki Współczesnej w Europie., edited by Maria Lind and Raimu Minichbauer. Warszawa: Bec Zmiana. http://www.wuw-warsaw.pl/raport.php?lang=eng#JanS.

———. 2016. “Undisciplined Unacademic Zone.” Mezosfera.Org, no. 2. http://mezosfera.org/undisciplined-unacademic-zone/.

Stengers, Isabelle. 2005. “Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices.” Cultural Studies Review 11 (1): 183–96.

Szadkowski, Krystian. 2015. Uniwersytet jako dobro wspólne: podstawy krytycznych badań nad szkolnictwem wyższym. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Szreder, Kuba. 2017. “Exercises in the Curatorial Open Form: On the Example of Exhibition Making Use. Life in Postartistic Times.” Art & the Public Sphere, 2017.

Universidad Nomada. 2009. “Mental Prototypes and Monster Institutions: Some Notes by Way of an Introduction.” In Art and Contemporary Critical Practice: Reinventing Institutional Critique, edited by Gerald Raunig and Gene Ray, 237–47. London: MayFly Books.

Wright, Stephen. 2013. Toward a Lexicon of Usership. EINDHOVEN: Van Abbemuseum.

Footnotes