Exhibition Revision Plan: The Interwoven Narrative of Time-Based Media and Intimate Power Dynamics
Theoretical Framework: Inspired by Marcus Jack’s lecture on curating time-based media and Erika Balsom’s reflections on the materiality of moving images, this revision integrates “temporality” and “power dynamics” through “ephemeral mediums” and “data self-destruction mechanisms”, transforming the exhibition into a critique of intimacy in the digital age.
- Entrance: Biometric Contract and the Genesis of Power Imprints
Upon entering, visitors place their palms on a “biometric sensor”, converting real-time body heat into abstract color blocks projected onto a dynamic grid titled ‘Power Fingerprints’. Drawing from Laura Mulvey’s concept of “film curating as montage,” this act frames the body as a site of biopolitical negotiation. A discreet on-screen annotation—“Your body heat fuels tonight’s narrative”—echoes Dan Ward’s critique in ‘The Politics of Production’, exposing the invisible labor of data extraction: “surveillance begins with a handshake”.
- Main Bar: Liquid Narratives and Data Cremation Rituals
Replacing the original sandpaper table, the “Digital Ashes Altar” dominates the space. When visitors order cocktails (e.g., ‘Klimt’s Gold’), their consumption patterns (sipping speed, dwell time) generate keywords (‘control’, ‘dependency’) projected onto a central screen. Every 30 minutes, these words combust in pixelated flames, dissolving into ASCII “ash” that cascades into a virtual archive in the basement. Inspired by Raymond Bellour’s ‘Analysis in Flames’, the open-source code for this animation flickers at the screen’s edge—“a reminder that emotional data, like alcohol, is flammable and never truly anonymous”.
- Circular Projection Zone: Time Slices and Montage Violence
The former power network diagram evolves into a “Time-Sliced Projection Wall”, looping curated artist films from UbuWeb and LUX: Sophie Calle’s ‘Take Care of Yourself’ (fragmented readings of breakup letters) and Martha Rosler’s ‘Semiotics of the Kitchen’ (mechanical domestic gestures), each truncated by 10 seconds of black screen. Motion sensors pause playback as visitors approach, revealing a “digital epitaph”—file format, copyright status, restoration history. Scannable QR codes offer downloadable clips that self-destruct in 24 hours, embodying Jacob King’s warning: “Digital distribution’s democratic promise is cultural evaporation in disguise.”
- Basement: Expired Memories and Noise Archaeology
Adjacent to the ashes archive, the “Expired Memory Server”—a USB drive shaped like a vintage cassette—invites visitors to record 1-minute voice memos (confessions, arguments, silences). Files tagged with “Rot in 7 Days” degrade algorithmically into magnetic tape noise, blending into an industrial soundscape reminiscent of Tramway’s raw acoustics. This nod to Raymond Bellour’s “time as corrosive agent” mocks digital media’s “nostalgic fetishization of analog decay”. Visitors don infrared glasses to glimpse fragmented texts that blur with body heat, echoing Mike Kelley’s axiom: “Intimacy is an unfinished archive, perpetually rewriting itself into oblivion.”
Simplification: Sharpening Temporal Critique
The removal of the sandpaper table and thermochromic contract wall streamlines the focus on “temporal power structures”. Now, the lifecycle of data (‘generation-cremation-degradation’) dissects intimacy into three acts:
- Genesis of Power: Body heat as biopolitical currency.
- Consumption of Control: Alcohol and data as twin addictions.
- Dissolution of Authority: Self-destruction and noise negate permanence.
Visitor Journey and Theoretical Closure
Each interaction becomes a chronological rebellion:
- Downloading self-destructing files confronts the fragility of digital trust.
- Listening to decaying audio exposes memory’s inherent unreliability.
- Watching keywords burn renders power’s ephemerality visceral.
Final Manifesto:
> “When intimacy becomes time-based media, we are all temporary data vessels. Body heat cools in sensors, files expire in servers, and power oscillates eternally between combustion and rebirth. This exhibition offers no answers—only the loop.”
By anchoring the experience in temporality, this revision transforms theory into tangible media experiments. Visitors confront the paradox of intimacy: a dance of control and surrender, etched into every passing second.
Beichen Huang（黄 北辰）
24 March 2025 — 11:58
To Zihan Fu(Zephyr):
I’m really glad to have the chance to further discuss your curatorial project—we briefly talked about it before.
Your exhibition is a critically powerful experiment on intimacy. From the use of “alcohol consumption to generate and burn keywords” (Week 5) to the “tactile metaphors of violence through sandpaper and tape” (Week 6), you’ve gradually constructed a multi-layered and constantly evolving theatrical space. I especially appreciated your changes in Week 8, where you simplified the process. As we discussed before: overly complex procedures can undermine the curatorial theme. Not only did you make necessary changes, but you also declared them with clarity—which is excellent!
From your descriptions, I can envision a force field where intimacy becomes something touchable, perceptible, and even retaliatory—interwoven through anonymity, thermal sensors, and data self-destruction. In this entanglement of technology, the body, and emotional presence, your exhibition does not only present intimacy—it reveals its mechanisms of control and consumption.
I particularly admire your statement in Week 6: “This is not liberation, but a meticulously designed power game—technology becomes the new curator, and the audience becomes complicit through the expenditure of body heat.” It powerfully echoes Claire Bishop’s critique in Artificial Hells of “passive freedom” in participatory art, and subverts Nicolas Bourriaud’s ideal of touch as egalitarian connection—you used sandpaper and adhesive tape to show that touch can comfort, but also wound.
That said, I think there are TWO aspects that could be further developed:
1. How does your curatorial mechanism convey your core argument?
Your project may need to reconsider the threshold of comprehension for your audience. Your use of theory is rich and well-integrated—from Erika Balsom’s reflections on the temporality of moving images (Week 8) to Boris Groys’ idea of the “audience as trigger of events” (Week 6). However, the exhibition shifts rapidly between the bodily dimension of intimacy and the temporal logic of digital power, which might overwhelm some visitors. Perhaps some supporting tools, such as a curatorial guide or didactic panels, could assist in grounding these transitions?
2. Can your curatorial process be realistically completed?
You might also need to reflect on the feasibility of your participation flow. The tiered structure you proposed in Week 6—where visitors must complete the “Frida’s Vein” cocktail challenge to receive a Wooclap code, and only then enter the anonymous dialogue booth—does align with Bishop’s notion of antagonistic participation, but it may also create feelings of exclusion.
As Shannon Jackson states in Social Works, the ethics of participatory art lie not in constructing barriers, but in building “supportive structures.” Could you integrate “buffer pathways” or “alternative routes” within your system, allowing audiences different ways to access the core experience? This is, after all, a bar—how will you encourage participants to engage with your curatorial vision, rather than abandoning it midway due to fatigue, disinterest, or confusion? And practically speaking, how will you acquire the necessary equipment and software? Are there precedents, or at least some demonstrable proof of feasibility?
Overall, this is an impressively developed and highly original curatorial project—one that challenges not only the boundaries of exhibition space but the boundaries of emotion itself. I genuinely look forward to seeing how you continue to explore the ethics of “temporary power” in future curatorial work.
Here’s the link to my own curatorial reflection blog. I may update the content further, but if you’re curious and want to discuss, feel free to check it out: https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/s2558598_curating-2024-2025sem2/2025/03/24/peer-review-of-zihan-fuzephyr/