Manifest (13.09.19: v0.0.2)
mpaacc is a multipresent exhibition- and hacking space based on Open Source technologies and varieties of anti-capitalism.
mpaacc consist of a decentralised architecture, and a client serving sound and image. The client can be deployed by anyone as a physical fork and thereby occur in any form and place.
The structure of the curatorial board of mpaacc is flat and draws on (ontological) anarchist ideologies.
mpaacc is anti-aggressive, meaning avoiding all types of expectations that cause emotional aggression in hominids, for example; market value.
mpaacc unites the internet by file availability and hacking censorship. For mpaacc borders do not exist. A list of IP addresses will be provided.
mpaacc has no owner, and in mpaacc nobody is an owner. mpaacc is communal computing.
mpaacc is occurring and passing. Hence proposes activity as its primary form.
mpaacc does not consider value, but images. Images in which they have been engraved into the data-chain will be traces of the past.
Becoming an inhibitor of mpaacc means becoming an image. You will situate in our networks beyond the control of hominids. You will shutdown and accelerate, over and over again.
![]()
fig. x2 excerpt from Meta at infiltration 2. 51.4698555,-0.06522284422128638, 8 May 2019, 19:45 GMT+0. Sound and vision of inhibitors Panser Kone, Suzic, Ill Ill, id-9781, Meta, A Body Which Does Not Move Is A Dead Body, Fatemah Kazemi, Tom Chisholm, Theodor Præst Nymark Jensen
mpaacc is a multipresent exhibition- and hacking space based on Open Source technologies and varieties of anti-capitalism.
mpaacc consist of a decentralised architecture, and a client serving sound and image. The client can be deployed by anyone as a physical fork and thereby occur in any form and place.
The structure of the curatorial board of mpaacc is flat and draws on (ontological) anarchist ideologies.
mpaacc is anti-aggressive, meaning avoiding all types of expectations that cause emotional aggression in hominids, for example; market value.
mpaacc unites the internet by file availability and hacking censorship. For mpaacc borders do not exist. A list of IP addresses will be provided.
mpaacc has no owner, and in mpaacc nobody is an owner. mpaacc is communal computing.
mpaacc is occurring and passing. Hence proposes activity as its primary form.
mpaacc does not consider value, but images. Images in which they have been engraved into the data-chain will be traces of the past.
Becoming an inhibitor of mpaacc means becoming an image. You will situate in our networks beyond the control of hominids. You will shutdown and accelerate, over and over again.
Text
SEPTEMBER 5, 2021 | excerpt
[...] intepretation is betrayal [...]
APRIL 1, 2021 | excerpt
Current activities include collaborative and non-owned etchings (collaborative etching), which is an anti-thesis on how printmaking and intaglio are concentrated today, in commercial workshops and dedicated printers, printing for other artists. Motifs, text, diagrams, transdisciplinary and unconventional methods will be etched into ‘the copper plate as an exhibition space’. A kind of computed copper plate, smeared with etching primer and scratched with a plotter.
MARCH 17 , 2021 | excerpt
The exhibition was called Safehouse similar to the name of the exhibition space itself, hosted with fellow artists from Chelsea College of Art. In here the initialization of mpaacc found place, in which a decentralised and non-commercial network of audio and video was presented, with its first Inhibitor being presented as a sort of volunteer letting go of their control . In the exhibition visitors witnessed another exposition taking shape: an infilitration in the form of a lump of clay under a worn-out fireplace.
The space is ideological and anarchist from its birth, in which no owners exists, at least from an ontological aspect. This is tightly connected to Bey’s Temporary Autonmous Zone, in which violance and destruction is not an answer, rather the action of dissappereance and reappearence without the states knowledge of having ever existed.
At the same time mpaacc is an intangible computer that is primarily collaborative, occuring in many forms. All contributions are registered with the name of the inhibitor and the inhibitors are free to fork mpaacc themselves. It can occur in any form and place. There is an amount of contradiction which is necessary to acknowledge.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 | excerpt
multipresent anti-aggressive communal computer or 'the computer that never mattered' occured in the form of a pile of clay in a communal studio in London back in 2018. Shortly after infiltrating exhibition space Safehouse 1 & 2 with uninvited artists engraved into its peer-to-peer network. The weekend after it occured in Hampstead Heath with sound made especially for the insects. Months later it was briefly noticed in a fresh water oasis in a canyon in Greece, but has not been seen since. It seemed it had somehow dissolved in the oasis. One year later with no signs of activity mpaacc hosted the thumb project of exposition as an anti-authoritarian stakeholder, and soon in book form for 'In search of primordial technics I' that also describes itself in further detail as an ‘ex-object’.
JULY 06, 2020 | excerpt
The activation and presentation were initiated and performed by a pile of clay under a wornout fireplace. The synthetic voice coming out of the pile of clay was the cloned voice of the first inhibitor, A. The voice would transform over time, merging cloned voices of inhibitors, literally creating ‘a shared voice’.
[...]
To proceed with the thread of thinking of the ‘ex’ (e.g., exposition, examine, exterior, experiment, exterior, existence, extension) as have been undergoing various resonances throughout this text (in search of primordial technics I), mpaacc can be examined as an ex-object.
An ex-object refer back to non-object, un-object, post-object, immaterial object, dematerialised object, objects as events. Or preferably object, if the following engagement was implied. Ex-object is useful to proceed the thread of thinking, however, also useful in its own terms, as an eventual non-existing object, ex nihilo, or occurring in other scenarios throughout this text, such as an object in exposition. These compound words of object have been collected dating back to 1960s conceptualism, showing that the turn away from the physical object has been examined for decades, with various ideas mirrored in these compound words of object.
Dematerialisation was coined in the late 1960s in The Dematerialization of Art. In this text, the authors examine the ultra-conceptual object, in which the idea is the most important overall, and the object’s physicality becomes obsolete. Dematerialisation was seen as a reduction, withdrawal, or complete negation of material, or rather physicality, although the conceptual artists and thinkers realised that the dematerialised work was material after all. The physicalities were still present, then consisting of other forms, e.g., space, documents, found objects, language, facts, and other relations, which could now be considered ‘installation’. The work embodied their own ideas, in this way emphasising these compared to the objects in themselves, and this was mostly how dematerialisation came about. This was criticised, and with the expectation of complete negation of material, it generated discrepancy and eventually, the discourse hit a wall. Recently it has become a doxa that plurality of materiality can exist beyond its direct connection to the physical object, and this has been reflected in ontologies, earlier mentioned, even turning the focus from plurality to totality, hence that the object does not necessarily have to be physical, rather made up of interconnected machines, objects, that affect.
Recently, dematerialisation, or preferably immateriality, has commonly being discussed in the terms of computing, digitisation, and especially networks. It is useful in a historical context, however, this practice of lining up specific structures of engineering can be problematic, due to the limitation of the subject. There is various reasons for this, among other, bias (e.g., technophobes and technophiles), and is not productive for constructive examination. Instead of examining the ex-object, in the context of computing, digitisation, networks, and other structures of engineering, it can be examined by the immediate engagement with the object and the engagement in itself, focusing on activity, and not necessarily outcome. The structures of engineering or outcome that occurred, conceivably for economic gain, could be secondary to the immediate affect in which the object also exists. This could be happening in conjunction with technics, inspecting the abstract couplings, relations, new uses, and the exposition which is at hand. This practice would imply a progressive approach, in which interconnected actors could not expect answers, however, generation of new questions. Furthermore, this opening could be an engine of transgression, retranscribing objects into unexpected entities, subjects, new uses, and being-with. A generative and caring engagement with machines and objects.
mpaacc is a computer, overwhelmingly immaterial and abstract, occurring and passing, hence proposes engagement and activity as primary. However, it is still material, material in transgression.
_
«fork» as taking a copy of source code from a project with the intention to do independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of the same project.
«synthetic voice» as in speech synthesis: the artificial production of human speech.
“Real-Time-Voice-Cloning”. Source code at https:// github.com/CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning. MIT License.
Lippard, L., Chandler, J. 1968. the dematerialization of art. Art International, 12:2 (February 1968), pp. 31-36.
«immateriality» has recently been used to examine concepts of totality.
«dematerialisation» has been used to indicate negation of material in the arts for decades, somehow compromising this term. Instead of reclaiming dematerialisation, immateriality can indicate transgression of the concept of material (e.g., as totality) as a crucial starting point.
Deleuze, G., Parnet, C., trans. Tomlinson, H., trans. Habberjam, B. 1987. Dialogues. Columbia University Press “I have always felt that I am an empiricist... My empiricism is derived from the two characteristics by which Whitehead defined empiricism: the abstract does not explain, but must itself be explained; and the aim is not to rediscover the eternal or the universal, but to find the conditions under which something new is produced (creativeness).” — Deleuze
MAY 08, 2019 | excerpt
“... the first occurrence and physical fork of mpaacc. Become an inhibitor, a part of the curatorial board, or deploy a physical fork of mpaacc.
Manifest: [manifest]”
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 | excerpt
‘Communal’ (shared by all, also of conflict, members of a community; for common use) . What would a ‘Communal Computer’ look like? Together with the notion of (dis)connection in the usage of a computer and the computer as an exhibition space in which anything is possible. Not possible through taking over the state or through any other disruptive action, however, through a communal usage of the liberating possibilities of gaining control of the internet by transgressing it into analogue medium, peer-to-peer networks, creating alternative spaces, and hacking, in which the state does not notice the embodied activities through the action of dissappearing <> reappearing – disconnecting <> connecting – shutdown <> accelerate
Perhaps this could be a constructive type of a ‘communal computer’?
SEPTEMBER 5, 2021 | excerpt
[...] intepretation is betrayal [...]
APRIL 1, 2021 | excerpt
Current activities include collaborative and non-owned etchings (collaborative etching), which is an anti-thesis on how printmaking and intaglio are concentrated today, in commercial workshops and dedicated printers, printing for other artists. Motifs, text, diagrams, transdisciplinary and unconventional methods will be etched into ‘the copper plate as an exhibition space’. A kind of computed copper plate, smeared with etching primer and scratched with a plotter.
MARCH 17 , 2021 | excerpt
The exhibition was called Safehouse similar to the name of the exhibition space itself, hosted with fellow artists from Chelsea College of Art. In here the initialization of mpaacc found place, in which a decentralised and non-commercial network of audio and video was presented, with its first Inhibitor being presented as a sort of volunteer letting go of their control . In the exhibition visitors witnessed another exposition taking shape: an infilitration in the form of a lump of clay under a worn-out fireplace.
The space is ideological and anarchist from its birth, in which no owners exists, at least from an ontological aspect. This is tightly connected to Bey’s Temporary Autonmous Zone, in which violance and destruction is not an answer, rather the action of dissappereance and reappearence without the states knowledge of having ever existed.
At the same time mpaacc is an intangible computer that is primarily collaborative, occuring in many forms. All contributions are registered with the name of the inhibitor and the inhibitors are free to fork mpaacc themselves. It can occur in any form and place. There is an amount of contradiction which is necessary to acknowledge.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 | excerpt
multipresent anti-aggressive communal computer or 'the computer that never mattered' occured in the form of a pile of clay in a communal studio in London back in 2018. Shortly after infiltrating exhibition space Safehouse 1 & 2 with uninvited artists engraved into its peer-to-peer network. The weekend after it occured in Hampstead Heath with sound made especially for the insects. Months later it was briefly noticed in a fresh water oasis in a canyon in Greece, but has not been seen since. It seemed it had somehow dissolved in the oasis. One year later with no signs of activity mpaacc hosted the thumb project of exposition as an anti-authoritarian stakeholder, and soon in book form for 'In search of primordial technics I' that also describes itself in further detail as an ‘ex-object’.
JULY 06, 2020 | excerpt
The activation and presentation were initiated and performed by a pile of clay under a wornout fireplace. The synthetic voice coming out of the pile of clay was the cloned voice of the first inhibitor, A. The voice would transform over time, merging cloned voices of inhibitors, literally creating ‘a shared voice’.
[...]
To proceed with the thread of thinking of the ‘ex’ (e.g., exposition, examine, exterior, experiment, exterior, existence, extension) as have been undergoing various resonances throughout this text (in search of primordial technics I), mpaacc can be examined as an ex-object.
An ex-object refer back to non-object, un-object, post-object, immaterial object, dematerialised object, objects as events. Or preferably object, if the following engagement was implied. Ex-object is useful to proceed the thread of thinking, however, also useful in its own terms, as an eventual non-existing object, ex nihilo, or occurring in other scenarios throughout this text, such as an object in exposition. These compound words of object have been collected dating back to 1960s conceptualism, showing that the turn away from the physical object has been examined for decades, with various ideas mirrored in these compound words of object.
Dematerialisation was coined in the late 1960s in The Dematerialization of Art. In this text, the authors examine the ultra-conceptual object, in which the idea is the most important overall, and the object’s physicality becomes obsolete. Dematerialisation was seen as a reduction, withdrawal, or complete negation of material, or rather physicality, although the conceptual artists and thinkers realised that the dematerialised work was material after all. The physicalities were still present, then consisting of other forms, e.g., space, documents, found objects, language, facts, and other relations, which could now be considered ‘installation’. The work embodied their own ideas, in this way emphasising these compared to the objects in themselves, and this was mostly how dematerialisation came about. This was criticised, and with the expectation of complete negation of material, it generated discrepancy and eventually, the discourse hit a wall. Recently it has become a doxa that plurality of materiality can exist beyond its direct connection to the physical object, and this has been reflected in ontologies, earlier mentioned, even turning the focus from plurality to totality, hence that the object does not necessarily have to be physical, rather made up of interconnected machines, objects, that affect.
Recently, dematerialisation, or preferably immateriality, has commonly being discussed in the terms of computing, digitisation, and especially networks. It is useful in a historical context, however, this practice of lining up specific structures of engineering can be problematic, due to the limitation of the subject. There is various reasons for this, among other, bias (e.g., technophobes and technophiles), and is not productive for constructive examination. Instead of examining the ex-object, in the context of computing, digitisation, networks, and other structures of engineering, it can be examined by the immediate engagement with the object and the engagement in itself, focusing on activity, and not necessarily outcome. The structures of engineering or outcome that occurred, conceivably for economic gain, could be secondary to the immediate affect in which the object also exists. This could be happening in conjunction with technics, inspecting the abstract couplings, relations, new uses, and the exposition which is at hand. This practice would imply a progressive approach, in which interconnected actors could not expect answers, however, generation of new questions. Furthermore, this opening could be an engine of transgression, retranscribing objects into unexpected entities, subjects, new uses, and being-with. A generative and caring engagement with machines and objects.
mpaacc is a computer, overwhelmingly immaterial and abstract, occurring and passing, hence proposes engagement and activity as primary. However, it is still material, material in transgression.
_
«fork» as taking a copy of source code from a project with the intention to do independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of the same project.
«synthetic voice» as in speech synthesis: the artificial production of human speech.
“Real-Time-Voice-Cloning”. Source code at https:// github.com/CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning. MIT License.
Lippard, L., Chandler, J. 1968. the dematerialization of art. Art International, 12:2 (February 1968), pp. 31-36.
«immateriality» has recently been used to examine concepts of totality.
«dematerialisation» has been used to indicate negation of material in the arts for decades, somehow compromising this term. Instead of reclaiming dematerialisation, immateriality can indicate transgression of the concept of material (e.g., as totality) as a crucial starting point.
Deleuze, G., Parnet, C., trans. Tomlinson, H., trans. Habberjam, B. 1987. Dialogues. Columbia University Press “I have always felt that I am an empiricist... My empiricism is derived from the two characteristics by which Whitehead defined empiricism: the abstract does not explain, but must itself be explained; and the aim is not to rediscover the eternal or the universal, but to find the conditions under which something new is produced (creativeness).” — Deleuze
MAY 08, 2019 | excerpt
“... the first occurrence and physical fork of mpaacc. Become an inhibitor, a part of the curatorial board, or deploy a physical fork of mpaacc.
Manifest: [manifest]”
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 | excerpt
‘Communal’ (shared by all, also of conflict, members of a community; for common use) . What would a ‘Communal Computer’ look like? Together with the notion of (dis)connection in the usage of a computer and the computer as an exhibition space in which anything is possible. Not possible through taking over the state or through any other disruptive action, however, through a communal usage of the liberating possibilities of gaining control of the internet by transgressing it into analogue medium, peer-to-peer networks, creating alternative spaces, and hacking, in which the state does not notice the embodied activities through the action of dissappearing <> reappearing – disconnecting <> connecting – shutdown <> accelerate
Perhaps this could be a constructive type of a ‘communal computer’?