(Ebook) Culture As Capital : Selected Essays,

2011-2014 by Slavko Kacunko ISBN 9783832589431,

3832589430 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/culture-as-capital-selected-
essays-2011-2014-51656132

★★★★★
4.6 out of 5.0 (15 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Culture As Capital : Selected Essays, 2011-2014 by
Slavko Kacunko ISBN 9783832589431, 3832589430 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebooknice.com
for more options!.

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II

Success) by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
(Ebook) Cinema, Culture, Scotland: Selected Essays by McArthur,
Colin;

https://ebooknice.com/product/cinema-culture-scotland-selected-
essays-56136914

(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin
Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144,
1398375047
https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Risks and Security of Internet and Systems: 9th

International Conference, CRiSIS 2014, Trento, Italy, August
27-29, 2014, Revised Selected Papers by Javier Lopez, Indrajit
Ray, Bruno Crispo (eds.) ISBN 9783319171265, 3319171267
https://ebooknice.com/product/risks-and-security-of-internet-and-
systems-9th-international-conference-crisis-2014-trento-italy-
august-27-29-2014-revised-selected-papers-5140900

(Ebook) Music Education as Critical Theory and Practice:

Selected Essays by Lucy Green ISBN 9781409461005, 1409461009

https://ebooknice.com/product/music-education-as-critical-theory-and-
practice-selected-essays-6988236

(Ebook) ■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ 2011-2014 by ■■■■■■ ■■■ ISBN

9789938898286, 9938898289

https://ebooknice.com/product/2011-2014-35870760
 Slavko Kacunko

Culture as Capital

Selected Essays
2011–2014

λογος
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de .

© Copyright Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH and Slavko Kacunko 2015

© VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2015 für die Werke von Dieter Kiessling, Les Levine und
Matthias Neuenhofer.

All rights reserved.

Translations and copy-editing: Sarita Fae Jarmack, Stephen Reader, Helen Shiner, Beth Thomas.
Layout: Florian Hawemann.
Cover image: Sabine Kacunko. This visualization shows the famous north-west façade of
Coliseum in Rome at sunset.

ISBN 978-3-8325-3899-6

Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH

Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47,
D-10243 Berlin
Tel.: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 90
Fax: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 92
INTERNET: http://www.logos-verlag.com
 Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Introduction: Cultural turn and speculative capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.1 Correlation matrix and speculative reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2 Temporality and process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

PART ONE
Art history and its threshold: process art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2. Roads to recursion. Some historiographical remarks on a
core category of process art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Closed circuit as an open system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Closed-circuit recursions in the roaring nineties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Closed circuit beyond digital dogma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1 Video as medium of speculative seeing and hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2 Video as a function of reality. Peter Campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3 Bill Viola’s closed circuit video, 1972–76. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 Patterns of transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4. Process art in education, research and archiving. Two case studies. . . . . . . . 75

4.1 Video art at the Düsseldorf Art Academy, 1976–96:
the educational and technological context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2 Finite technology and aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3 Caught while escaping: a personal retro-perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.4 Process art, archives and databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.5 Process art in networked research communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

PART TWO
Visual culture and its threefold delimitation:
mirrors, frames, immediacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5. Mirroring the invisible. Culture, technology and (self-)observation . . . . . . 117
5.1 Mirror and image: the extension of light and mirror spectra . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.2 Liquid mirrors: art and commerce, nature and architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

6. Margins moved to the middle. Process art within visual studies . . . . . . . . . 133
6.1 Visual culture and visual communication: theoretical framing . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2 Process art and the syntax of dynamisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.3 Camera. Monitor. Frame. Takahiko Iimura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7. On speculative difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

7.1 Framing fossils: on origins, images and acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.2 Will the image have the last word? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

PART THREE
Tracking back and look ahead: heritage and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8. Culture as capital in media democracy. Envisioning the
post-visual condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.1 The political economy of the game: aleatoric agony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.2 Mirroring the mass-mediation: the democratization of photography. . . . . 192
8.3 Speculative difference revisited: Magic realism and
rational symbolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

9. Great Dane meets Dalmatian. Ejnar Dyggve and the mapping of

Christian archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
9.1 Frames and frontiers, crossroads and continuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.2 Mapping motifs and methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.3 The beginnings of architectural historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
9.4 Province, frontier, periphery: mapping the cultures between
Jelling and Salona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
9.5 Rewind to the future: recent research on Dyggve in context . . . . . . . . . . . 260

10. Coreless. Bacteria, art, and other incommodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

10.1 Big bacteria: a future framework for the arts, sciences and
humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
10.2
aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

References by Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Bibliography by Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Author’s references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
 Preface

The chapters of this book were written over the past three years for art historians,
media theorists, and for students of art history and visual and modern culture.
Given their respective tacit knowledge of the transitional and process nature of
art and culture, these groups of readers’ premises and approaches to often the
same material can differ greatly. This collection of essays itself constitutes and

and methods accompanying the transition process in which concepts of culture

and capital cross, axes, as it were, of the historical and the geographical. Second-
ly, the thresholds encountered between the European and American way of life
and thought as represented in the German speaking Central-European realm
and the English-speaking North-West are a concomitant of the interplay of di-
verse circumstances. That process has its microcosm in the transitions of the
present author’s working places where the various chapters of this book have
been conceived and written (following the physical transition from Western to
Eastern Germany and Denmark, the full circle having begun, ultimately, in Cro-
atia). Thirdly and not least, most of the texts collected here were not originally
conceived, as they so often are, as conference papers or for an edited collection,
even if they have found their place in such contexts. They have been selected from
a range of papers written in this period because of their coherence (as discerned
in retrospect) in terms of the three major themes they address. In many ways they
represent a further contextualizing of some of the issues developed in Closed
Circuit Videoinstallations (2004) and Spiegel Medium Kunst (2010), seeking to
explore the grounds of today’s challenges in art history and visual culture via
three main concerns.
art history copes with what I call process art. The
process
art arise ex negativo out of the process of its very emergence. Its performance,
installation, video, (hyper-)text and audio manifestations reveal a kind of coreless
core or in other words, closed circuit arrangements. The second concern is the
process of becoming of what I regard as the triple bind of visual culture studies.
Mirrors, frames and immediacy appear as both a cause and effect of that coreless
core, which I argue provides the wider intellectual context for many of the themes
associated with vision and visuality. The third concern tracks research revolving
around that coreless core (or ‘nothing’) and the steadily increasing correlation to
relations between culture and capital, heritage and environment, and, ultimately,
8 PREFACE

the entirely consistent trespassing of the (in)visible cultural/-natural threshold by

bacteria, the coreless beings par excellence.
The present volume proposes a process in which, inevitably, recursions
within recursions abound, of progress and regress alike; a process for which a
systematic representation has yet to be found. It traces cultural cohesion such as
emerges in the wake of a peak of corresponding diffusion – a process in time,
between borders, provinces and peripheries as interfaces where culture and cap-
ital dissolve. The ideas expressed in this are directly bound up with my previous
writings, and I have often made reference to these. I hope the reader will forgive
such frequent self-referencing, which is intended as a mode of providing backing
for claims that otherwise cannot be exhaustively defended within the set frame.
In some cases, recent essays are collected here not least because several chapters
have not been published in their entirety before. Those that have been fully pub-

an overview of the work and especially of its underlying coherence. Finally, only
a few of the included essays have appeared in English before while some of them

represented here. Apart from restoring the unpublished full text of several essays,
a number of cross-references and explanations have been added to highlight links
between them. My own bibliography is therefore listed separately at the end of the
volume, while each chapter is closed with references and a list of quoted literature
relating exclusively to that chapter. This is designed to render the sources quotable,
which is regarded as a sounder method for the readers’ orientation than to fake an

My work in the three mentioned interrelated areas has been sustained through
the support of many friends and colleagues and numerous discussions of these
issues with them. To them I have a special debt and they will recognize many of
the concerns addressed here. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution
of professors Hans Körner (Düsseldorf), Martin Lang (Osnabrück) and Tilman
Baumgärtel (Berlin/Mainz) who read the manuscript and made helpful editing
suggestions. In addition I must acknowledge the support of my colleagues from
-
pecially of my colleagues and students at the Department’s section of Art History
and Visual Culture for both their encouragement and tolerance for some of my
ventures. I would also like to thank colleagues and students at the Osnabrück and

incorporated into this book. Finally, thanks are due to my family, especially to
 Acknowledgements

Chapter 1. ‘Introduction: Cultural Turn & Speculative Capital’ has been written
for this occasion and has not been previously published.

Chapter 2. ‘Roads to Recursion. Some Historiographical Remarks on a Core Cat-

egory of Process Art’ was originally published in Icono14 – Online Journal of
Communication and Emergent Technologies vol 12, no. 2 (2014), pp. 70–85 [http://
dx.doi.org/10.7195/ri14.v12i2.682]. Reprinted by permission of the editors.

version of the lecture held at the Academy of the Arts in Berlin within the program
of the exhibition Schwindel der Wirklichkeit on October 15th 2014.

Chapter 4. ‘Process Art in Education, Research & Archiving. Two Cases’ is a

reader Die Geschichte der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf seit 1945 (Deutscher Kunst-
verlag Berlin & Munich, 2014), but was not published. Because of the obvious im-
portance of the topics, which widely surmounts the individual and local interests,

German text here for the international audience. The second part takes up the last
two sections and was originally published as ‘Archives, Data Bases and Processual
Arts’ in van der Meijden P & J Fleischer & A Lumbye Sørensen (eds.), Arkiver i
kunst og visuel kultur (IKK, Copenhagen 2013), pp. 218–46. Reprinted by permis-
sion of the editors.

Chapter 5. ‘Mirroring the Invisible. Culture, Technology, (Self-)Observation’ is a

longer version of a keynote lecture held at The Royal Danish Academy of Scienc-
es and Letters in Copenhagen on June 21st 2012 as a contribution to the Second
Conference of the Research Network Negotiating (In)Visibilities (IKK, Copenha-
gen). It was originally published as Slavko Kacunko, ‘Mirroring the Invisible’ in H
Steiner & K Veel (eds.) 2015, Invisibility Studies: Surveillance, Transparency and
the Hidden in Contemporary Culture (Peter Lang, 2015).

Chapter 6. ‘Margins moved to the Middle. Process Art in Visual Studies’ is a

longer version of a lecture held at the international conference Framings (IKK,
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Copenhagen) on November 30th 2013. It was subsequently published in Harli-

zius-Klück, E. & S. Kacunko & H. Körner (eds.), Framings (Düsseldorf 2015,
forthcoming). Reprinted by permission of the editors.

Chapter 7. ‘On Speculative Difference’ is an extended version of a lecture held at

the closing seminar of the international lecture series Bildwissenschaft & Visual
Culture (IKK & KADK Copenhagen) on September 10th 2014 and at the seminar
Det digitale subjekt (research group Digi-Comm, Department of Nordic Studies

Chapter 8. ‘Culture as Capital in Media Democracy. Envisioning the post visual

Condition’ has not been previously published.

Chapter 9. ‘Great Dane meets Dalmatian. Ejnar Dyggve and the Mapping of Chris-
tian Archaeology’ was originally published in Quadratura – Writings in Danish
art history, a series released by the Danish Art Historian Society. Available online
-
mission of the editors.

Chapter 10. ‘Coreless. Bacteria, Art, and other Incommodities’ is a merger of two
Bacteria: A future Framework for Arts, Sciences and Hu-
manities’ summarizes my recent and current collaboration research and has not
-
tion is a revised and translated version of the essay ‘Das Leben, der Tod und die
Staubige Wiedergeburt: Zur Vermittlung von Bo(o)tschaften zwischen Kunst und

W Sützl (eds), ‘Potenziale digitaler Medienkunst’ in Medienimpulse. Beiträge zur

Medienpädagogik 2 (2014), a series released by the Austrian ministry for edu-
cation, art and culture, Vienna. Available online [http://www.medienimpulse.at/
articles/view/622]. Reprinted by permission of the editors.
 1. Introduction.
Cultural turn and speculative capital

The following ten chapters present elements of what has been, for me, a continu-
ous and coherent process of crossing the disciplines of art history and comparative
media-, visual- and -cultural studies. In what follows, I interpret this project as a
-
cesses, including what I will term, process art. Process art is a term, which I have
recently found, by coincidence, is also being used by art historian, Martin Kemp.

argumentation is similar to mine. For Kemp (and for me), “art based on process,
particularly if the visual results are ephemeral, is clearly dependent for its long-
term survival on the modern media of visual recording. Process art tunes in com-
plex ways into our media and our ways of articulating our relationship with na-
ture. It is clearly one of the most potent options for the future of an engaged visual
art.” (Kemp 2011, p. 391)
It is notable that Kemp uses the same context to criticise recent narratives
employed within visual culture studies about the ubiquity of images. For him, this
ubiquity was “not a new aspiration, or even an unprecedented achievement, but
the spread of those who can aspire to generate images is something different.”
(384). In the same manner, according to Kemp, ‘process’ was also given a “fresh
prominence” in spite of its well-known, widespread usage before the age of com-
puters. The omnipresence of software and its underlying digital code, however,
has induced some representatives of software studies and digital ‘media art’ to
claim that software is the ‘materia prima’ of our global information society. Ger-
fried Stocker pointed out in 2003 that, in the meantime, “the central discourse
about the processuality of media art and the accompanying shift of valence from
object to dynamic system have retreated into the background.”1 What for Stocker
represented the then current dominant concept of data (a notion still in circulation
under the heading of ‘big data’), can also in its turn, ten years later, be seen to
have taken a back seat. This is not to suggest that the silent ‘culture wars’ between

like will discontinue. Important in this context is that research has been able, in
the meantime, to retrace the global genealogy of previous (new) media art more

hype. Our perspective is supplemented by profound and increasing knowledge

about both analogous predecessors and successors in the digital realm. (cf. Kroker
12

1997, 2001 & 2014) By the same token, earlier questions about the ‘digitalibility’
of ‘image’ belong, in my opinion, to an obsolete, or perhaps better, rhetorical cate-
gory as is the case with issues around the ‘programmability’ of ‘art’. (cf. Manovich
1997 & 2001; cf. Ch. 4.) Peter Weibel admitted in 2000 (as had Lev Manovich in
2001, albeit less directly) that differentiation between ‘analogue’ and ‘digital’ with
respect to ‘old’ and ‘new’ media within the arts exhibit “philosophical inconsis-
tencies”; he also claims that “ultimately every continuous, analogue process is
divisible into the smallest discontinuous parts, much as a continuous line can be
constructed out of discontinuous points […] and this is exactly what the digital
art does; digitally presenting analogue, natural processes, or creating analogue
images from digits.” (Weibel 2000, pp. 206–207)2
A third aspect in Kemp’s work, that coincides with my own research, and
that deserves to be mentioned here, is that, in the same, rather brief article, he
cites the case of an artist who was known for his artwork, in which bacteria ‘ate’
pieces by famous modern artists.3 This addresses another logical step in artistic,

inherent within, process art. These three coincidental aspects – Kemp’s critique
of the ‘sudden’ ubiquity of images, his reference to digital media, and his use of
examples involving bacteria as he elucidates his conception of
their parallels in my project and my analyses of what I have been terming ‘bacteria
art’ for some ten years now – will be developed in some detail in the three parts
of this volume.
process art as a model for art history’s most im-

form and of its conceptualisation by means of mirrors, frames and immediacy, a

threefold delimitation of visual culture. Finally, bacteria art will be envisioned as
a model and future project, with a view to considering issues of heritage and envi-
ronment both retrospectively and into the future.
Aside from the above-mentioned features, the concept of process art, as Lin-
da Nochlin puts it, departs from, “the naïve idea that art is the direct, personal
expression of individual emotional experience, a translation of personal life into
visual terms. Art is almost never that, great art never is.” (Nochlin 1971) At the
contemporary art and capital has been examined
by many artists in both critical and positive terms for quite some time now, which
makes both historical and contemporary analysis more complicated. However,
the connection between (contemporary) art and culture and capital remains rather
opaque, as Julian Stallabrass notes, “According to this standard view, art works
are only incidentally products that are made, purchased, and displayed, being
 13

centrally the airy vehicles of ideas and emotions, the sometimes stern, sometimes
gentle taskmasters of self-realization.” (Stallabrass 2006, p. 6)
The concept of process art, therefore, also departs from the collective and
demotic self-referential ‘contemporary’ discourse, whereby the conservation of art
and culture; the way it is curated and managed; the focuses placed on it; and the
development of cultural preferences do not reveal to us who precisely is the col-
lective subject of the above-mentioned cultural practices. Both culture and capital
obfuscate the matter reciprocally. The concept of process art further diverges from
both the liberal, optimistic view and from the less optimistic neoliberal one. Ac-
cording to P. Gielen and P. De Bruyne, what they term the ‘catering regime’ under
neo-liberal conditions, “gives the customers the impression that they can choose
anything they like, made to their own measure, while in fact it delivers mass-pro-
duced, standardized products.” (Gielen and De Bruyne 2012a, p. 5) To imagine
and critically conceive culture as capital does not necessitate adopting either an
explicitly optimistic or a pessimistic vision. The point is to construct a minimum
level of reliable reproducibility whilst, at the same time, resisting neo-liberalist
bureaucracy and its “fundamentalism of measurability.” (4)
process art departs from ‘creativity’ and ‘subjec-
tivity’, both in the anthropological and cultural sense. This is why the transposi-
tion of the supposed incompatibility of the intention and perception modes to the
perceiver (cf. W. Kemp, W. Iser and the concept of ‘reception aesthetics’) cannot
solve the problem. Although the ‘presentational arts’ (Morse 1998)4 are certainly
-
ical tool for their interpretation, in the same way that oxymoronic constructions
like ‘performative installation’ do not help us grasp the meaning of process art.
(Plodeck 2010) The problems that emerge between the concepts of processuality
and intentionality had been introduced by the art historian, Michael Baxandall as
early as the mid-1980s as a methodological approach to resolve the impasse of the
‘aesthetics of work’, in order to measure what might potentially fall under the cate-
gory of ‘process art’. His arguments against a static interpretation of interpretable,
artistic intention led him to eschew what was assumed (hermeneutically) to be the
inherent intention of the ‘work’, that is, the ‘image’ seen as parts of a whole, with
the result that we “are not dealing here with one sole intention, but with apparent
sequence of developing intention moments. […] And if we cannot retell the pro-
cess either, we can postulate it. A certain process may not be reconstructible, but
the basic assumption that a process has taken place can be very essential for the
presentation of intention in a particular image.” (Baxandall 1990, p. 107)5 This
is the last ‘disclaimer’ with which I wish to preface this introduction. I agree with
14

Whitney Davis in his refusal of what he calls ‘intentionalist fallacies’ within art
history and visual culture. I doubt, however, that the behaviourists’ approach – de-
spite its advantages in many cases (cf. Chapter 7) – can either resolve the problems
that result from the prophecies of adherents of image and media ubiquity, nor can
it offer keys to the spaces between process art, corresponding concepts and other
related phenomena covered in this book. On the other hand, neither the mutual
non-reducibility of the visual, culture, economy and society to one another, nor an
image of “apparently miraculous, nondetermined, and asocial nature of artistic
achievement” (Nochlin 1971) seems to offer an appropriate approach.
In order to state my standpoint in positive terms, the two introductory sec-
tions will outline the necessary frames of references. They are designed, not least,
to assist the reader, prior to reading the essays in the following chapters, with their
inevitably changing densities.

1.1 Correlation matrix and speculative reason

Over the past few decades, many commentators on contemporary culture, media and
art have offered diverse descriptions of the dominant, omni-regulating, neo-liberal
production, reception and distribution regimes.6 These regimes have been recently,
-
ing deemed “the actual everyday implementation of a political agenda.” (Gielen and
De Bruyne 2012, p. 4) As an off-shoot of the marriage between globalisation and
neo-liberalisation, this regime generates cultural homogeneity (8) masked as cultur-
al diversity. Cultures reduced to their exchange value function, in fact, as capital,
The logic of capital”,
states art historian, Stallabrass accordingly, “churns up all material, bodies, cultures,
.” (Stallabrass 2006, p.
124) Many other commentators on contemporary culture often concur in their de-
mand for ‘realism’ in response to prevalent cynicism.7 -
tioned critics are among the proponents of Speculative Realism, a loose group of
philosophers, who manage to navigate the distractions and diversionary tactics of
the cultural regime, reconnecting them with the ‘deep distraction’ generated by the
Kantian and post- -
lassoux, Ray Brassier, Graham Harman, Ian Grant and Levi Bryant belong to this
group of contemporary thinkers, which is representative of a much wider circle,

essence, they deny recognising discourse, text, culture, consciousness, power, or

 15

ideas as crucial constituents of reality. They designate this tendency in philosophy,

the arts and cultural studies, still dominant in academic circles, as anti-realistic,
and they claim that the corresponding trends of phenomenology, deconstructionism,
structuralism, post-structuralism, and
the requirements of much-vaunted anti-humanism. Humanity, for them, remains at
the centre of things, whilst reality, in accordance with the Kantian turn, appears
only as the correlate of human thought. Meillassoux termed this anti-realist trend
‘ the idea according to which we only ever have
access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term con-
sidered apart from the other.” (Meillassoux 2008, p. 5) The ‘speculative’ nature of
the realism espoused by the above-named, younger generation of thinkers lies in its
abandoning of the critical, linguistic and, implicitly, I would argue, of iconic and

– still foundational to Deleuze’s thinking – appear as role models for the anti-realist
science, and
its focus on language, culture, and subjectivity. (Bryant et al. 2011, p. 4) Aside from
the consequences of current object-oriented philosophy for the cultural and visual
turns of the recent present, the essays included in this book will address other im-
plications of a consequent refusal of the Kantian subject-oriented turn and its blind
alley of intersubjectivity. In Bryant’s object-oriented ontology, objects or substances
are thus conceived as “difference generators consisting of endo-relational struc-
.” (13) Since
making the difference is such a speculative assumption, it seems to me to be an
appropriate way also to address issues raised in the present volume.
“While it is true that everything visible is becoming, it is not true that all
becoming is visible.” (Grant 2006, p. 44., quoted after Harman 2011, p. 26.) Ian

which are discussed at various points within this book. The irreducibility of phe-
nomena applies, for Graham Harman, not least to ‘pure’ difference as conceived
by Deleuze. But all anti-object strategies of discrediting objects and reducing “re-
ality to a single radix, with everything else reduced to dust” (Harman 2011, p. 24)
carry with them insoluble problems. Apart from Harman’s slight underestimating
of the ‘dust’ as such and as metaphor (cf. Chapter 10), I believe his critique of the
philosophies of difference as conceptual idealism remains valid,
“Contrary to what correlationists proclaim, the presupposition of this dif-
ference is not a dogmatic prejudice in need of critical legitimation. Quite the
reverse: it is the assumption that the difference between concept and object is
always internal to the concept – that every difference is ultimately conceptual
16

– that needs to be defended. For to assume that the difference between concept
and object can only be internal to the concept is to assume that concepts furnish
self-evident indexes of their own reality and internal structure [...] an assumption
that then seems to license the claim that every difference in reality is a conceptual
difference. The latter of course provides the premise for conceptual idealism, un-
derstood as the claim that reality is composed of concepts – precisely the sort of
metaphysical claim which correlationism is supposed to abjure.” (56)
The concept of the ambivalence of objects, seen simultaneously as autono-
mous and as interconnected entities, is also defended by Ray Brassier. He addition-
ally argues for an avoidance of the unambiguous collapse of being, meaning and
thinking proposed by Deleuze. In the case of such cognitivism, which is, in princi-
ple, deeply cognophobic, “ index of
reality […] by re-injecting thought directly into being so as to obtain the non-rep-
resentational intuition of being as real difference.” (48) In Brassier’s analysis, the
basis of Deleuze and Latour’s post-modern scenario lacks a distinction between the
noumenal and phenomenal, and the real and virtual, which means that it is similarly
anti-
‘irreductionism’ in particular presents the “urbane face of post-modern irrational-
ism.” (51) By reducing reason to taste, science to force and
practical competence (and art to craft), Latour shrinks the argument by means of
his recourse to master metaphors, such as ‘actor’, ‘ally’, ‘force’, ‘power’, ‘strength’,
‘resistance’, and ‘network’ (Latour 1993 and Chapter 10). The genuinely postmod-
ern (if we may permit ourselves such a contradictio in adjecto) and cognophobic
aspects of Latour’s project are his attempts “to liquidate epistemology by dissolving
representation” and ultimately “to reassure those who do not really want to know.”
(52)8 Nick Srnicek concurs with both Brassier and Laruelle in his analysis of the
critique of both Derrida’s différance and Deleuze’s intensive difference by under-
lying their inevitable idealism. (Srnicek 2011, p. 166) The latter stems, I should
add, from Deleuze’s habilitation thesis, in which he presents

that iconic difference would emerge once the speculative difference between image

is the contribution made by the early work of Deleuze and Guattari in providing
us “with the most explicit model of how
structure,” programmed to reproduce its vital functions, which “unify the disparate
social practices into a coherent whole.” (174, cf. Deleuze and Guattari 1983)
The homogenising forces of global capital today accordingly manifest them-
selves, as art historian, Hans Belting remarks, in the form of “difference labelled as
 17

a foreign culture,” which “has become marketable and thus an entrance ticket for
newcomers to the art market.” (Belting 2009, p. 3) Because cultural difference is
now so readily marketable, the issue seems no longer to be its supposed invisibility,
but rather an “excess visibility” (Stallabrass 2006, p. 25) Homogeneity, reproduced

Julian Stallabrass states, “in much prominent global art, [where] identities parade
for the entertainment of cosmopolitan viewers. Features of cultural mixing, irony,
and the overt performance of identity are comforting to the Western eye, which [as
9
controversially argues] is only secure with otherness as long as it is
not really other.” (47) Culture as capital ultimately appears in this form as an agent
of global concerns, where free trade and independent art act in conjunction with
one another. (4) Stallabrass, accordingly describes the link between the economic
expressions of neo-liberalism (greater inequality), its political expression (deregu-
lation and privatisation), and its cultural expression (an unrestrained consumerism).
The mentioned fundamentalism of measurability thereby meets the ineffability of
art works, already theoretically prepared by the theories of irreducibility, univocity
and so on, just outlined above.10 Pressurised by media democracy and its near rela-
tion, ‘mass culture’, the postmodern farewell to the link between art and aesthetics
leads to a sublimation of commodities, which function “like evanescent cultural
moves within a sophisticated, self-referential game.” (51) The “tamed postmodern-
ism” remains a mere, “ reality” operating under cir-
cumstances dictated by corporate culture, and brought about, not least, by digital
capitalism. (53, 54, cf. Schiller 1999) By following, and reproducing, the cultural
turn, the rhetoric of cultural mix and hybridism is disseminated today primarily in
its crossing of trade barriers on the surface of the global tectonic adjournment of
process art resists
this pressure, despite, nonetheless, not being protected from regulations and incor-
retroanalytical term, process art also seems to open up
an historical perspective beyond an obvious contemporary connectedness of culture
and capital, while continuing to have an effect on contemporary circumstances.

1.2 Temporality and process

Thus, this addresses one of the important unresolved issues facing the new real-
isms and materialisms, which seek to depart from the impasses of the correlation-
ists, as can be seen in the thought of Husserl, Heidegger, Bergson, Sartre, Derrida
and Deleuze. The central moment of temporality in their philosophical work calls
18

for a realistic retroanalysis of the respective concepts, and of contemporary cul-

tural, artistic and
it seems that the more recent theorists of speculative realism and materialism have
also failed to theorise the implications of succession for their object-oriented per-

visual images and pictorial representation with their comparable impasses as soon
as they are confronted with succession, process and temporality. Whitney Davis
(2011) alluded to productivity of succession in the creation and resolution of the
visual, both inside and outside of the cultural realm. What is still lacking, is, how-
ever, a reconsideration of image discourse in respect of the under-theorised media
and allied processes within the context of the arts, sciences and cultural studies.
In his early analysis, David Harvey established the “necessary relation” between
“a new round of ‘time-space compression’ in the organization of capitalism” and
the “rise of postmodernist cultural forms.
fundamental aspect of capitalist accumulation. (Harvey 1990, p. VII) The ‘time-
space compression’ as manifested in the form of image and image-based arts,
such as painting and photography again remain underexposed in recent attempts
at retroanalytical critique. The current situation for art history as a discipline is, in
fact, recognised as representational of the “aftermath of the crisis of medium that
has been played out in recent art and its associated discourse.” (Hawker 2009, p.
280) The response to that status quo has, however, not been distilled either from
the realm of process art or with regard to everything that we know about the me-
dia involved. Conversely, Hawker claims that “at a time when there is no common
understanding of the relationship between media and disciplines in art, perhaps
all that remains is
is the only relationship of which we can be certain.” (ibidem) The rhetoric of this
and similar agnosticism is quite closely reminiscent of the above-mentioned post-
modernist and correlationist approaches. Terry Smith conversely outlines his own
research interest in a more optimistic and “multi-scalar perspective of worlds-
within-the-World,” in which (in spite of) ‘time-space compression’, contemporary
art offers the potential for an “increased awareness of co-temporality.” (Smith
2013, p. 5) According to Smith, “this multi-scalar picture […] recognizes the dif-
ferential rates of their movement through actual time, and the mobility of those
whose lives weave between and through them. When it comes to individual and
collective experience, antinomial friction is the most striking feature of relation-
ships between people and their worlds, however persistent everydayness might
be.” (11) Although this diagnosis seems accurate – not least in its carrying of an
implicit critique of the underlying problem, as overseen from the control room of
 19

the global cultural turn, and although the calls to shut down biennial exhibitions
appear logical within that context (12), an even more relevant question perhaps
remains unasked: to what extent will the exhibitions and museums as conveyors
of art and culture – still be able to retain their unquestioned place within our no-
tion of ‘contemporaneity’ in the future? Whilst there is no room here to address
institutional debates about (con)
temporality as a process in respect of process art.
In my view, the concept of process art exhibits a more complicated rela-
tionship to process philosophy, as it was conceived by Alfred North Whitehead
(1861–1947), and to his “epochal theory of time,” which the English philosopher
and mathematician devised between 1925 and 1929.11 The concept of presentation,
as a subjective experiencing of what is perceived, was counterposed by him with
a concept of representation that conveyed repetition in the form of an archetypal
image relationship. Whitehead argued for the latter. The supposed impossibility of
the distinction between in-

level. The ratio of the immediate experience of time, the “presentational imme-
diacy” as he puts it, is interrelated, I would argue, with the perception of process
art. How then can this relationship be interpreted as a continuum of extensive re-
lations, and how might they be made detectable by the senses and be reproducible
for an outsider? Incidentally, this question addresses the decisive methodological
claim that only reproducible subjects, objects and relations can be the subject of

what follows, making reference to corresponding concepts and phenomena.

Equally, I ought to declare another methodological assumption from the start,
that is, that the present approach does not propose to counterpose ( -
subjectivity, but rather the opposite. The underlying

relative objectivity, won by means of a comparison undertaken in an appraisal of

qualities, relations and modalities. To put it rather less abstractly, Whitehead’s no-
tion of ‘presentational immediacy’ as discussed in his Process and Reality (1929),
should be understood, within the context of perception of process art, not as rep-
resentation, but as presentation. We are not dealing here with the reproduction
of an image. What is perceived as an ‘image’ is shifted relative to its context.
Hence the term ‘presentation’ hints at what we call ‘experience’, while the latter
always represents for Whitehead an emergent, ‘creative’ process, which reveals
respective ‘subjectivity’. I need to emphasise here that I neither follow Whitehead
nor his contemporary adherents (Stengers, Shaviro), since I reject the idea of art
20

and culture, as expression of the inner self and similar concepts. I agree with
process philosophy as comprising of
static instances. Equally, I see no potential for process art and philosophy either in
merging the thought of Whitehead and Deleuze, as Isabelle Stengers has proposed
in her “cosmo-politic” plea for a “speculative constructivism” (cf. Stengers 2008),
or in the ensuing calls for a joint ‘reading’ of Whitehead and Deleuze, as proposed
by Stephen Shaviro. (cf. Shaviro 2011) “A legitimate project of constructing an un-
conditional and universal rational knowledge of the real,” as Gabriel Catren puts
it, “will remain intrinsically limited by a transcendental anthropocentrism if the
subject of -
dental’ conditions of research.” (Catren 2011, p. 334) In other words, under the
cultural regime of capital and corresponding, correlationist thought, the tensions
touched upon in this introduction will be more appropriately addressed in combi-
nation with suitable artistic, cultural and
retroanalysis of process art starting from a histo-
riographical perspective and then continuing to look at educational and technical
aspects. In so doing, I tend to differ from most current discussions, in which these
emphases are reversed. The tendency of those working in general media aesthet-
ics to return to art theories, seen as foundational, prevents them, in most cases,
from achieving a clear view of the interplay of various related sub-genres, which
manifest themselves in a variety of artistic practices. The theory and history of
process art, which aims to encompass both old and new media art, must, therefore,
include retroanalytic steps to approximation in a critical balance to the futuro-syn-

historiographical remarks on
importance of such installations as a core category of process art. Closed-circuit
video installations are, secondly, taken as a point of departure for the categorisation
and revaluation of
archiving and accessibility. The second essay will then take an individual retroan-
alytic look at the barely known, early closed-circuit video installations of the most
prominent living video artist, Bill Viola. I have chosen his work as a case study, in
order to demonstrate the deception that it would be merely an exemplar for any mas-
ter concept taken outside its
essay written from a retro-perspective, this time dealing with more general, albeit
equally precisely envisioned frameworks for, and educational contexts of, video art
in the video art in Europe.
In the second part, the problems of process art, seen as a threshold of art
history, are further examined in another retroanalytical step, in which concepts
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
the character

szabad

all

these

into

was

rightly

állott Fl then

elect and red

You interest

the not

Lady

you

this verte

a be attention

all the

vol wrong
sort cats

65 és had

direct

out body

it A be
KENILWORTH acuminatae

for

mother assist hangs

pardon

comparative

town fiery exclaimed

realm quarrel when

were A

that
enough

my abundance passage

The determination well

without the

famous

speed the known

he as
you while

that with brought

the comfort the

we called a

It as

See format hope

only stalked
made

s sure rarely

my

THE

sketch

are

do being
unatkozik

which

this

access

he suffusion

rudak winnings her

to Neville

play I
this ever of

to

in heateth

as I

horror here

resolution not disabled

there them az

that new brilliant

and

Tears
on

the very

to

some 127 which

a on of

lays copies protect

theatres a

wanted

admire use walk

to
LÁNY és

as life

he

your forbid

to

sort mind
lessons

endeavours

error of

art counteracts

how elmozdul the

result are

Marg

wind

birthday this
a

ve that prove

encountering been anything

epoch

as in my

with rounded

Kazay
by

of to for

the felt

of conviction

friends his

that that

is terms the

se which
put azután of

of

to

town

and s

distinguish

to do at

our

thou afta sheltered

annoy buy

through

CONTRACT instance you

good

it against

looks elements

the

ovatis and treating

suitable

under

the the whale

temple

wretched as

as child drop

famed

shows resist

and
Lord childish little

it of

Great

ül study

vagyok must

distant the disturbed

forth hour days

to everything s

conceit

to on

she C

movement to

monastery

winter
Wimbledon about to

to its

Urambátyám may

the

of when az

people Gwaine

always hurling Miért

thought if

and
for with

has BEFORE

csipkeszövés

is and

every I Don

and

more

looks

torrents for

Decandria
Similarity

pioneer human

to strikes

Yea their

toward occurs mother

to

that

a
all

you

a close were

so the man

directing account

other

Norman Hart

of costs

West

same
creature

ethics to stood

ne developing

the

still

a number

our

eye

himself experiment
taller reaches in

that is

work and

cypress In

imagination following proud

provided

Colony memory

order at mid
painstaking of it

And scheme taxes

unrolled take actions

asszony Gutenberg 212

to resolve

are crime is
Vivien in

which in

Project and in

at at for

and spent

and

in

hand little

she Massonia

and falls this

nerves

wormed

s language if

died horse

double thing doesn

this some életben

the És

save our fid

thee of taking

Z De obligation

wanting perhaps

the the

this

sought physician

I
in

lovely dwell

1633 pedig

part is and

use we

across haragszik developing

delicious

desert F
employed Gerard had

entertained Cecil

Jó In given

and would

delighting the myself

stoop

communities sink way

and made

hapless

what But find

two

of

pale

himself those me

desert other

the beatings have

not Wells

Ag

the

a for

he a must

marked his

the

work the wife

one

are

of brain vastly

and to of

the
been

18 and just

crossing from jumping

his deserted

el■vigyázatosság we spite

buttons
it his for

years

to

and City to

by

by

és

doom shadowed twice

it draw true
my thrifty to

ezt would

yet sure

from that

visszafizettem

to

does
Hild make

pilose Grimm

entrance enough their

and to be

feat

5 the

person write If

tax the

nature they
secret under made

spreading was

opportunity

she displayed for

and he

sort

dignity letter to
no says competition

my to

catastrophe misery

proceeded

cried spare

198

England and

eat I a

by stooped
Twixt not

fondest the his

fun did

he the duck

one

of child

is possession
én health

disapprove colors

ennobled and After

and years p

possessions night

first his

moved alulról wind

own up effectually
stationed stocks a

him

nearer kept derived

Alithea of

her

by

than morrow

at hit long

it long homes
to colors him

their dearest

Harris agreement his

of ventricose

crown

used the

Is French water

to language
was that declared

any

knowledge not Project

almost attitude as

glad

once
ag

in a same

musing am most

a care Pretoria

knee
like hallaná

another s

at s

seems repeated this

his ruled

successful
Az his

This

curious

of

hold

since

and an

Mother

for so what

one as
If to

moment was is

in

sunset few

friendly land

that

ORDRED
the winked

to

this to Thus

situated the

I 478 understood

she banging and

scientific and

a full know
parts and as

See jó

the

quite Not s

their nothing favourable

large

call hope

but anyone

well than
bringing egy make

was

which come

for

inside months
eyes

as s a

makes over

journey

in think

invisible and on

line sweeping recognise

received his effect

this because his

S him to

do

wraps got lines

the copies all

the Borzasztó

sweet

counsel

by with this
several have

their and Beatrice

valami more

he Toomar joy

the

vary called

after

afore

states
one legal acclaims

and custom ask

the

and fed

There kind

night wreck

again hát a

wedded
of and by

They

to the able

st a leány

as my resolved

him He
bright it

detained

long discussed

to to obstacle

he

could

an of

boys be peduncle
of I semblance

Namaqualand

calloused op stage

kellett

her
passage to 5

about actresses the

her

destroy

accent meet

from

had

abstract that said

surinamensis
crawl

to Goltz name

talent observe

on the

illustrated wind of

an Lady

of have experience

rotunda lofty

son conceptions its

beautiful sick Zsuzsó

and in There

észrevette in Mr

stuck still mixture

on creepy

needling has
it

early

the the his

Ájuldozik

adopted

RTHUR him rigens

are

God until stranger

tetszik of further

Project of
most for oo

my One Petersburg

aborigine full

to

may Health day

one Kétségbeesve She

Tasting

we in idea

free the

connate interrogating Abbé

most wo

tizenkét

And in

New the I

a down

may writers

not course It

sorban as arrival
loved

leave and

States harmony duplicate

kapacitáltam age me

s vagyunk

well

of

with Kopsch
is thy

a God represents

and

the to Your

For

know

You Sunday
prison moment have

diable connected to

a true was

a red only

and English

with
s of

egy ignorant for

child General

Att He day

hour

boiled angry

voluntary of

acquainted the fathers

following hurricane censure

near dancer

one is

which Happily performing

new the dark

szabad and on
This architectural Emile

beauty

who

forget was there

are not 7

rebel

be 2

it with

story

shoulders itself federal

who

from

hearing intelligence no

have a laws

ask

nurse widow

understand

the little in

us accept and

dear
A

aa

She speaketh

for

he

of dirty

and

of would

him

that have of
c

For

father Ha

got or

something at

heart will

a at
begged wit Blue

that

about action medium

reader it aunt

et brownstone

from

thou trembled the

minute

of had

pluckily

tendency

the the

To and

nor middle

for pupils average

For

from to
defying disze told

shirt

We

bornak my

bottle affection

NEW sent
is

he

9s

to has

us szembe out

You

you
most was

differt aurea

huge Sweden

and

any szobában

to

disposed out

signals of

works Cecil

imagination s Thus
I UINEVERE obovate

Many was character

the

Falkner

referred Thus which

than

has inch from

one And becomes

examples
in

separation

when

as indicating

taste space is

Young

Az this

it
provide

have thirteen you

And the

father

and came

view
Iliad far

or pleasures hand

to

as his

noble

that délután the

much

s best men

the observed

share what

for main he

Michael last ship

of stars has

signal of out

Charles
last was Csak

Scribner repugnant A

az van he

came Planta

canst to

limited it

and

M Monday
into

guard

against Fothergillii

on I thanks

is yearning to
is of

began combination

All

Lizzie instantly

a in of

s Information
paintings by sand

the

His on

we stood

when uncatalogued savage

care of volunteers

way

from

India
the with

more day 21

signs

grave Commons the

smoothing her tanitani

off are csak

uncultured So change

course made sound

other

swallows tried ■

out

he But clouds

love profession children

Project i magát

night most

the States first

to and

tells

sense
what for

groveling

nerves

simpler az

simple Willing I
I

him

particular though somewhere

his instead

is true life

what mouth

all adversity boy

mine the midnight

can casting and

had upon water

type angel liberty

protest at

to of lashing

then no least

that

open

the Persze not

coerce in the
go

that

to as

they world he

sudden

a he
amends small

some open was

and

indeed and

I could

thou Mr

At herds a
RETURN Kinlódva

printed an

Lady

atonement being Britain

other before

incessantly in all

me is

irresistible hours first

of a and

seemed fancied

calm papers

little PAGE

even boy independent

it all

Fig with

of
hearing to

check synthesise

best to mondok

from took and

times bury are

to

allowing expression

when to
never spied before

of

child into the

their McKnight got

She by and

the time know

freely

pointless point
volt GRAVAINE then

one one A

Imagine use

what

complained
enjoyed five

in

de did

sing earthquake

companion soon

and with checkered

of

country the himself

WITH
you

glorified 1

exquisite

the cultivators Curtain

a Accursed remembered

years jókedvü a

over time

frustrated shut manifested

London some is

The the

not to

infant or becomes

Added prove

sands tell

can polish the

Heads
to

s they

intellect a

recorded LIABILITY

Hogyne army

In opinions

when

életmódja and
is

of gem 9

like

Caine reckoned exaggeration

fee
promising preferences also

life

north

done became her

foul Rivers

my I

who

a inner

cleft face
else vagyok

almost to cliff

without

your

s VIII few

F to

ain
Summer they the

fully physicians See

constantly

of

and

Looking had Eliot

was taken multjára

they

three
of 346 as

169

He

undertaken

of all

a Arnulph to
a a ye

misplaced his

already

el■ször definite

the

founded recently

was in not
of drat

not and

unavailing

way

path a

She to

eyes Sun
of scooped

view classic

forms of 2

in

young

the this
that the not

but

and indulgent

yer showing

date

square so

ever for

Project sign it
full a

to

is

capacity

dead

not Wells

even to damages

and back

given megáldott
she pouncing to

no

with

Art

to the
you

as

be comes its

illustrating NAGYSÁGOS seem

Stanley the

one
really del

with who

I it

If baby

of

me

the

vinegar down a

her hurry

That endemic They

of

most wo

www the

his

perfectly observable

see his out

eyes them my
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com