I hope you had a nice lunch break. Welcome back. So we're gonna start the afternoon session of this symposium with first talk by Fabien Schoeneich. And then Corri Arkenjil will join us on Zoom because as Bettina mentioned this morning, he was a bit sick and so wasn't able to attend in person. And he will join us for lecture performance online. And then we will end on a panel discussion with all of the participants, all of the contributors to the symposium moderated by Bettina Steinburger. So I'm gonna introduce Fabien. Fabien Schoeneich is the founder and director of CCA Berlin. He was previously curator at Porticus in Frankfurt where he realized numerous solo and group exhibitions with artists such as Minook Lim, Otobongan Konga, Lauren Sabohamdan or Amy Silman. He also curated the 2013 and 2014 editions of the List Art Fair Basel performance project featuring notably Adam Linder, Michael Dean and him of Ligia Louis among others. Fabien Schoeneich is also the editor of numerous publications and monographs. So I leave the floor to you, Fabien. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation. It's a pleasure being here and listening to amazing contributions. So I might repeat a few things but I'm hopefully adding a few other thoughts to the discussion around mageros. You can't drink milk all the time. It turns sour sometimes too. It's a quote that comes as we heard already from a notebook of mageros that was published in notebook series from 1995. It says, all paintings have to be painted anew. When I say all paintings then I mean all those paintings we know and we no longer want to see because they've had their day. You can't drink milk all the time. It turns sour sometimes too and because all painting is derived from influences of nature anyway, the natural process of renewal is inevitably at work here as well. It's all about inventing the invented. The violence of obstruction makes repeating unavoidable. Michel Mangeros was an artist of the present. Super young, super successful, super fast, super colorful, super different, super in many respects, but times change and so does the look at the work of a painter like Mangeros. The question of the symposium itself, what looks good today may not look tomorrow is basically the core of the whole discussion around Mangeros' practice. What are we talking about here? We're talking about the work of a painter who was born and raised in Luxembourg, studied in Stuttgart, lived in Berlin and the literal meaning of the word and in the end died much too early and tragically on his way to Luxembourg, a perfect circle, one could say. In a very short but intense career, Mangeros created a considerable body of work and was equally lucky, lucky in the sense of the people he met who were defining for his career and still are today. Also the exhibitions which he could realize must be highlighted. His first solo exhibition took place in 1992 at the Galerie Zellermeier in Berlin. Only four years later in 1996, he had his first major institutional solo exhibition at Kunsthalle Basel, which is a template for the current exhibition at Berlin's KW Institute for Contemporary Arts, which just opened recently. On the left hand side you see the Kunsthalle Basel installation view on the right hand side. An image from last Sundays. My personal gallery was to see the show, the floor is taken over by the Kunsthalle. There's different elements in the show that brings together early works as such, but it's quite nice to see both of these installation views together because it also probably is an interesting starting point for later to discuss how the work itself was not only shown again, but very much restaged as it was shown while he was alive. This symposium is dedicated to him and his work, and I will try to focus on how he worked and especially how he perceived his environment and translated it into an artistic practice. In doing so, I will propose to look at his work not only from an art historical perspective, but rather to emphasize the social and political qualities of his work. The work we're dealing with today is, as I said, extensive and yet limited. Perp's, that's why it's so powerful. We look at these paintings and installations and think, wow, they describe what characterized the 90s, techno, super graphics, computer games, and Berlin on the rise after reunification. All of Europe seemed to look at Berlin as the new capital, particularly for art. In Germany, it was formerly Cologne, but suddenly Berlin became the capital for new exciting art, ideas, and music. It was out with the old and in with the new and Magierus was an example of this, said Daniel Birnbaum in an earlier interview. The city itself was a blank canvas, the possibilities endless, and yet our perspective on that time has changed. So what were the 90s? Were they indeed formative, or was it a brief period of liberation that was really about nothing at all? A moment of relaxation, just having fun? Yes, and certainly in Berlin. This freedom runs through the work like a thread. Magierus tried things out, walked around Berlin, was inspired by just about everything. The sampling, which you always read about when discussing the artist's techniques may come from that. He brings it all together, mixing art history with popular culture. Magierus did not necessarily criticize the painting that came before him, rather he used it and put together what he needed. That way he didn't have to reinvent what was already there. He had a great fondness of 20th century painting, which was reflected in references to numerous and to be emphasized here exclusively male artists, including Andy Warhol, Frank Stella, Gerhard Richter, Schaumichel, Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Markworth, Kostigma Polke, Willem de Koning and his mentors, Kossuth and Sonderberg. Let's look at OT collaborations number eight here in the background. The general electric logo already existed. He used it and combined it with motifs from the joint works of Warhol and Basquiat, motifs that already existed as well, mix and match what belongs together, according to the artist. Magierus was not a painter who celebrated the classical artistic suffering in order to create the painting, rather he enjoyed life and transferred his liveliness to the surface of the picture, but also into the space. The canvas was not a boundary, but only one of many levels. The space, whether it was the exhibition space or the city itself, another. Friedrich Mecheter, former director of the Kunsthalle Bielefeld, describes his as Bilderstürmerisch. You have to destroy something to create something new. And Daniel Birnbaum elaborates, Magierus quoted the history of painting and its entirety, but he never moralized or indulged in melancholy reflections on the loss of authenticity. Instead, his work celebrated the profusion of images to which the history of art has given rise. The temporality of his work, I claimed and still do, is that of a floating, all-encompassing now, perhaps analogous to that of the internet. This being situated in the now, which Daniel Birnbaum speaks of here, becomes more and more relevant in the artist's work. And the more relevant it becomes, the more I think the reading of his early exhibition changes. What I'm interested in here are two questions. On one hand, I'm thinking about why his work so precisely reflects his time and is therefore still relevant today. The other question is whether his work is political. I think both questions are very close to each other. As I said in the 1990s, for a large part of the younger generation, it was about having fun. Of course, there was political protest and social change, but especially in Berlin, that should play a smaller role for a moment. To claim that today's time is more serious, sounds out of touch, nevertheless, we look at many things differently today or more consciously. We know that the art history we learned exclusively reflected a Western discourse. We not only think about equality, but actively try to implement it consistently. Although it is absurd that we are still trying and that it has not simply become a reality long ago. The world and its societies are more interconnected, and yet there's a global unease. The gap between rich and poor is widening very quickly and right-wing populism is making its way into many cabinets. And it is war. It actually began a year before Majero's death with the war in Afghanistan, then the Iraq war, which also contributed to political life in Europe. And since the beginning of the year, we live with the immediate consequences of the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine. And the role of art. We continue to question it and try to develop a social discourse in parallel. At least we know that the museum should not only collect and preserve, but also bring people together like today. Back to Majero's. Looking at his work, it's primarily form and color that jump out, but if we concentrate on what we see, we realize that Majero's didn't just use whatever he found, but he had a great talent to perceive very precisely his environment with a very clear focus on the youth culture of this time. Donkey Kong, Super Mario and other characters from popular video games, manga characters, sneakers, video tapes, corporate logos and brands. We all see these symbols today and know exactly what this meant. They are icons of what was the religion of the time. At first I wondered how an artist like him would have worked in today's modern times, would augmented or virtual reality have been his medium? Would his work have shifted more and more into digital space and would NFTs have become his image carriers? Is it possible that Majero's would have collaborated with Balenciaga? Possibly. Or maybe he would have just kept painting. It doesn't matter to think about these what ifs. Rather, it should be about applying his approach to today and not just repeating what was then, but translating him and his work into a new context. The idea of the symposium is also for people to engage with Majero's who previously had no direct connection to him and his work. One of these people is me, who had no direct connection. I was therefore all the more pleased about the invitation to engage with and this engagement made me all the more curious to learn more. My interest in contemporary art is always also an interest in how art can be seen and understood in a social and political context. It is important to me that it does not have to be understood and that the non-understanding is essential. So the question I ask myself is whether his work has this political level. I think there's an interesting shift in the work or maybe shift is the wrong word, rather in his short career works emerge here and there that deal more decisively with the political realities of this time. If we remember what Sarah mentioned earlier in the talk, I think this idea of rhythm is super interesting because if you would look at this very short career of Majero's as such, there is a very kind of like, let's say, enthusiastic rhythm in the beginning of his career where he produces a lot of work and is kind of very kind of like motivated and inspired by being in Berlin. And then there comes this kind of like breakthrough with big exhibitions all over the place and this rhythm accelerates to a very kind of like fast pace almost close to a heart attack. I would imagine. And then suddenly I think there's this shift and the shift is kind of like for me, the social palace where I talk about later, but the shift is when the rhythm changes back to a very kind of like solid but extremely loud and precise slow rhythm of very specific statements. Thank you for that inspiring idea that I just used. Celebration generation from 1994 is a very peculiar interweaving of a personal, obviously racist listing of the apparent political goals of the major German parties from the perspective of an anonymous Kay Alba from Berlin Mitter. To read about it, it says, withered of the sonic celebration generation, rave and somewhere over the rainbow, it takes me away. Go ahead. The first two lines are album names of Westbam and German DJ. The last three lines are song titles from the album Raveland from 1994 by the German Creek DJ in Marusia. An entanglement of two realities, but perhaps also the beginning of a parallel view of Marcheros at this time. The quotations that overlay the surface come from a parallel world, just as this listing itself comes from a separate world. There are two respective clashes in the same society. Both have nothing to do with each other and yet they're to be found in the same time and place in Berlin. Let's go back to living in the now that Daniel Burma talked about it and look at the exhibition gmailed, his first gallery show with Neugierim Schneider in Berlin 1994 on the left-hand side, on the right-hand side, a one-to-one restage of the very same exhibition that opened in the now much bigger gallery space of Neugierim Schneider in Berlin last Sunday. A complete takeover of the small exhibition space with paintings on all walls, drawing sprints, paintings above. The floor covered with a thick layer of asphalt. Marcheros here not only brought the street into the gallery, but translated one-on-one what he saw. It may seem cool and different, but it's basically the political reality of a youth that moved through the city and became more and more visual and instead of taking his art outside, he took it inside. He did it later again in 2000 at the Kölnischer Kunstverein by building a skate ramp inside. If we are dead, so it is. Just also, I don't know if you actually realized. Obviously, I think personally it's a very cool move to bring this half pipe into the gallery space of Kölnischer Kunstverein, but then for everyone who actually does skateboard, it's a very infunctional ramp because there's no headspace. So you couldn't really use it. It was only later in two occasions where it was reinstalled again in a public space that it was a fully functional skateboard ramp.  With these installations, people often talk about how he brought the aesthetics of the outer space into the indoor space. Perhaps today we should also talk more about how he brought the issues of the street into art. He was a critic of his time. I think the peak of his political constant in his work was reached in 2002 when he was able to realize his social palace. While the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin was being renovated and roofed over for this purpose, there was a moment when Marcheros could occupy this place. He had a photograph, as you heard, of a building in Berlin-Schöneberg, the Palasium, printed on topoline a block of flats that was also called a social hotspot. And the Berlin Morgenpost, one of the kind of more gossipy Berlin newspapers wrote, with a spectacular art action beaver, the city's electricity company, has now moved the Schöneberg Sozialpalast of all places right into the good parlor of Berlin. The spokesman for the energy company says, but the less beautiful sides of Berlin are also part of this city. The artwork forces visitors to stop and think about it. Klaus Wolf from Rudo, a part of Berlin, also thinks it's good to show what it's still like here in Berlin and he adds, day over there, he nods toward the Adler Hotel, a luxury hotel next to the gate, should think about how the people in the social palace have to live. The retired policeman used to work there himself and not knows what he's talking about. Daniel Birnbaum, the curator of the project, sums it up by saying that the peace he did for Berlin rather was a huge political statement about multi-culturalism. Unemployment, how the government spends its money, what's to be remembered culturally, what's to be taken away, and also, this remains important in Germany, what deserves to be rebuilt. The most important element in discussing the extent to which Marceiro's work was politically informed is time. In principle, the only real factor of it all. Time matters, not only because he lived and worked for a short time, but because his work was set in his time. The imagery of his environment is fast, and so, at any moment, it could happen that the ground slips from under his feet. References to the most up-to-date visual motives may look good in the moment, but there's danger that they will all age too quickly together and then simply fall out of circulation, meaning that they will look old. Marceiros knew that. A number of his paintings and large installations call out to the viewers, as the symposium suggests, what looks good today may not look good tomorrow, writes Stefan Haydnreich in the catalogue of the exhibition, Everything Appears More Serious in the USA at Kunsthalle Bielefeld. Marceiros knows that his use of brand logos and comic references must be well thought out and that they must not appear at some point to be meaningless, or out of time. The work must remain timeless, the references in the sense neutral. This neutrality within his radical visual language is an attitude, the attitude of an observer. Haydnreich also writes about the fact that Sozialpalast takes references to social and political representational conditions like no other work. The work does not really change, but the different strategies used. The user plays a greater role, while in other works, those figures were represented that were consumed, teletubbies, or controlled, Super Mario, by the user. Now it is about the user himself. Already in If We Are Dead, So It Is, the skateboard ramp in Cologne, he came into play in the figure of the skater. Now it's about real people and the so-not-beautiful reality of their lives. What is different today? The subcultures that informed Marceiros back then have disappeared or dissolved into the respective brand worlds. Computer games are no longer just for nerds, but form an enormous billion-dollar market served by millions of users. Comics and mangas continue to exist, cosplay is now more visible in Europe, skateboarding is still on the streets and perhaps the closest thing to an independent subculture. Refusing to be luxury. While sneaker, still cool, has become an important element of the luxury industry itself. I think luxury plays a major role as it attempts to simulate the artist's practice in today's world. In recent years, there has been a huge shift in the number of buyers and so the strategy of the luxury industry have changed and adapted. At the same time, even though fashion has always been inspired by art, it is being incorporated more and more. The luxury industry knows how to use art to legitimize itself. The cultural potential masked the capitalist core. Even today, there are artists who in a striking way reflect what makes up our society or dominates today's youth. Practices that go beyond a discourse conducted solely in art. Anna Inhoff is certainly one of them as she simulated an image of youth that is incredibly close to reality. And then the fashion industry came and long and swallowed it. There's the French artist Mohammed Buruissa whose photographs and videos take a critical look at the image in the mass media and show people who are left behind at the interface between integration exclusion or Takashi Murakami whose work can be reminded of macheros in form of color and within which he uses characters from Japanese anime, images from the post-World War II era and the Japanese art history. However, it took him a while to get on the same level like macheros. There more, of course. You can't drink milk all the time. It turns sour sometimes too. Macheros wrote in his notes in 1995 calling for all paintings to be painted in you. You actually should all get this book. Probably the estate censor to the universities you're coming from. It's kind of essential because it changes the way you look at his work while reading his very kind of like short and precise thoughts about it. The fact that milk goes bad once does not mean that you will never drink milk again. Everything has an expiration date. Macheros was an innovator who was aware of his time but didn't get stuck. Perhaps he would have continued as he was. He would have made art that was neutral in some ways but also precise, aggressive and loud that brought the street into the gallery and art into the outer space. However, his work should be looked at not only from an art historical perspective but also from a social critical one. In doing so his strategy should be elaborated because that is what is timeless and from which we can still learn so much today. Namely, not only to recognize the necessity in the art of a time but to implement it again and again to paint the pictures in you and those to leave the old pictures their own space. Thank you. Thank you Fabienne. I really appreciated that in your talk you link Macheros to the wider context of where he lived in so like the city of Berlin and also the context of the city of Berlin after the fall of the wall was like this kind of bursting of new art and new ideas that was probably allowed by all these available space and like so it felt like full of possibilities. And so you just opened a new space in Berlin which as we saw earlier is a city that is changing at the moment and kind of like tuning in with neoliberalism I guess with like much more competition in the art scene, higher rents like all of that. So I was wondering what is at stake basically in like opening a new space, a new art space, a new art institution in Berlin at the moment compared to maybe the time Macheros was active. I think, I mean like obviously the city has changed tremendously since he was living in Berlin and there was this intercession of a lot of like artists but also gallerists collectors coming to this time like engaging with the city maybe not so much engaging just using it because there was suddenly so much space available like this blank canvas reference. But then it's also interesting that like this kind of over the saturation or like the discussion around Berlin not so much then actually happened in the past 30 years in like proper, I don't know, developing of an artistic communities. There's a lot of artists living in the city that have amazing studios but they show internationally. There's a lot of great galleries in the city that somehow have their own communities but they're mainly also visible internationally. So I think what I'm interested in is something that I would probably assume of Macheros. What I try to say is that at a certain point his work became much more precise in terms of looking at his actually social and political surrounding like in the beginning he looks at brands, he looks at surfaces, he looks at graffiti, he sees an LED sign in a kiosk and he's inspired and he uses it and he knows how to kind of like use all these elements to also update all the existing male painters that were there before him. But then with the ramp there was still this kind of like street style in his work but then with the Sozialpalace suddenly there is this actual reality that is not only the surface. It might be a surface as it's a print but like suddenly it's about people. It's about like a huge division of poor and rich. It's about this kind of like idea of Berlin as a divided city that is still somehow divided. Thank you. Any question from the audience? Thank you Fabian for this great lecture. I'm wondering how you connect this very particular reactivation of the exhibition spaces or that the exhibitions of Macheros both at the Bundes, no sorry. Consale Baser and KV. And then Neurin Schneider in the 90s and now. So is there in this choice a sociopolitical aspect that is translated into that reenactment that you see because it's interesting that the pieces that you showed today also part of the exhibitions in Berlin are commenting directly to a sociopolitical reality. That it's still not obsolete, the crisis is back then are still not obsolete like migration crisis, economic crisis. So it's interesting to see that by reactivating the spaces we have two different space at a time. So I don't want to answer this for you, excuse me. This was a question. Yeah. Do you have any thoughts on that? Good question. I mean, yeah, obviously 20 years have passed since Macheros passed away. There is a question that I have to ask you a completely different discourse today. I probably also a completely different awareness of how you would look at works. There is this exhibition happened in the gallery. And I think like even like if you only would focus now on a purely art world discourse or art historical perspective it's already interesting that an exhibition like that at Neurin Schneider 1994, young naive gallerists invite a young naive painter to open a show in a 15 square meter space. And it becomes such a relevant piece compared to today where young gallery opens usually a 200 square meter space and is immediately visible in New York, London, Tokyo and Paris for instance. I think already like within the art world there's a shift because back then it was much more about I would say and if you would go through like art history books about specific necessities and qualities of practice and trusting a work and trusting an artist and not only about representation of the institution of a gallery or an actual institution. So this is interesting on one hand side but then also obviously today the discourse has changed that's why today this discussion must take place. Like looking at this work and think about it like it's not only cool that he brought Asphalt into the gallery space but it also means something and why does it mean something? What does Asphalt mean as a connotation, as a symbol of like a youth culture but also of a social reality? So I think that like artworks in general are discussed more broadly in social and political terms is a development that wasn't so present back then but now it is. So I think this shift should happen specifically with such exhibitions like that. On one hand I also find it problematic to continuously like restage the shows like there were. It's also not the first time it was already once set up like that in Kratz I think. For me it's beautiful because I like to see it, how it was and especially now to see like this small gallery space within the big gallery space is also interesting like time travel back to the future would be a good material as a reference. Yeah, hope that answers. Anyone else? Thank you for your presentation. I don't know how much you already answered the question I'm gonna ask because I don't really understand English that good but I feel like today when you are a young artist it's like touchy to don't talk, don't talk, don't represent social problems and political issues and stuff like that and draw Mario or TV reality shows or stuff like that. And I wanted to know if Michel Margerus had the same questions and if he was a critic sometimes or if it was new so nobody had nothing to say about how he used his talent, his skills. I mean you mean if like the first part and I didn't quite understand today as a young artist it is necessary or not to be socially aware? It seems like not okay to just talk about silly stuff like TV shows and... Oh yeah, okay, yeah. I know what you mean, I wouldn't agree necessarily but like it's, I mean if you read about Margerus and you look into his practice and just you can do with many other artists somehow he's a bit special in that regard. He was a complete nerd. He was only working. It was almost like an autistic approach. We just talked about it with Tim, his gallerist. He had this almost like a mania. He only went like he walked through the city and he saw everything like I don't know using a digital camera until the memory card is full and then he disappeared to the studio and he painted everything he saw until he slept. And then his friends went to a rave. He joined them but he slept on the sofa because he wanted to be awake to go back to the studio. There's other artists like I think Christopher Ruhl wrote about him that when he had to travel at six in the morning he spent the night in the studio painting because he liked to look at new works when he returned from his travel. So he was only producing in a very strange but also fascinating way obviously. And this doesn't really have changed today. I think the appreciation of such a practice that developed such a specific necessity. I mean he dealt with something so specific to his time. Obviously dealing with Super Mario today is somehow outdated except of maybe bringing it in relation to queer studies to kind of like make a relation to the history of computer games in that sense. But I think it's about understanding how he perceived his environment and how he translated this perception because that's mainly the thing. It's not about Donkey Kong or kind of cool sneakers really it's much more about a kind of like and that's always social politically interesting. You don't have to be a political artist, a protester to be political artists. Making no political statement is a political statement. So every art as such is already political because art is always the first thing that disappears in a dictatorship. So it's the kind of like most extreme form of freedom and liberation somehow. And then it's about like finding this I guess very specific narrow angle but like I guess there's no recipe. Thank you. There is another question. Hello, thank you for your thoughts and your speech. It was amazing, I really liked it. And yeah, I just wanted to add some things as a Luxembourgish artist. I'm 27 years old finishing my master now in Basel. And so I just wanted to add something about the impact on Luxembourgish artists. So me as 27 year old I didn't know Michel Margerus personally but I think I know a bit about his work even more today. And I just wanted to say that for Luxembourg so a country where life turns around buying houses, cars, closing and investing money to get more of it. I think that Michel Margerus even though he denied a bit his origin country, I think that he reflected it a lot in his work. So he worked with hypercapitalism and yeah, the most important thing is he allowed Luxembourgish people or Luxembourgish artists to dream. He was the first one who was big in internationally speaking. He had his work outside of Luxembourg and it's something I think that a lot of young people in Luxembourg dream about now. So I think that he's a very good example for a young Luxembourgish artist and also a young Luxembourgish artist who made it. And then I wanted to talk about, or I want also to ask you why Michel Margerus is still important in the art world. And so my personal thoughts are that first of all he worked with media that are still there now and he had not the chance to be sell out. I say not the chance because of his death of course. And yeah, so a lot of French rappers say je perds de faire l'album de trou. So the album that is too much. He didn't do this album that is too much. He was on his peak or not even on his peak. And another thing that I wanted to say is that you talked about he placed Mario on his paintings, Mario that is controlled by the player. So the Mario and the player has changed. So technology is kind of controlling human beings today with algorithms and things like that, social media. So the player becomes Mario and I would have really liked to see Michel Margerus work today with social media because I think he would do a very good job. So I wanted to know why is Michel Margerus still important for you? Thank you. Well, I mean, I think in general, there's not many artists that are like not alive anymore today that still have relevance for a contemporary discourse, but then it also changes from time to time because times change. And as I tried maybe to say earlier, I think the relevance today is that on one hand side, I think he wouldn't engage with social media today because it's not, social media today is not the same thing like Super Mario back then. Super Mario was like subculture and a very kind of like visually dominant subculture. Social media is not a subculture. It's a way of manipulating public elections. It's a tool, it's a media outlet. It's a way of self representation. It's like everything, it's so dominant. It's like not, I think I'm not sure if he would specifically be interested in it. A guess, super wild guess. But I think the kind of like the way he kind of like managed to perceive little details in a surrounding that only also look now so absolutely kind of like visible is the quality. Because also like imagine Berlin post reunification it's not a colorful city. It's like gray, cold, mostly destroyed and unrenovated. There's no kind of like old milk coffee shops. It's a completely kind of like devastated city but it was empty. So there was space to do something. And the space was sometimes filled with a television that showed MTV or Viva too. So that's the way images were created. And then sometimes slowly you had neon signs, LED signs and so on. But before that it wasn't really there. So back then it wasn't colorful but his paintings are colorful. And I think there's an interesting shift or like also division within. And the rest was more like a statement. No, not a question. I like the statement. Yeah, there's an interesting one thing more like there's interest like if you would look into the work of Charlotte Posonenske completely different practice, different style, different life. She's also not alive anymore. Maybe the only link and they're both German. She stopped making art at a certain point because she didn't believe that art can contribute to any social change. That's why she stopped making it and then she died much too early. But her work, if you would look into it now like the manifest she wrote, the performances she made, the way she dealt with serial production, aesthetic surface, minimalism. It's so radical even in today's context of art production that it's still relevant even though it's like almost 50 years old. I had a question about the means of his productions because he seems to have produced a lot of pieces and some of them are very huge. And because of what you said about how he was working all the time, I was wondering if he had like a really big studio and assistants or he was really working alone and just doing it all by himself. Maybe I have to say that I'm not Michel Maillere's expert.  There's a documentation. I'm not sure if that's released soon, soon. He had assistants. He was very specific with colors. They mixed colors on very specific scales. The studio was big but not huge. Like industrial style studio working with stencils, colors, pencils, everything. Thank you. Thank you, Fabian.


So, a lot of the recognition of the exiled questions comes from deprogramming, from stepping outside the normal paradigms, belief systems, lenses, and habits, really. So, I mentioned one of the habits earlier on, which was find the culprit, find the person to blame. And that's how many people reflexively respond when they face a situation of injustice. Or something, you know, like, I mean, I could take the, you know, pandemic response as an example. Like, I don't know about your audience, but I think that there was an awful lot of horrible policy that caused huge amounts of unnecessary illness and suffering. And so the habit is, who are the dastardly villains who deliberately perpetrated this crime? That's the habit. Well, if there is any other explanation, you're not going to see it if you're fixated on finding the dastardly villains. If you put down that lens, then so much more opens up to your vision that had been invisible before. And so that's what I've learned to do, is to put down some of these habitual rubrics, habitual filters on reality, and then other things become obvious. And so that's just one of them, find the villain, you know, find the enemy. There's a lot of these cognitive filters and organizing principles that we've learned, you know, in modern society through our schooling, through our economy, through our education and science. And a lot of them are built into science, like one of them would be find something to measure, you know, find the reductive cause. Find, look for who's in charge, you know, as a theory of change, convince somebody in charge to change something. Yeah, there's there's, I'm not going to try to catalog all of the these hidden templates and habits. But that's the basic principle is that that reveals questions that are not being asked.