I’ve been watching a video documentation of Two Origins by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer: it’s a projection of two texts against the city hall at the Place du Capitole in Toulouse, in 2002, and each text is projected from a different angle, so they’re illegible until someone walks in front of one of the projectors, allowing the other text to be read in her shadow. I read about it at Ratchet Up, which is a cornucopia of wonderful links to digital art, and where there are lots of links to Lozano-Hemmer’s other works.

two originsWhat fascinates me most about the video is how people are playing with the installation. The square is busy, it’s nighttime, people are happy, and there’s laughter and chance passers by and people jumping up and down admiring each other’s shadows. Perhaps they would have enjoyed the shadow games even without the texts. I can’t read the words, watching the video, but there’s both beauty and pleasure in letters in light and shadow, and in laughter. Norwegian electronic art in public spaces is mostly far less interactive than this, with the exception of a few of the sound works, though it’s also more durable: Two Origins was only displayed for a week or two during a festival. But this work needs an audience to be activated. I like that.

Lozano-Hemmer has done the same thing with images, so probably it’s the concept more than the text that interests him. Yet the text chosen is conceptually interesting: it’s the two versions of the origins of the universe believed in by the Cathars of the 13th century. They were condemned as heretics and annihilated by the crusades, the video’s preliminary writing explains, the idea of duality, two simultaneous possibilities, was presumably too much for a monotheistic religion. In Lozano-Hemmer’s use of the texts, the two viewed at once are illegible, and either one can only be read if the other is obscured. It can be read as both a celebration of the beauty of duality and a denial of duality’s ability to make sense.

Imagine the wealth of stories you could put into a concept like this. My mind, of course, turns to love and hate: his story, her story, incompatible, illegible if viewed together, but if you ignore one side the other can be comprehended, at least in part, for a brief moment until you move. But what happens if you put such an intimate tale into huge letters in a public space?

Interaction is important for Lozano-Hemmer: in his latest project, Amodal Suspension, people will be able to send each other messages in the sky using a website or mobile phone talking with the artwork’s server, but “rather than being sent directly, the messages will be encoded as unique sequences of flashes and sent to the sky with a network of 20 robotically-controlled searchlights.” Beautiful, isn’t it?

Two Origins has something in common with Noah Wardrip-Fruin, Camille Utterback, Clilly Castiglia and Nathan Wardrip-Fruin’s Talking Cure, where three layers of text are revealed in turn and against each other as a camera captures the movements of the reader’s face. In Talking Cure the texts are more intimate, and the levels, the text, and the reflection of the reader’s face are more complex, yet the openness and monumentality of projecting electronic writing in a city square fascinates me. What happens if writers as well as artists (Lozano-Hemmer, Jenny Holzer) think that big?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “two origins

  1. mark H

    i saw his Body Movies at last years’ Ars Electronica, my friends and I had great fun casting our shadows on the buildings in the town square of Linz! the thing that struck me most of all about that work, was not so much the relation between the images and the interaction with them, more the way people imposed their character on the buildings via the shadows, which felt like a reversal of what architecture often achieves – casting its character on those around them. And the interaction between complete strangers in making small shadow plays! fun and thoughtful – more art like that please, artists.

  2. join-the-dots

    amodal suspension

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.