A truly objective scientists tear

A scientist tear 
A true scientist has 180° objective vision. 

 You can test the state of ‘true objectivity’ by the radius of the curvature of the scientists’ tear. The curvature of any truly objective scientists’ tear adapts its refractive index to the circumstances at hand: at any given moment, it offers a 180° angle of incidence on the vertical and horizontal. Besides this, a truly objective scientist can pivot between equatorial and polar vision. This gives a scientist clear, inclusive vision on any subject.

 I guess this is common knowledge, however, here is something maybe not everyone knows: if you know the exact date and time of the extraction of the truly objective scientists’ tear, and know the hemisphere the tear hails from, you can deduce the exact location of where the scientist shed the tear! 
 This is because any truly objective scientists’ tear not only facilitates true objective vision, by adapting to curve of the angle of incidence, but also hetero-normatizes the chrominance of the lights’ wavelengths, to make sure there are no unwanted colour aberrations in the truly objective scientists perception. A truly objective scientists’ tear polarises the light to precisely index any frequency changes in the spectre of chrominance, given any moment of the day. So whether its Sunset or Twilight, the truly objective scientists’ tear adapts, and in doing so, provides an objective, untainted perspective, no matter the time of day or geolocation. When the tear is shed, these geospecific attributes of the tear will remain. 

 If you ever find yourself in the situation where you have to test the true objectivity of a scientist, abstract their tears! And if it is a truly objective scientist, don’t worry about making them cry! As a matter of fact, because of the state of the world, any remotely objective scientist is crying at any moment of the day anyway.

*A truly objective scientists tear is a holy grail


Living Earth, now printed on dead trees!

Living Earth (printed on dead trees)
Living Earth - Field Notes from the Dark Ecology Project 2014 - 2016 is available now, and includes my interview with Heather Davis about queer kinship and plastics.

In the interview, Davis calls for a recalibration of politics, to reconsider the relations of the Western human to time, space and plastics. Davis states that in essence, the narrative of the human has to become less a narrative of mastery, but instead move towards ethical engagement and responsibility. "Queer kinship makes us aware of the responsibility we have towards the beings we create, and those that live and die, including humans and nonhumans."
The whole interview covers 7 pages of Davis' thought provoking perspectives on our other, queer relations to plastics. Living Earth also has a cover photo by me : )

In less than two weeks we will undertake the final Dark Ecology journey into the Barents region. This time it will not be dark; above the polar circle the days of light are already breaking. During this final journey, we will also visit the Kola Superdeep Borehole, which is an absolute dream of mine..
Arie Altena did a wonderful podcast about the KSB last year, and also wrote this research series on the subject.


//2008-2015 portfolio

For the last years I have been trying to reposition my practice into the realms of Resolution Studies. With this move I am trying to uncover where the expectations that lie at the bedrocks of the perceived glitch come from. In my opinion, resolutions should not just be understood as an agreed upon setting or solution, that are set by the actors that have for instance economical or political motivations. In fact, resolutions also inhabit a space of compromise. 
I can illustrate this very simply with an example from the realm of video, which is still stuck within the quadrilateral interface. Because of the video standards, set through resolutions, the history and material of video forecloses anything beyond these four corners. And while resolution studies is closely connected to for instance protocological and material research, it creates space for these other, speculative implementations. 
This is why in 2015 I started the iRD, which consist of institutions that propagate the studies and disputes of resolutions. Through these resolution studies, I aim create an awareness of the compromises set by the resolutions inherent to our media and in doing so, I hope and intend to bring back some form of authorship to the layers of resolution setting. 


Re-writing the Hack

Re-Writing the Hack Award
Last year (21 and 22 November 2015) I took part in Re-writing the Hack, a Women only Hackathon exploring the theme "Industrial and Post Industrial North East England". The hackathon was curated and produced by digital artist Shelly Knotts and curator Suzy O'Hara with support from Victoria Bradbury. It was a very interesting event - I have never worked in an all female environment and this is also likely not to happen again very often, but I really enjoyed the experience.

During the last years I edited a lot of artists’ and professors’ biographies. While doing this, I was struck by the difference in choice of words between male and females. For instance: while a ♂-professors’ prestigious achievements often span from (decade to decade), a ♀-professor is more likely to ‘teach her research interests’. 

For this project, Aude Charillon and I worked together on exploring more of the dynamics of this gendered bio-writing and at the end of the 2 days,  we presented our speed project, A Professors’ Vocabulary quiz.

To create the quiz Aude and I scraped biographies from the Northumbria University (a local university), which, at the time, had 91 male professors and 30 female professors in staff. Aude and I collected all words of interests in tables, separated per gender. From some of the most striking cases we build the quiz, which was meant as playful way to create more awareness of the choice of words when writing a biography. 

Here are some of questions
(to understand who wins the usage number, triple the female outcome value) 

Over (as in: « over so many years experience » or « written over [number] articles ») (♂: 64 vs ♀: 8)
Research(…) (♂: 443 vs ♀: 140)
Interest(…) (♂: 122 vs ♀: 636)
Teach(…) (♂: 132 vs ♀: 180) 
Lead  (♂: 49 vs ♀: 10)
Member (♂: 53 vs ♀: 32)
Expert (♂: 39 vs ♀:  9)
Award (♂: 43 vs ♀: 5)
Book, article, citation (♂: 45 vs ♀: 6)

The winners of the Re-writing the Hack bio-vocabulary quiz, won an award, graced with a special, prestigious biography

*************************☺͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͛☺ͅ☺ͅͅ☺ͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅͅͅͅ☺͓͚ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅͅ☺ͅͅͅ☺ͅͅ☺͉☺͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͛ ***********************