Research at universities is political, a fact made all the more evident during times of increasing social and political polarisation when politicians denounce universities as »enemies«. Such external attacks intersect with debates in academia itself, where research structures, purposes, and approaches are increasingly brought into question. The XV International Bauhaus Colloquium critically examines the politics that underlie, shape, or result from research. The interdisciplinary academic event provides a platform for exploring how research operates within and across infrastructures, epistemologies, power, and publics. Research politics manifest both in specific research projects and in the procedures and frameworks that define academic work as such. In addition to issues of access, representation, and ethics, the Colloquium addresses critical practices and highlights the ways in which research may both reinforce and challenge dominant hierarchies.
The fifteenth edition of the International Bauhaus Colloquium moves beyond its traditional focus on architectural theory and history to understand architecture as part of an extended field in which the arts, media, technologies, and society interact. The architectural perspective is integrated into contemporary questions of knowledge production, as well as the infrastructural and political conditions that shape it. As research is transforming rapidly through the effects of digital infrastructures and AI-trained knowledge production, the processes that are shifting its epistemological and institutional frameworks will be examined.
The Colloquium investigates research as a political practice operating in a contested field of historically specific forms of situatedness and shifting epistemologies, with specific attention paid to the role of architectural and artistic practices. In line with the Bauhaus tradition, it combines theoretical, aesthetic, and technical/empirical approaches to analyse and develop research politics in response to urgent questions within international discourse. Discussions are structured into four thematic tracks, each of which offers specific insights into the politics of research:
Track I: Practices examines current approaches to practice-based research, discussing their particularity, their transformative potential, and the capacity to renegotiate the relationship between researchers and society.
Track II: Institutions analyses political, economic, and spatial conditions of knowledge production. It brings together current propositions of institutional critique to examine the boundaries and infrastructures of the university as formations that must be both defended and transformed.
Track III: Ecologies recognises the role of localities and milieus, such as exposed geographies, Indigenous sites and communities, or marginalized cultural topics that become constitutive of research. It explores how proximity to local places and ecologies reshapes conventional research approaches and the ethical shifts they entail.
Track IV: Epistemologies addresses the need to critically engage with and unlearn dominant frameworks, often based on privileged Western paradigms, through decolonial, queer, and feminist practices. It examines how disciplinary traditions, established canons, and knowledge regimes, as well as barriers between theoretical and practical approaches, can be opened up to multiple perspectives.
Insights
Programme
Please note that the programme is subject to change and may be revised. Check the boxes to create your personal schedule.
►︎ Wednesday, 4 November 2026
Bnaya Halperin-Kaddari, Kerstin Ergenzinger, Julia Boike: Common Grounds / Participatory Performance
Milano, Italy
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
‘Common Grounds’ explores strategies for per-sonifying environmental data and listening to the ecologies of our shared planet. Sustained by profound artistic-scientific exchange this multidisciplinary research asks how a long-term collaboration between climate science and sonic arts practices can be translated into public experiences that communicate and offer embodied, sensorial connections to the fragile complexity of planetary systems.
This participatory concert-lecture is a performative exploration of 25 years of hourly environmental data from a permafrost measurement station located in Ny Alesund Svalbard. The highly detailed data set is scaled into an hour, and translated into a participatory concert-lecture. It unpacks and tests some of the methods in development for listening, sensing, understanding and connecting to climate change from an embodied perspective. These include various sonic and somatic techniques that connect the planetary scale with individual and collective sensory scales of participants. The concert-lecture takes place around a table that is a hybrid surface for discourse, projection, policy, strategy, negotiation, communication and communion.
Bnaya Halperin-Kaddari, Kerstin Ergenzinger, Julia Boike, Marta Garcia Escobar, Ilse van Opzeeland, Pier Paul Overduin: Common Grounds / Panel Discussion
Milano, Italy
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
University of Vienna, Austria
Helmholtz Institut für Funktionelle Marine Biodiversität, Germany
Alfred-Wegener-Institut Potsdam, Germany
The opening concert-lecture, like the project ‘Common Grounds’ as a whole, raise questions about epistemologies, ethics and politics. Building on this shared experience, we would like to propose an accompanying interdisciplinary panel to discuss artistic and hybrid approaches towards environmental literacy development, such as our sonic-somatic and listening-sensing methods. Key topics and questions may include amongst others: The potential of collective academic research across disciplines and paradigms for developing environmental literacy. Challenges of working long-term across art-science gaps: bridging differences in process, approach, evaluation and ethics. Etc.
►︎Panel Discussion: Building Knowledge: Design, Experiment, and Engage
Panel Discussion: Building Knowledge: Design, Experiment, and Engage
Building Knowledge: Design, Experiment, and Engage explores Real-Labs (real-world laboratories) as experimental environments where research, design, construction, and everyday use intersect. Organized by the Chair of Constructive Design and Experimentation at the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, the panel brings together Sabine Hansmann, Tamotsu Ito, Chrissie Muhr, and João Quintela to discuss how living lab processes create architectural knowledge through experimentation, and learning from practice.
Focusing on adaptive reuse, collaborative construction, and working with existing structures, the conversation examines how these approaches are reshaping architectural education, professional roles, and public engagement. Drawing on projects such as Versuchsgut Dornburg, the panel reflects on both the opportunities and the limitations of Real-Labs, addressing questions of scalability, transferability, and their long-term value in differentsocial and spatial contexts.
►︎System Failure
Sophia Yadong Hao: Against a Tight Circle: Speaking in Favour of the Discursive and Digressive
Cooper Galery/University of Dundee, UK
“Against a Tight Circle” draws on five years of research and presentation of the contemporary art exhibition and event programme, The Ignorant Art School: Five Sit-ins towards Creative Emancipation (TIAS) to argue that alternative and radical creative pedagogies are inherently critical social practices grounded in collective, collaborative ethos.
The paper contends that the ‘system failure’ in academia is a result of neo-liberal capitalist antipathy for social formations that refute competitive individualism. Eschewing an art-historical analysis the approach will focus on the discursive and performative encounters that shaped TIAS’s deployment of subversive, revolutionary epistemologies that embody the complexity of anti-hegemonic, specifically decolonial, narratives.
As Audre Lorde stated, “Survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define a world in which we can all flourish.” This paper highlights the vital importance of such solidarity and collective resistance in reclaiming higher education as a site of radical transformation.
Leslie Foster: Black and Queer Otherwise Spaces: An Artistic Methodology for Creating Rival Geographies
California State University San Marcos, USA
“Black and Queer Otherwise Spaces: An Artistic Methodology for Creating Rival Geographies” examines my art practice, and its use of rival geographies, as a subversive methodology for art-making, and education within the neoliberal academy. Stephanie MH Camp defines rival geography as a mutable territory marked by the movement of bodies, objects, and information; a space of defiant joy in an antebellum geography of confinement. Fully legible only to certain groups of people, it serves as a temporal/spatial respite from plantation logics.
Ashon Crawley’ defines “otherwise spaces,” as worlds with the capacity to be multiple and a refusal to be stilled. My work embraces communal creativity, exploration, and process over a capital-friendly product. I will expand on the methodology of rival geographies, utilizing lessons gleaned from this collaborative, world-making practice to imagine what comes after: new worlds that defy and survive the ongoing collapse of the neoliberal institution.
Fidelia Lam: Let Them Eat Plastic: Power, Bioplastic, and Deviant Trajectories
OCAD University, Canada
This presentation considers the material, tactile, and socio-political structures and effects of university institution ecosystems as they process, filter, and transmute their inhabitants into idealized and idealizing subjects. Panel and audience cook and consume bioplastic together as an active process of making and eating bioplastic together, engaging in shared metabolic practices of smelling, listening, viewing, touching, eating, and digesting in an invitation to trace and queer digestive systems and contexts that “process” us. Building on Kyla Wazana Tompkins notion of “deviant matter” and Moten and Harney’s “undercommons”, these enactments query normative disciplinary categories and suggest deviant trajectories within university institutional contexts. Offering vegan bioplastic snacks to attendees, we activate bodily processes to consider how neoliberal systems are formed, felt, and metabolized by different bodies and subjects into emergent systems and modalities.
►︎Historical Bauhaus
Tom Steinert: Kandinsky. One Century of Ignorance
Berlin, Germany
Wassily Kandinsky (1866–1944) apparently counts among the well-researched Bauhäus¬lers. The 1923 questionnaire inquiring the mutual assignment of basic shapes and basic colours is his most famous contribution to the Bauhaus’s signature. This assignment is nowadays probably more effective than ever before. Regrettably, it was everything but a Bauhaus achievement, which seems to be widely unknown among Bauhaus scholars, due to reasons of language difficulties and accessibility, but also the traditions of Bauhaus historiography and institutional biases.
My contribution is an invitation to leave aside all limitations imposed by acquired ideologies and professional education, to surmount language difficulties and disciplinary boundaries in favour of a really interdisciplinary and unbiased research that is capable of doing justice to its subject. Such research will yield new and important insights into all those matters that before appeared to have been definitely investigated.
Tatiana Efrussi: Hannes Meyer. Soviet Architect
Paris, France
Swiss architect and urban planner Hannes Meyer, the second director of Bauhaus Dessau, Hannes Meyer, spent about six years in the USSR, from 1930 to 1936. There is a great global interest in Meyer’s legacy today, yet his work can hardly be understood without examining this crucial chapter of his career. One of the most controversial architects associated with the Bauhaus, Meyer became deeply involved in Soviet politics and, as documents suggest, was determined to become a “Soviet architect” at almost any cost. My in-depth archival and contextual research has allowed me to examine Meyer both as a victim and as an actor within the violent system of early Stalinism.
In this talk, I will focus on Meyer’s research activities in the Soviet Union. Between 1934 and 1936, he headed the Research Department for Housing and Public Buildings at the All-Union Academy of Architecture. In this position, he developed theories that challenged modernist approaches to housing, while remaining strikingly detached from the social realities in the USSR.
Anke Blümm: “Most Bauhäuslers are…completely intolerant of social injustice, political chicanery, and charlatanism” Reginald Isaacs and his research on the Bauhaus in the 1960s
University of Erfurt, Germany
If the Bauhaus legacy is to inspire transformative research, it is important to examine how scholarship itself contributed to the movement’s elevation. A key moment was the 1968 exhibition 50 Years of Bauhaus in Stuttgart, which presented the Bauhaus as a democratic symbol of the Federal Republic of Germany while largely overlooking its entanglement with the Nazi era.
The paper focuses on an essay by architect Reginald Isaacs, who was then researching a biography of Walter Gropius. Drawing on a survey of former Bauhaus members, Isaacs portrayed them as a morally and politically exemplary community, thereby idealising both the individuals and the institution. What objectives shaped his research? The contribution asks how such narratives can be critically reassessed while taking into account questions of gender, marginalisation, aesthetics, and political history.
►︎Disobedient Methods: Research Beyond Neutrality and Discipline
Pawel Moscicki: Critical Theory (…) Conspiracy Theory
Institute of Literary Research, Poland
If contemporary humanities have a common denominator or center that organizes their various forms, it would be critical theory. What would be its general counterpart? What constitutes the “evil spirit of the humanities” that it must exorcise in order to constitute itself as a science and thus also prove its social value? In my opinion, this negative foundation today is “conspiracy theory”. Conspiracy theory embodies everything that critical thinking, and thus academic humanities, does not take seriously, considering it suspicious, absurd, crazy, and dangerous. And it is in this juxtaposition that it increasingly sets its boundaries. Critical theory ends where conspiracy theory begins, and vice versa. But are these two basic frameworks really completely separate? Are they divided by a difference in nature or only in degree? Is there an area where they overlap? Does this division ignore the important political (e.g., class) conditions for the legitimacy of research in the humanities?
Christos Constantine: Neutrality, Masking, and the Politics of Research: A Reflection on Disciplinary Pressure in Conceptual Work on Autism
Adelaide, Australia
This presentation asks how research identity becomes credible within contested fields. Beginning from autism discourse, where terms such as “autistic person,” “person with autism,” “neurodivergent,” and “profound autism” are politically charged, I examine masking as both a lived practice and an unstable research concept. I argue that research cultures also produce masks: forms of scholarly personhood through which researchers become legible as neutral, rigorous, accessible, activist, or professional. Drawing on conceptual engineering, epistemic injustice, and Bauhaus questions of form and function, the talk asks how scholarly forms regulate proximity and distance, visibility and access, and what they enable or exclude. Concepts do not only classify research objects; they also authorise speakers, positions, and distances. The politics of research therefore includes the conditions under which scholarly roles become available, credible, and liveable.
Seyyal Carnetto: For More Stupidity in Research: Dwelling in the Politics of Research Time
The European Graduate School, Division of Philosophy, Art & Critical Thought [PACT], Switzerland
Contemporary research is shaped by demands for measurable impact, acceleration, and constant performance. This paper treats research time itself as a political problem. Drawing on Jacques Rancière’s critique of the explicatory order and Giorgio Agamben’s notion of messianic time, I propose research-as-dwelling: a form of inquiry that suspends predefined ends and inhabits an unfinished present.
Following Tyson E. Lewis, I call the mode of this dwelling “stupidity.” Here, stupidity does not mean anti-intellectualism, but the capacity to stay with not-knowing, hesitation, and impotence without immediately converting them into output. Through a temporal reading of Hedwig Houben’s lecture performance Five Possible Lectures on Six Possibilities for a Sculpture, the paper argues for a politics of research centered on study, suspension, and unfinishedness.
Samia Henni: Psychological Warfare: Architecture for the Political
McGill University, Canada
In the aftermath of the Second World War and over the course of the Independence Movements in Africa and Asia, psychological warfare was widely performed on civilian populations and military personnels. This lecture unpacks the roots and ramifications of this military measure and exposes the features of a possible “architecture for the political” within the context of academic research. Through two publications and two exhibitions, the lecture offers research tools and discusses public methods for forming, informing, and disseminating an “architecture for the political.” Whereas the first part of the lecture discusses how to oppose the politics and dynamics of psychological warfare through history writing, the second part explores how to use academic protocols to discharge imposed amnesia and institutional censorship through exhibition making. The lecture engages with the intersections of spatial, social, and environmental justice, as well as anticolonial practices. It addresses the roles that both scholars and institutions play in generating and supporting an “architecture for the political” in the current world dis-order.
20:30–22:30Media House/SCC, Studio 1Moderated by: Marcin Pietruszewski
Philipp Gerschlauer: Listening as Resistance. Acoustic Politics and Expanded Pitch Practices in Jazz Improvisation
Music and Arts University of theCity of Vienna, Austria
This lecture performance examines how jazz improvisation, understood as an intonationally flexible and historically situated practice, can expose and reconfigure listening frameworks embedded in institutional training. Equal temperament, reinforced through the central role of the keyboard in jazz pedagogy, often becomes the default reference for harmonic understanding and musical correctness. My artistic-scientific research investigates how this orientation shapes listening through pitch analysis of historical recordings, autoethnographic reflection, and interviews with students. Expanded pitch spaces can initially challenge established habits of hearing, fingering, and harmonic expectation. The lecture performance combines live alto saxophone improvisation, analytical excerpts, and practice-based reflection to explore how alternative listening practices can foster artistic agency and open new epistemic possibilities within jazz education.
20:30–22:30Limona, GlaskastenModerated by: Jana Mangold, Ben Sassen
Onkar Singh Kular: Housing Music Volume 2: A Mixtape Methodology
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Through spoken word, moving collages and vinyl records this performance lecture will describe how Black and South Asian diasporas have made spaces, objects and broadcasting infrastructures within the sonic cultures of reggae, dub, bhangra, jungle and grime. In the UK and beyond, these sonic cultures have not only remapped geographies but have been inscribed into landscapes as a form of spatial, aural, material, and embodied evidence. As these inscriptions have been largely ignored by the field of design and architecture, to uncover this history requires alternative modes and cultures of researching, archiving and mediating.
Over the last years, I have been searching for these inscriptions by ‘digging in the crates’ of historical radio, TV, documentary interviews and vinyl records that sit outside of conventional design and architecture scholarship. Once inscriptions are edited, sampled and mixtaped, they begin to build a counter archive of design experience and knowledge for other voices and perspectives within the canon of design history.
Housing Music Volume 2 will focus on and depart from the home and house as a site of Black and South Asian creativity.
20:30–22:30University Library, Maurice-Halbwachs-AuditoriumModerated by: Lea Wittich
David Atencio, Mateus Fávero: Tercer Abstracto (Chile/Brazil): Rethinking Artistic Research from Latin America
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil & Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
EN: This lecture-performance presents the perspective on artistic research developed by Tercer Abstracto, a binational research and creation program in theatre (Chile/Brazil), over fourteen years of research. The activity is conceived as a technical demonstration in which live scenic procedures seek to make visible a mode of research in which theatrical practice is explored as a form of knowledge production. Throughout its trajectory, the collective has developed projects that traverse different objects of inquiry, including works, artists, and manifestos associated with the Bauhaus tradition, among other fields of reference, thus constituting a distinct methodology from a situated Latin American perspective. Rather than retrospectively explaining this methodology, the proposal puts it into action as a way of exposing the research process, opening a reflection on how artistic research in theatre is produced between theory and practice.
PT: Tercer Abstracto (Chile/Brasil): Repensando a Pesquisa Artística a partir da América Latina
Esta palestra-performance apresenta a perspectiva sobre pesquisa artística desenvolvida por Tercer Abstracto, programa binacional de pesquisa e criação em teatro (Chile/Brasil), ao longo de quatorze anos de investigação. A atividade é concebida como uma demonstração técnica em que procedimentos cênicos ao vivo buscam tornar visível um modo de pesquisa em que a prática teatral é explorada como forma de produção de conhecimento. Ao longo de sua trajetória, o coletivo desenvolveu projetos que atravessam diferentes objetos de investigação, incluindo obras, artistas e manifestos associados à tradição da Bauhaus, entre outros campos de referência, constituindo uma metodologia própria a partir de uma perspectiva latino-americana situada. Em vez de explicar retrospectivamente essa metodologia, a proposta a coloca em ação como forma de exposição do processo de pesquisa, abrindo uma reflexão sobre como a pesquisa artística em teatro se produz entre teoria e prática.
ES: Tercer Abstracto (Chile/Brasil): Repensando la Investigación Artística desde América Latina
Esta perfo-conferencia presenta la perspectiva sobre investigación artística desarrollada por Tercer Abstracto, programa binacional de investigación y creación en teatro (Chile/Brasil), a lo largo de catorce años de investigación. La actividad se concibe como una demostración técnica en la que procedimientos escénicos en vivo buscan hacer visible un modo de investigación en el que la práctica teatral se explora como forma de producción de conocimiento. A lo largo de su trayectoria, el colectivo ha desarrollado proyectos que atraviesan diferentes objetos de investigación, incluyendo obras, artistas y manifiestos asociados a la tradición de la Bauhaus, entre otros campos de referencia, constituyendo una metodología propia desde una perspectiva latinoamericana situada. En lugar de explicar retrospectivamente dicha metodología, la propuesta la pone en acción como forma de exposición del proceso de investigación, abriendo una reflexión sobre cómo la investigación artística en teatro se produce entre teoría y práctica.
20:30–22:30Media House/SCC, KinosaalModerated by: Maxi Rauch
Esra Oskay: Anonymous Censorship Notes
Ankara, Turkey
The act of speaking out and breaking silence is often regarded as an unequivocal form of resistance. Silence is considered the auditory form through which oppressive power paralyzes the voice of dissent. Yet what is considered as silence might be those acts of speech that operate beneath the threshold of official audibility, of what is sayable. “Anonymous Censorship Notes”, investigates how the politics of voice infiltrates into everyday self-censorship through a closer study of mundane conversations that goes under the radar. The video work is based on my fieldwork in which I listened to the stories of censorship that I have overheard and documented while listening to conversations among people. Although these informal conversations provide data through contested research methods within the formal research ethical protocols, these conversations are important means of expressing the unsayable, producing and disseminating sensitive knowledge and forming alliances, and hence understanding the affective world of censorship. In this framework, the work turns into sensitive documentation at the limits of the visible and sayable, and seeks for an alternative language of counter-visibility that does not resolve the asymmetry at the field but works within it.
20:30–22:30Media House/SCC, KinosaalModerated by: Maxi Rauch
Padraig Robinson: Masquerades of Research: Part I & II
Berlin, Germany
Masquerades of Research: Part I & II is a fictional film based on a true story, with Mark O’Halloran playing the infamous American sociologist Laud Humphreys. Through the biography and subjectivity of the researcher, it delves into the ethically fraught research methods of his infamous sociological study, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places (USA 1970). The film imagines Tearoom Trade as part of the 1960s avant-garde, re-reading its methods in the 21st Century as a cipher for the complex politics and masquerades of research itself. “Masquerade” is an avant-garde method in Humphreys’ research: a Trojan Horse infiltrating the core of the research enterprise itself. The question “why can’t sociology be avant-garde” at the end of Part I challenges the boundaries of “discipline” and indeed the social “disciplining” of researchers (Part II).
►︎ Thursday, 5 November 2026
►︎Particular Cases
Particular Cases
Architecture as research proceeds through particular cases: specific sites, situations, representations, material conditions, historical and lived encounters. The panel proposes particular cases as epistemological and political sites of architectural research. While case studies are often used to illustrate general ideas, particular cases establish their own ways of architectural seeing and making and thus of knowing and transforming the built world.
We refer to Boris Groys’ methodological introduction to “Particular Cases” (2016), in which he describes his writing as proceeding “from one particular case to other particular cases”, rather than applying a general theory to individual objects. He compares his approach to the trajectory of English as opposed to French law; particular judgments are informed by previous judgments, not derived from general principles. Crucially, the encounter with a particular work produces an impulse that he follows beyond the work itself, potentially transforming the gaze through which he subsequently perceives the world.
Yet particular cases do not simply present themselves to research. They are constituted through specific methods and practices of observation, representation, interpretation, and making, situated within disciplines, institutions, and struggles. Particularity thus concerns not only what is researched, but also how and from where research takes place.
The contributions include critical engagements with drawing and representation, knowledge produced through building itself, and practices of sharing and making public. They ask how specific encounters can expose what established ways of seeing obscure and transform how the built world is perceived. The question is therefore not how particular cases might be generalized, but what becomes knowable and what becomes possible by staying with particularity.
Florian Summa: After Alberti: Frictions with Reality
Dresden University of Technology, Germany
Following Alberti’s distinction between the intellectual conception and the physical execution of a building, architectural thought is commonly expected to reach completion before construction begins. This research challenges that assumption. It investigates an architectural practice in which the worlds of thinking (designing) and making (building) deliberately converge: the architect begins to build with her own hands—walls, doors and windows. These unscaled, built artefacts occupy a peculiar intermediate condition: As “living models,” they preserve the selective freedom of the architectural model while already becoming inseparable from the material, spatial, ecological and social realities of construction – turning them into tools for provocative inquiries into “reality.” The lecture explores the epistemic potential of such “particular cases” when architectural knowledge emerges through the act of building.
Beverly Engelbrecht: Drawing as a Research Methodology: Spatial Productions in the Context of Sex Work on Potsdamer Straße in West Berlin
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Focusing on various case studies situated around Potsdamer Straße in West Berlin, my contribution examines how drawings can function as a research method in architecture. Around 1970, Potsdamer Straße was known for its sex workers, who worked throughout the day, waiting for clients in front of the many bars, hotels, and clubs lining the street. In this setting, I investigate how sex workers and other actors in the red-light district produced, appropriated, and defended urban spaces – and how the state and civil society responded through strategies of control, welfare, and displacement. For each of my ten case studies, I created speculative colored-pencil drawings based on building records, interviews, photographs, and maps. The contribution argues that drawings can generate and question knowledge, making counter-/architectures of sex work visible.
Silvia Susanna, Steffie de Gaetano: Re-enchanting technical representations. Matter entanglements revealing the invisibilizing power of the cross-section
Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy; Hasselt University, Belgium
Today, images shape knowledge as much as they convey state priorities and geopolitical forces. We examine encoded representations as modern instruments of (supra-)nation-forming political projects, focusing on the politics embedded in architectural and geological representations and the material and (un)worlding consequences they produce.
Analysing the cross-section as a tool of both abstraction and extraction, we show how mapping conventions are interwoven with logics of profit and exploitation. Spanning the strata of the walls of a colonial, fascist borgo in Sicily (IT) and the subsurface post-coal Campine landscape (BE), we argue that the standard grammar of these technical representations neutralises the imaginaries of an authoritarian project and an extractive fossil fuel regime. To render this invisibility visible, we propose re-enchanting the cross-sections, reintegrating neglected histories to suggest ways to interfere with dominant visualisations.
Susanne Bürner: The Center Will Not Hold: Shifting the Gaze
(Berlin, Germany)
Our perception is not only framed by our senses but also by what remains off-frame—the associated spatial and social context. Based on my artistic practice, I will discuss how the disruption of our gaze in turn impacts our perception of our environment, of space and ultimately of contemporary society. I will look at different artistic strategies of disruption—such as disappearance and diversification—as well as at methodologies and their mechanisms—such as mimicry, trompe-l’œil, or poetry. In this context, I address architecture as a core system of rigid physical and institutional boundaries to be challenged via its representation in art. By rendering graspable the limitations of our perceptional system, space arises for new ways of perception. I argue that disruption thus serves as a political tool, challenging not only formal but capitalist principles.
12:45–13:45Prellerhaus, Fotostudio
Paulina Larocca: To Touch What Refuses Resolution
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
“To Touch What Refuses Resolution” is a 60-minute participatory workshop for researchers, artists, educators, and practitioners who want to work with the difficult politics of research through the body, the hand, and the collective room.
Grounded in Metabolising Through Making (MTM), the workshop invites participants to press, weave, tear, sound, and witness tension as material. Cicadas act as epistemic companions: creatures who spend years metabolising underground before emerging together to disrupt the dominant sonic field. Their rhythm becomes a way to think about slow transformation, hidden labour, collective emergence, and refusal.
Participants will move through MTM’s cycle of Orient, Enact, Witness, Action, engaging contradiction and discomfort through making. The workshop creates a shared space for feeling what research politics does in the body, and for asking how embodied practice can reconfigure the ways we know, act, and respond.
►︎Experimental Setups: Invisibilities, Images and Imaginaries
Andrey Shental: Who Lies Inside an MRI Scanner? On the Limits of Generalisability and Cognitive Penetrability
Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
This paper begins with my participation in a colour-perception experiment inside an MRI scanner at Charité, Berlin. While I was personally motivated by 25 cents per correct answer, I was assured economic factors should be neglected. This denial frames the paper’s central questions around the politics of empirical research and the production of aesthetic subjectivity.
By reducing one’s reaction to a pure stimulus (Reiz), the experiment recasts subjective responses into a generalised subject, while erasing the economic conditions of its own measurement. Theodor Adorno, who developed his own anti-positivist but still naturalist aesthetics, insisted on necessity of empirical investigation for perceptible phenomena, while rejecting any identity between stimulus (Reiz) and response. Building on his critique of behaviourist conditioning and the role of cultural mediation, I would offer a dialectical reading of neurovisual research.
Danne Ojeda: Seeing Otherwise: RNA Microscopy and the Politics of Research Cultures
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
This paper repositions RNA microscopy as a site of design-led knowledge production, examining how imaging ideologies shape evidence and identity within artistic research. Based on collaborations between NTU’s School of Art, Design and Media and the DaRE Lab, the project treats microscopic images as both roots—technical inscriptions of the unseen—and routes for speculative visual languages. Through workshops and practice-led visualisation, the research asks how imaging systems govern scientific aesthetics, how “inside-out” images redistribute agency, and which formats best translate lab data into public artefacts. Methodologically, the project evolves in two phases: Roots introduces microscopy and critical image literacy; Routes transforms datasets into narrative and speculative visualisations. The paper argues that RNA imaging, when approached through design, exposes their socio-cultural dimensions: proximities between molecular events and public perception; control in biomedical imagery circulation; and cultures of research redistributing authorship. It proposes an “aesthetics of accountability,” where the making of images becomes a way to account for the claims and responsibilities of RNA research.
Sophie Hamacher: Visio Cordis
Berlin, Germany/Maine USA
Visio Cordis is a 20-minute moving-image portrait of research—of the heart as a physical organ, and of the metaphors through which we navigate its emotional and cultural meanings. Rooted in an investigation of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, also known as broken-heart syndrome, the project explores how medical imaging, affect, and machine vision co-produce contemporary understandings of the heart. It foregrounds the image as neither neutral nor self-evident, but as an aesthetic, ethical, and political construct that shapes research practice. As an audio-visual essay, Visio Cordis approaches research as a poetic and critical method, insisting on the uncertainty of looking in a world increasingly governed by automated sight.
Renée Ridgway: The politics of (re)search: a bespoke platform for capturing, comparing and critiquing knowledge infrastructures of searching
DigitalxData Research Centre, LSBU, UK
►︎University in Crisis
Marie Hoop: Knowledge Policies in the Arts: The Institutionalization of Artistic Research in German-Speaking Countries
Muthesius Kunsthochschule/Leuphana University, Germany
While Artistic Research has already been established in many European countries over the past thirty years, it is still received controversially in German-speaking countries. As a relatively young research discipline, institutional structures and funding as well as career paths are often lacking, especially in Germany. In the presentation, I show empirical research on different organizational settings und funding policies for artistic research in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Using a sociological field analysis based on the theory of Pierre Bourdieu, I analyze how the institutionalization of artistic research is permeated by powerful knowledge orders. The analysis of institutionalization processes reveals struggles for the legitimacy and recognition of artistic research and fierce battles over the power to define knowledge and research. Furthermore, by analyzing examples of artistic PhD programs and art-science collaborations, the presentation highlights the potential of performative artistic research practices for transdisciplinary academic knowledge production and for rethinking traditional knowledge orders in general.
Özgün Eylül Iscen: After Automation: Performing AI, Academic Precarity, and the Limits of Critique
Dresden University of Technology, Germany
Situating contemporary AI debates within the longer-standing crises of academia, this paper examines humanities research under precarious labor conditions, with particular attention to diasporic and migrant academics. Rather than treating AI as a force threatening something previously stable, it frames the vulnerabilities attributed to automation as symptoms of structural problems shaping knowledge production. The paper is a performative academic lecture drawing on Alenka Zupančič’s theory of comedy and mobilizing the comical as a mode of immanent critique. By staging contradiction rather than resolving it, the comical foregrounds the gap between ideals of scholarly autonomy, critique, and value and the material conditions of research. Reframing AI as symptom, the paper redirects critique from defending imagined ideals of academic integrity toward confronting the institutionalized inequalities shaping research today.
Mario Alberto Bracamonte Ocaña: Ghost researchers, governance, and diversion at the intersection of science and art
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Mexico
This paper examines how governance practices within Mexico’s SECIHTI have restructured the relationship between scientific research, cultural policy, and institutional ethics. Three documented cases expose the material consequences of opacity and discretionary spending in state-funded cultural infrastructure. The Museo de la Luz in Merida reveals financial irregularities exceeding thirty million pesos, leading to the termination of its collaborative agreement with UNAM. The Centro Kalan in Mexico City, a multimillion-peso cultural complex, remains inaccessible to the public while official cost figures are inconsistent and allegations of nepotism in artwork commissions persist. A third case involves the private studio of artist Jimena Garcia Alvarez Buylla, whose architectural firm subsequently received the Kalan contract without open bidding, raising unresolved conflicts of interest. Against this backdrop, the author theorizes artist-researchers as structural ghosts: subjects made legible only through rankings and grant metrics, while precarious institutional conditions neutralize critical capacity. Research, the paper concludes, is never neutral; it is shaped by incentive structures that can serve democratic accountability or consolidate power.
Tam Nguyen: Ghost and Rigor: Militarized Transdisciplinarity and Affective Solidarity as Ethical Otherwise
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
This research traces the history of transdisciplinarity within the arts and humanities, starting from the co-option of visual and cultural research in US military operations and national defense during the Cold War. Positing that such a co-option exemplifies an emergent transdisciplinary impulse, it argues that, within this development, Third World culture was assimilated into a false alliance with Western epistemology that sustained the life-force of humanities institutions during the postwar period. Regarding this, the research pays particular attention to ethnography as a beyond-humanities research method within the field of Southeast Asian art history, specifically how this gesture further institutionalizes the militaristic aspect of transdisciplinarity. In response, it theorizes the notion of “ghostly transdisciplinarity,” which points to art writings and other forms of theoretical works across marginalized socio-cultural contexts, as a way to demilitarize knowledge production, challenge extractive (institutional) alliances, and reconstitute ethical transdisciplinarity that merits affective engagements.
►︎Learning from the Silent University
Learning from the Silent University
This workshop proposes to explore the multiple links between the politics of research and the current crisis of the university as an institution. Departing from the hypothesis that this crisis cannot be adequately addressed without confronting institutional mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, visibility and invisibilisation, voice and silence within German universities, the workshop invites the Silent University Ruhr to discuss its institutional history and present activities. We assume that the university, as an institution, is in an existential crisis and must undergo practical transformation. With this workshop, we hope to open a forum that addresses the politics of teaching and research from the perspective of the “Silent University.”
Founded as a solidarity-based, autonomous knowledge-exchange platform in 2012 by the Kurdish artist Ahmet Öğüt, the Silent University is organized by displaced people and forced migrants. It is led by a group of lecturers, consultants, and research fellows, and operates as an educational platform outside the restrictions of migration laws, language limitations, and other bureaucratic obstacles.
The Silent University works with individuals who had professional careers and academic training in their home countries but are unable to use their skills or qualifications due to circumstances related to their migration status. It has active branches in Sweden and Germany. Previously, branches existed in Amman, Athens, London, Hamburg, and Copenhagen. A new branch is now being established in Turkey. Countering the exclusion of people seeking asylum from the system of education, the Silent University offers transversal pedagogical programs led by lecturers, consultants, and research fellows who are themselves displaced people and forced migrants. The platform operates without language restrictions or bureaucratic barriers.
It challenges the idea of silence as a passive state and explores its transformative potential through performance, writing, and collective reflection. These explorations seek to make visible the systemic failures—and the loss of skills and knowledge—that occur through the silencing of people seeking asylum.
Founded by the Impulse Theater Festival, Ringlokschuppen Ruhr, and Urbane Künste Ruhr, the Silent University Ruhr has established its space visibly in the center of Mülheim and is reinventing itself as an alternative Ruhr University for all those who have no or only minimal access to knowledge transfer and education. In recent months, numerous connections have been formed with initiatives and associations in the Ruhr region, as well as with the relevant municipal offices in the city of Mülheim.
Speakers: Bridget Ngencho Fonkeu (sociolinguist, consultant for the Silent University Ruhr, and initiator of the Silent University’s intercultural women’s empowerment network) and other members of the Silent University
Bridget Ngencho Fonkeu and other members of Silent University: in conversation with Jasmin Degeling and Elena Vogman
Silent University Ruhr, Germany
Abstract to be announced.
►︎Decentering Cores and Canons
Kervin Saint Pere Huarcaya: The Humboldt Forum as a Colonial Thought Space
Berlin, Germany
This paper proposes walking through Berlin’s Humboldt Forum not as a restored museum, but as a machinery of thought and participation: a Colonial Thought-Space that, through its architecture, organises what counts as civilised and historical, relegating represented communities to the condition of „objects of study.“ Drawing on the Warburgian concept of Denkraum, it examines how the baroque façade of the reconstructed Royal Palace (2013–2025) — with its golden cross and imperial sculptures — functions as a spatial system of coordinates that, together with the still-visible racial hierarchy of Adolf Bastian, founder of the Ethnological Museum, weaves together imperial nostalgia and colonial plunder as science and common sense: a space that turns the chaos of colonial violence into a rational place and silently justifies dispossession to secure the future of the collections. How does a colonial thinking take shape that renders imperial nostalgia rational and presents plunder as prudent and scientific?
Juliane Richter: The Politics of Proximity: Architectural Research on the “Tropics” in the GDR and the Scientific Department of Building in the Tropics and Abroad in Weimar
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
This paper examines the Scientific Department of Building in the Tropics and Abroad (WB TAB), founded in Weimar in 1985, as a site of architectural knowledge production in the late GDR. Drawing on archival sources and interviews, it explores how research on the “tropics” was shaped by socialist internationalism, political alliances, and limited mobility. Using Cuba as its main case study, it argues that the tropics served less as a geographical category than as a political framework through which selected socialist and anti-imperialist partner countries became objects of research, training, and international engagement.
Eloy Neira-De la Cadena: Against Onenism, and the Coloniality of Knowledge Production
University of California, USA
I call “Onenism” the Western ideology aimed at ordering the world—and life—in terms of a single principle—theological, enlightened, or post-enlightened—which posits one-archical ordering principle—god, king, reason, truth, law, etc. Such ideology was structural to the colonization of the Americas, and today structures the coloniality of knowledge. One area where the university’s drive for onenism goes still unnoticed is methodological design and research pragmatics. Indeed, in this paper, I aim to discuss the research (un)methodological design I am carrying out in Peru concerning mestizaje, fusion, and the emergence of what is called New Andean Pop. Specifically, I will address the distinction that Latinx academics in the United States have been making between “fieldwork”—emphasizing its colonial connotations—and “homework,” which refers to our being part of the communities we study, our purported “objects of study.”
Jawaad Issoop: No Country For Old Institutions: The Onto-Epistemological Monument and the Formation of Architectural Knowledge in Mauritius
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
What counts as architecture, and how does a particular understanding of it become established? In Mauritius, architecture is often understood primarily as construction, the aesthetic treatment of buildings, and the fulfilment of clients’ practical needs. While these are important dimensions of practice, this research investigates the institutional and extra-institutional processes and implications that form dominant frames through which architecture is understood, potentially constraining its capacity to respond to the specific contexts, materials, climates, bodies, and ways of living in Mauritius – a postcolonial and polycolonial society shaped by successive colonial histories.
Rather than treating this solely as the persistence of Western architectural knowledge, the research asks how particular understandings of architecture continue across changing institutions, agents, and practices. Mauritius complicates the picture: the historical record offers no readily traceable indigenous architectural epistemic origin.
The contribution presents the Onto-Epistemological Monument (OEM) as a developing concept: a formation through which particular ways of knowing and being are stabilised and reproduced through agents, institutions, and practices.
►︎Whose Diaspora?
Noit Banai: World Building Beyond the Nation State: Diaspora as Science Fiction
Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, Austria
This project examines the development of Diaspora Aesthetics, a newly established field at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, within a political climate shaped by rising right-wing populism, authoritarianism, and post-truth discourse. While Austria’s history and present are marked by cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity, contemporary nationalist narratives increasingly construct the nation as a homogeneous community rooted in exclusionary notions of identity. In response, the project proposes a methodology that understands diaspora not only as a historical and sociopolitical condition but also as a speculative framework aligned with the logic of science fiction. Diasporic experience—characterized by displacement, temporal rupture, hybridity, and the negotiation of multiple realities—shares key features with science fiction’s modes of imagining alternative worlds and futures. Reading diaspora through science fiction foregrounds the creative and critical world-building practices of dispersed communities, offering strategies to resist authoritarian constructions of identity, challenge manipulated notions of truth, and envision forms of belonging beyond the constraints of the nation-state.
Chanyoung Park: Mai Ling’s Accented Anonymous Collectivity as Diasporic Methodology
Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, Austria
This contribution takes as a case study the Vienna-based, anonymous artist collective Mai Ling’s online protest Not Funny! (2020), which responded to the racist parody of a Chinese correspondent during Covid-19 aired on the late-night show Gute Nacht Österreich. By focusing on the aesthetics of the ‘accented anonymous collectivity,’ the contribution will examine how the collective deconstructs the notion of ‘Asianness’ and bypasses racial taxonomy without losing multiplicity. Speaking with an accent is one of the most racially charged experiences for a diasporic subject. Yet, unlike a static identity marker, an accent “doesn’t say anything precise about the speaker’s social location or locution.” Thus, speaking with an accent resists simple labeling and stereotyping. This contribution will highlight how Mai Ling expands on the methodological potency of accents by amplifying its liminality and staged conflation by voicing collectively and anonymously.
►︎Epistemic Forces: Experiences Beyond Academic Norms
Linda Luv: Becoming Cyborg: Care, Artistic Research, and the Politics of Motherhood as Performance
Frankfurt, Germany
“Becoming Cyborg” is a lecture performance developed from the artistic PhD The Other|Mother. Everyday Care as a Performative Practice of Troubling that explores motherhood, care, and artistic research as embodied, relational, and politically situated practices. It asks how performance can reframe care, dependency, and exhaustion as epistemic forces. Through the figure of the M:Other – a hybrid of mother, other, and cyborg – it proposes feminist strategies of survival under conditions of structural overload. Within the performance, the physical components of the dissertation are activated as performative objects. Combining text, action, sound, and scores, the work reframes research as a material, affective, and collective practice. By foregrounding embodied knowledge and the politics of research formats, „Becoming Cyborg“ advocates transformative modes of knowledge production.
Katja Hettich: Embodied Ways of Knowing: Unsettling Research Norms through Cripistemology
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
How do embodied experiences shape what counts as knowledge? This paper introduces cripistemology as an approach for questioning normative assumptions underlying dominant epistemologies. Taking blindness as a case study, it critiques the longstanding reliance on visual metaphors that equate seeing with knowing and blindness with ignorance. Rather than framing blindness as a deficit, the paper explores it as a distinct mode of sensory engagement with the world that reveals the embodied conditions under which knowledge is produced and validated. It argues that disability studies provide conceptual tools for examining how research cultures privilege particular ways of knowing and for opening interdisciplinary dialogue.
Dori Griffin: Praxis, Positionality, & Ways of Knowing
University of Florida, USA
This paper examines canon and heritage through visual ethnography, pedagogical praxis, and design fiction, asking: how do my educational roots inform my design-educator positionality? Raised homeschooled on experiential learning, Bauhaus principles felt natural[ized]. Universal languages of form/function resonated with my prior knowledge systems. I explore this multivalent heritage in process-based experiments. Teaching design history, I root students in pluralistic, global references. We ask: how do humans make sense through designed systems and artifacts? Students contribute primary research to a public archive, investigating their own culture—or respectfully exploring others‘. This collective work is radical, politically and disciplinarily. How might we imagine a future where knowledge, archives, and historical narratives are credible, accessible, and pluriversal? Drawing on my positional context and the radical archiving work I do with students, I hypothesize such a future.
►︎Towards a Proto-Science of Architecture?
Achim Hahn: Architecture and the Lifeworld: Aspects of a Phenomenological-Hermeneutic Understanding of Architecture
Dresden University of Technology, Germany
What is the human being whom we must observe and describe in the practical domains of dwelling, designing, and building? Human beings primarily perceive architecture as a familiar practical object (Umgangsding) within their lifeworld and experience its significance for their own embodied needs directly. All goods of life are a response to this fundamental human situation: architecture is a good of life. What kind of reflection on their own self-understanding does this entail for architects? This paper aims to elucidate the relevant relationship between lifeworldly and theoretical attitudes.
Sam Jacoby: Architectural Judgement and the Scientific
Royal College of Art, UK
A first orientation of Western architectural judgement towards the scientific emerged in the eighteenth century, with the crisis of classical authority and the need to legitimise past and future practice. I will outline how changing understandings of “the scientific” have since shaped architectural reasoning and practice. I will then discuss how design research arose from the need to recognise design thinking and practice as discipline-specific forms of rigorous enquiry, while distinguishing this from ordinary practice. Research makes knowledge explicit and accountable, allowing it to be systematically examined, compared, and shared. As social and environmental pressures are increasingly defined in scientific terms, architectural practice and practice-based research have become more scientific. Yet the scientific is only one dimension of architectural judgement, along with spatial, social, cultural, technical, environmental, and historical knowledge. The challenge for architectural research is to bring these heterogeneous forms of knowledge together in terms specific to architecture.
Dulmini Perera: Taking Different Practice-Worlds Seriously: Architectural research and the ontological turn
University of Limerick, Ireland
Architectural research has long occupied a contested position within academia, struggling to articulate and claim value for the different ways in which practitioners generate and work with knowledge. In doing so, it has continually negotiated its relationship with the “scientific,” both implicitly and explicitly—from the rationalisation of design methods in the 1960s, through social constructivist critique, to the reflexive approaches associated with design research. Yet, within neoliberal academic evaluation frameworks, it is questionable whether established ideas in design research adequately acknowledge and evaluate cosmological differences in knowledge production and exchange across diverse practice sites. Against this background, I turn to recent accounts of (non-modern) science emerging from the “ontological turn,” particularly in Science and Technology Studies(STS) and anthropology, which reconsider the role of the observer, the production of descriptions, and the co-construction of knowledge. Bringing these ideas into dialogue with recent explorations of architectural research, such as “pragmatist approaches” and “architectural behaviorology,” I explore the possibilities for radically reframing architectural research and its capacity to attend to cosmological differences across practices.
Skender Luarasi, Llazar Kumaraku: Between the (Scientific) Model and the Precedent: Research in architecture under the pressure of the “scientific pragmatics”
POLIS University, Albania
What does it mean for architecture to be scientific? The discipline’s relationship to science—its desire to adopt scientific rigor—can be traced back to the Enlightenment. An early example of such aspiration is Claude Perrault’s distinction between natural and arbitrary beauty. The former arises from an “apparent […] balanced correspondence of size, number, disposition, and order,” while the latter is deemed agreeable “merely by custom.” For Perrault, natural beauty aligns with a scientific model, whereas customary beauty rests on historical precedent. Colin Rowe was perhaps the last major figure to adopt such methodological distinction in the study and analysis of architecture, until the linguistic and cybernetic, and – later – the digital turn(s) did away with the customary (or attempted to do so). Scientific pragmatics have sought to subsume precedent under the authority of the scientific model, with artificial intelligence standing as the apotheotic example of this ambition. Can architecture truly dispense with the customary, with precedent, and if not, as this paper argues, why? To claim that architecture is scientific is, paradoxically, to demonstrate the impossibility of architecture ever being fully scientific.
Matteo Pasquinelli: N-1: Dimensionality Reduction Across the History of Cultural Techniques, Information Technologies, and AI
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy
One of the least investigated aspects of human cognition is the capacity to integrate the dimensions of experience, space and time, into a perceptual continuum and conversely to dis-integrate them, that is to undo the continuum and translate dimensional features into various cultural artefacts. Thousands of years ago, cave painting constituted the first ‘picture plane’ via a reduction of dimensionality, by flattening the experience of the world onto the crude surface of a rock. Ancient humans started learning a model of the world from a flat representation of it. Later, written language emerged as a sequence of signs to replace these pictures as well as the sequence of sounds in oral communication. Dimensionality transformation belongs to all cultural techniques and it can be traced also through the more recent development of visual arts, optical media, information technologies, and AI. Whereas it is customary to narrate the history of AI as the simulation of thinking through calculus, it is often forgotten that AI is also part of the long history of cultural techniques for spacetime representation.
Anniversary Event: Reception 50 Years International Bauhaus Colloquium, Talks by Daniela Spiegel and Max Welch Guerra, Opening of the Exhibition "Looking Closer"
The evening will take place in the Main Building, starting at 18:15 h in the Oberlichtsaal with a reception and two talks by Daniela Spiegel and Max Welch Guerra, critically examining the colloquium’s own history of politics in research. About 19:30 h the Exhibition „Looking Closer: The Bauhaus Colloquiums“ will open in the corridors of the main building. About 20 h music will fill the ground floor inviting you to stay for casual exchange. Later that night, DJ Sunhillow and VJ Loov will turn one of the lecture rooms into a temporary dance floor with a light show.
►︎ Friday, 6 November 2026
►︎Embodied Encounters: Subjectivity, Care, and Relational Knowledge
Nikolay Barzakov: Research as Encounter: How Bodies Negotiate Influence
South-West University, Bulgaria
Performers negotiate what is allowed to influence them in a live situation. Somatic consent operates as the ongoing decision of what to admit or refuse from a space, partner, object, audience, or task. Treated as an epistemic procedure, it generates knowledge through the body being altered by an encounter. Attunement names this capacity: remaining open to the present without losing structural coherence.
Within practice-as-research contexts, institutional pressures to produce legible outcomes train the opposite habit. Pre-emptive stabilisation locks timing, geometry, and relational settings in advance, foreclosing what the live event can propose.
Studio journals and rehearsal protocols reveal three recurring patterns through which performers refuse influence: clinging to a prior image of themselves displacing the one the situation produces; subordinating the live encounter to a predetermined compositional frame; and correcting a somatic consequence before it has time to register as information. Somatic consent functions as a diagnostic tool for locating these refusals and redesigning the conditions that generate them.
Kristin Marek: The Bundeswehr, the University and Care
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Kristin Marek talks about the contradiction in the institutional treatment of her motherhood, which comes to light one day when her daughter receives an invitation card from the German Bundeswehr. As she reflects on the reason for her persistent outrage at the invitation card, two contrasting regimes of perception and visibility emerge: those of the university and the Bundeswehr. Whilst the Bundeswehr knows her child and seems merely to be waiting for the moment they come of age to recruit them, her everyday working life at university consists of hiding her child and her motherhood. In working life, children are always merely an argument against something. But wouldn’t it be lovely to imagine a university where care work is not something that gets in the way, but something that is actively sought after?
Martin Leibinger, Giuliana Marmo: The Biennial of Care: Politics of Aftercare in Project-Based Artistic Practice
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
The “Biennial of Care” is an arts-based action research process. We contribute to the current debate on “hidden costs of care” and the “careful turn” in socially engaged art. While cultural events like biennials and festivals often feature process-based socially engaged work within local communities, they usually operate on a project-based framework with defined goals and a definite end. Support structures end while vulnerabilities, needs, and expectations in social environments persist. In Chemnitz, we currently investigate the effects of the European Capital of Culture on the local creative scene and on the public that became actively involved. We close a gap, refocusing the discourse and the framework of evaluation from “legacy” to “care” in the aftermath of large events. The Biennial of Care is conceived as an evolving methodology over the longer term. We create a “Mobile Care Unit” as an archive and toolbox, designed to travel across different large-scale cultural events.
Lisa-Maria Hermes: Textile Practices as Embodied Research and Acts of Care
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Taking Sarah-Joy Ford’s art projekt „Quilting the Lesbian Archive“ as its central case study, this talk examines how artistic and textile practices can provide alternative ways to research and care for marginalised positions within academia as well as transform archival research into a tactile, material form of knowledge production.
Ford’s work emerges from her research at the Glasgow Women’s Library, where she encounters and engages with the remnants of a community funded lesbian archive. Through the translation of archival materials into a textile quilt, research becomes a process of physical interaction, material interpretation, and sustained making. Both the embodied encounter with archival objects and the time-consuming, intimate process of quilting can be understood as acts of care: ways of attending to, preserving, and reactivating traces of lesbian histories that risk being forgotten or rendered invisible. The quilt thus becomes not only an artistic response to hegemonic forms of archival research, but also a material practice of remembering and caring for marginalised histories.
Building on these reflections, the talk connects Ford’s textile research to practices in Lisa-Maria Hermes‘ academic teaching, in which art-historical inquiry is combined with hands-on textile practices. These approaches foreground the body, material knowledge, and practical experience as integral to processes of interpretation and knowledge production. The talk ultimately asks how textile practices can create spaces in which research becomes an embodied, relational, and caring activity, enabling marginalised histories and material traces to be encountered, reconsidered, and brought into renewed visibility.
►︎Contested Sites: Spatial Struggles
Hikmet Kuran: From Planning to Policing: The Criminalization of Urban Expertise, Politicized EIA Procedures, and the Suppression of Local Governance in Contemporary Turkey
Cappadocia University, Turkey
This paper examines how authoritarian neoliberalism reshapes urban planning, environmental assessment, and local governance in contemporary Turkey. It explores the politicization of planning expertise, the marginalization of scientific knowledge, and pressures on environmental activists, professional chambers, and opposition-led municipalities. Focusing on mining conflicts in Akbelen, İliç, Cerattepe, and Lice, alongside the Canal Istanbul controversy, it investigates how development priorities intersect with environmental dissent, institutional accountability, and democratic participation. The paper argues that planning and environmental governance have become contested sites where political authority, knowledge production, and the definition of public interest are negotiated. It highlights how legal and administrative mechanisms can constrain independent expertise and local democratic autonomy.
Monica Tușinean: Research in the Debris: Disrupting Architectural Paradigms Through Design Phenomenographies
University of Stuttgart, Germany
This paper advances artistic and design-driven research as a dissident practice capable of unsettling the hegemonies governing architectural decision-making. Situated within industrial ruins of the former Eastern Bloc, it confronts the cultural amnesia that has rendered these sites politically inconvenient and institutionally invisible, places once inscribed with the utopian promises of collective futurity, now dissolving and at risk of being obliterated by predatory real estate practices.
Through hybridised phenomenographies (hand drawings, filmic overlays, and atmospheric vignettes), the research excavates submerged layers of grief and embodied experience that conventional methodologies suppress. Grounded in autoethnographic situatedness, it positions the researcher as an implicated subject rather than an external authority.
Design-driven inquiry can reclaim the ruin as a politically charged epistemic space, one where silenced histories are reactivated, and architecture is compelled, to listen before it builds.
Kiera Sona: Ruin as Practice: Unfinished Architecture as Sites of Alternative Urban Futures in West Africa
Limbo Museum, Ghana
Unfinished architecture is overrepresented in West African urban landscapes, leaving even major city skylines in a state of liminality, separated from time, space, and use. In Ghana, stalled or abandoned buildings account for approximately one third of the built environment. Despite their non-completion, these structures are not without history or meaning. They hold traces of political decisions, economic conditions, ambitions, and imagined futures. To study them is not simply to document what was left incomplete, but to consider what these structures reveal about African architectural histories and how those histories might be brought into broader discourse.
Non-completion is a recurring spatial and temporal condition that produces distinct architectural forms, aesthetics, and modes of urban life. These unfinished structures generate alternative relationships to time, governance, materiality, and futurity that challenge conventional ideas of architectural completion. Limbo Museum engages directly with this logic of suspension, treating unfinished architecture not as decay, but as evidence of ambitions, promises, and negotiations embedded in the city. Through research, exhibition, and archive, Limbo transforms the unfinished into platforms for experimentation, knowledge production, and future-oriented urban thinking.
►︎Panel Discussion: Urban Studies in Limbo: On (Un)certainties of Re-Searching Authoritarian Contexts
Panel Discussion: Urban Studies in Limbo: On (Un)certainties of Re-Searching Authoritarian Contexts
Uncertainty forms the core of research, as venturing into the unknown involves unpredictability and potential failure, aggravated by funding, erratic scientific agenda-setting, and broader political contexts. While research always entails maneuvering within heightened uncertainty, the panel examines the particularities of researching authoritarian contexts. Notwithstanding differences between authoritarian settings, they share traits making research unpredictable, ranging from difficulties building trust and lack of data to ethical dilemmas balancing field access against risks for participants or oneself. The panel offers a platform for exchanging experiences on navigating research under such conditions.
Drawing on Hungary, Russia, Georgia, and Serbia, the panel discussion highlights specific uncertainties to deepen understanding and exchange strategies. Since most panelists research from the outside, we also critically reflect on our positionality and responsibilities as researchers.
►︎Access, Control, Constraint
Dieter Lesage: Archive, Broodthaers, Catalogue, Dockx
Royal Institute for Theatre, Cinema & Sound, Belgium
With their work Projet pour un livre. Projet pour un film, Nico Dockx and Helena Sidiropoulos realised in 2009 the production of an altered version of an unpublished catalogue to the exhibition Marcel Broodthaers. L’homme de lettres et la conquête de l’espace, which had taken place at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels from March 9 until June 10, 2001. The catalogue had not been published as a result of discussions with the rights holders concerning the permission to use the images of works and documents in the catalogue. While researching the institution’s archives in 2009, Dockx and Sidiropoulos rediscovered the model of this catalogue. Projet pour un livre. Projet pour un film is the result of their decision to publish the catalogue at last, or at least to produce a work of art that would testify to the existence of this unpublished book. Wit its large number of black non-images, their work looked like a visually loud protest against the fact that the rights holders had forbidden to use a lot of images. One could think of it as a Broodthaersian Open Letter accusing the excesses of the institution of copyright, the question being not whether the author is dead, but whether the author is dead long enough.
Tessel M. Bauduin, Maria Suarez Caicedo: “Negative travel advice” from Collectors: issues of access in research
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
In this paper we examine issues of access in universities and cultural educational institutions, showing how institutional gatekeeping shapes who enters academic spaces and contributes to knowledge production. We adapt Martínez Colá’s mentoring model—Collector, Night Light, and Ally—to institutions to analyze how they include, exclude, or condition marginalized groups and non hegemonic knowledge sources. One case study examines museums with problematic collections, facing questions of restitution, repatriation, and repair, as oscillating between Collectors and Allies. Another explores research with Latin American communities in violent or officially “high risk” areas, where researchers positioned as Allies are constrained by blanket institutional policies. Together, these cases shed light on hegemonic and counter hegemonic frameworks shaping art and heritage research and teaching within European institutions.
Nanne Buurman: ghost writing/ haunting infrastructures: On Hidden Curricula, Political Framing and the Neutralization of Nazism
Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, Germany
After years of questioning the neutrality of the white cube and researching the politics of exhibition-making, I stumbled upon völkisch-nationalist continuities in the history of documenta in 2018. Since then, I have been researching not only the afterlives of Nazi networks and narratives in the postwar German fields of art production, education, and curation, but also the histories of historiography of the GDR and FRG, including their political entanglements in Cold War nation-building. The uncanny psychological dynamics that this kind of research continues to trigger today, in both the former East and the former West, make it clear that Nazi history is not a thing of the past but continues to haunt cultural infrastructures. It lives on in hidden curricula, within the pages of books and between the walls of exhibitions, and even inhabits our minds and bodies. Drawing on experiences across different contexts and institutions, my presentation examines how discourses and displays are being used as frameworks to configure political imaginaries. Finally, I discuss speculative “ghostwriting” and “g/hosting the past” as methods that resist claims to objectivity and calls for neutrality by the (new) right by exhibiting the epistemic scaffolding of historiography self-reflexively.
Space | Politics | Methods Lab/ Collective: Doors of Oblivion
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Doors of Oblivion examines doors of the National Technical University of Athens’s historic campus — home to the School of Architecture — as material thresholds through which authoritarian neoliberalism is enacted and normalised. Fifty years after the campus gate was destroyed by the junta tanks in 1973 and became a landmark of anti-dictatorship struggle, new pressures emerge. Surveillance and controlled access are being inserted in the university, tied to the commodification of higher education. Through situated study of selected doors, regarding their use, neglect, repair and contestation of meaning, we trace how material arrangements regulate movement, shape subjectivities, and reorganise institutional memory. We ask how doors that exclude (our bodies and memory) might be reclaimed for commoning. Viewing thresholds as sites of change, we treat doors as borders, sites of desire and agents of power. Our methodology includes analysis and on-site intervention. Beginning in spring 2026, collective mapping and wandering, activating doors as sites of encounter and political imagination, and gathering stories from students, staff and researchers are being conducted.
►︎Productive Landscapes: Extractive Tendencies vs. Alternative Epistemologies
Sina Hensel: Oceanic Colour Practices: Negotiating Epistemic Agency and More-than-Human Labour
Critical Media Lab FHNW Basel / University of Arts Linz / Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
Colour from microalgae and cyanobacteria carries the material memory of the waters it has lived through. It bears witness to cohabitation, environmental stress and contamination.
Trained as a painter, my artistic practice and PhD research explore growing and harvesting colour from microalgae and cyanobacteria in experimental settings. This work becomes a site for rethinking natural-scientific knowledge practices by privileging the agency of these organisms over reproducibility or rigid protocols. Colour becomes both material and methodology: an ecological trace and multispecies storyteller. Drawing on feminist science and decolonial scholars, my work situates scientific knowledge alongside artistic, poetic and relational modes of engagement. I further wonder how the industrial scaling of microalgae and cyanobacteria farms, and the language built around it, normalise extractive practices. Through artworks, collaborative workshops and writing, I develop embodied, sensory methods that challenge disciplinary norms and explore more ecological, relational and ethical ways of knowing.
Stefano Morosini: Governing the Return of Wolves: EU Environmental Research Funding, Human–Wildlife Conflict, and the Politics of Conservation from the EEC to the Age of Populism
Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Italy
Over the past fifty years, EU environmental research has played a key role in shaping biodiversity conservation. The return of the wolf (Canis lupus) across Europe, enabled by legal protection and programmes such as LIFE and Natura 2000, provides a revealing case for examining the politics of research. This paper analyses how EU funding has produced not only scientific knowledge but also governance models and political narratives around large carnivore conservation. Drawing on historical policy analysis and the concepts of “civilizing nature” (Wöbse) and state legibility (Scott), it argues that the wolf has become a governance object through monitoring, management, and coexistence strategies increasingly challenged by nationalist and populist critiques. The paper asks whether EU-funded environmental research can mediate conflicts over biodiversity or whether it risks reinforcing the political polarisation surrounding nature conservation.
Ismini Gatou: Cement and Limestone: Toward Embodied Epistemologies Across Human and Nonhuman Plateaus
University of Thessaly/ Research Centre for the Humanities, Athens, Greece
This presentation draws on my research-creation practice, which combines sensory ethnography and technologically mediated methods in order to explore how embodied knowledge emerges across human and non-human plateaus. In the multicultural area of Amerikis Square in central Athens, I collaborated closely with my interlocutors to co-create spatial and relational understandings through a methodology I developed called narratives-in-motion. Some of the research material was later transformed into an interactive audio walk located in the same neighborhood, inviting others to listen, move through it, and re-perform the emerging hybrid space. During an artistic-research residency on the island of Chios, I developed aepos: I found seashells on a plateau, a sound-based performative work that carries human and non-human presences across the limestone landscape of the Aepos mountainous terrain. In both works, I approach research as a practice of co-existence, care, and attention, and as a space in which knowledge emerges through embodied, situated, and shared encounters.
Esteban Pérez: Volcanic Futures
Berlin, Germany
Volcanic Futures is a 10-minute video essay. The work weaves my personal experience of growing up in the Andean region with a feeling of estrangement from today’s planetary condition. Structured into four parts, it begins by questioning the meaning of the term “Andean,” then reflects on how this landscape has shaped my subjectivity and perspective as an artist. The third part turns to the contemporary global condition: wars, artificial intelligence, and the climate crisis, framed through capitalist science fiction, the ideology promoted by billionaires who imagine an interplanetary project of a humanity without a world. The final section proposes a speculative return to ancestral Andean ways of knowing, which see nature as a world rather than a resource, imagining a future based on reciprocity with this sacred web of life.
The piece brings together personal photographs of mountains I have taken since my youth, YouTube footage from tech companies seeking to colonize Mars, archival images of the Pichincha volcano eruption, and scientific illustrations of the Andes by European explorers such as Alexander von Humboldt.
►︎Russian Imperialism: Infrastructures, Fragile Bodies, Erased Memories
Antonina Stebur in conversation with Olexii Kuchanskyi
Berlin, Germany; University of Basel, Switzerland
How is Russian imperialism structured, sustained, and transmitted? How does it persist across different political regimes and historical ruptures? And how can art help us trace its mechanisms?
Focusing on russian imperialism, Olexii Kuchanskyi and Antonina Stebur explore these questions through three interconnected dimensions: infrastructure, the fragile body, and the erasure of memory. Moving between art history and contemporary artistic practices, the conversation interweaves different methodologies, tracing how colonial relations were experienced and subverted across different scales.
►︎Frictions of Solidarity: Critical Histories, Insurgent Methods
Shivani Shedde: Bonds Across the World: Architecture as Colonial Critique
Pratt Institute, USA
What can critique of empire tell us about resistance to national form? While studies on internationalism abound, many accounts privilege the international expert and the institutions that emerged in the post war period, leaving the national frame of these projects undisputed. Architectural historiographies of solidarity and non-alignment too, focus on knowledge transfers beyond the “West,” yet continue to valorize the modernist transformation of the territorially bounded nation. The periodization of post war/Cold War/decolonization leaves many unquestioned premises—empire succeeded by the nation state; the international expert as representative of state; and the monument as evidence of nation building—which obscure the contingencies of history, or the ways in which non-state anti-imperialists sustained global, territorial, and worldly spatial imaginations.
Focused on the anti-imperial internationalism of two figures: well-known American sociologist W.E.B Du Bois, whose observations of colonialism had laid the groundwork for a critique of capital; alongside Lebanese architect Antoine Tabet, whose writings on architecture were similarly theorized within the context of an anti-colonial humanism and collective action; this paper engages with what it means to tell a history of architecture “from below,” not divorced from the popular movements whose reach exceeded the atomization of the nation. It reveals the complexity of concerns articulated by internationalists to forge an anti-colonial project that troubles the now-sedimented periodization of history and the cartographies they elicit.
Faiq Mari: Building our Own: the Limits of Solidarity Within the Contemporary University
Birzeit University, West Bank
This talk discusses the imperatives of radical research and design from within the contemporary university. It argues that the dissonance between researchers and the institutions they find themselves ultimately necessitates building new institutions and an alternative ecosystem of knowledge production and solidarity.
Yaman To'meh: The Ribs of the Impossible
Berlin, Germany
Reflecting on the definitions of knowledge through three main routes: responsibility, spectacle and art. The question of what constitutes transformative knowledge. Revisiting Egyptian poet Amal Dunqul’s Do Not Reconcile and its resistance to the status quo.The ongoing negotiation between intellect, emotion, and spirituality in knowledge. Its function as spectacle, the image’s material impact, and Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle, alongside questions of positionality, agency, and accountability. Drawing on philosopher Jean Baudrillard and Palestinian poet Muin Bseiso to explore artistic responsibility, cultural resistance, genocide, and the blurred boundaries between reality and simulation. Through Naji Al-Ali’s Handala and Mohammad El-Kurd’s Perfect Victims, we examine the role of art and culture in Palestinian liberation movements. Understanding knowledge as a tool against systemic injustice, performativity, and political detachment.
Charlotte Grace: Critical Solidarity and (geo)Political Defeat
Royal College of Art, UK
This informal presentation will speak to the complex landscape of solidarity research through my ongoing academic and activist work with the Kurdish Freedom Movement (KFM). In particular, my PhD, ʻSpatial Labour and the Politics of Place in Rojavaʼ, which explored the sociospatial dimensions of the Rojava Revolution, tries to work from a position of Critical Solidarity (Hevaltî) with the region’s aims and claims. To do so, I refracted the KFM’s own concepts through spatial frameworks and local case studies, using a range of co-pedagogic, auto-elicitation methods to collect and interpret fieldwork data. This led to the development of the post-doctoral Impact project ʻA Spatial Contract for Rojavaʼ, which sought to activate my research into useful, propositional outcomes. I will speak about the stopped-start that the recent Syrian “reintegration” process has created for this project, where it leaves me as a solidarity researcher, and what it means to research revolution as it (un)folds.
►︎Situated Epistemologies: Decoloniality, Race, and Global Knowledge Production
HE Shen 何珅: Piaopiao[飘飘] as Method: Dialect (as) Archive and Wandering through Teahouse
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
The Sichuanese dialect term piaopiao [飘飘] emerged in the 1990s as a vernacular expression for wandering lives. Derived from the verb piao (“to float”), it came to describe those living outside patriarchal, reproduction-oriented family structures and served as an alias through which homosexual men recognised one another in Sichuan’s teahouses. Embedded in spoken language rather than institutional archives, piaopiao condenses histories of sexual dissidence and spatial fugitivity into a single dialect term. This paper develops piaopiao as a research method for architectural history and theory. It argues that the Sichuanese teahouse is not merely a backdrop for piaopiao sociality but a porous care infrastructure organised through passage, co-presence, and hospitality. Reading the teahouse’s permeability through piaopiao thus repositions dialect as a living archive of spatial knowledge and offers a situated account of how architecture mediates gender and sexual dissidence.
Fabiana Oliveira Heinrich: Against neutrality, within ideology: from Bauhaus to the Global South, a perspective on project and research methodologies in the Design Field
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
This paper challenges the assumption that project and research methodologies in the Design Field are neutral and universally applicable tools. Drawing on critical theory and historical materialism, it argues that methodologies are historically and ideologically embedded in capitalist societies. From the eighteenth-century “culture of the project” to the Design education institutionalization through the Bauhaus and later the Ulm School, methodological frameworks have shaped how design projects are organized while reproducing imperatives of efficiency, standardization, and market alignment. Grounded in the work of Marx, Mészáros, Konder, and Vieira Pinto, the paper understands ideology as the expression of social relations rather than false consciousness. Combining analysis with reflections from teaching and advising in the Design Graduate Program at UFRJ – Brazil, it examines practices from a Global South perspective and argues for an understanding of design as socially situated praxis.
10:00–12:00
César Peña, David Vélez: Forging Modernity Otherwise: When a Metalworking Company in Medellín Contradicts the Global History of Design
Universidad de los Andes, Columbia
Forging Modernity Otherwise examines ElOspina, a Colombian metalworking company active during the first half of the twentieth century, to explore how alternative histories of modern design emerge from fragmented archives. Drawing on catalogues, photographs, surviving furniture, business records, and family memories, the paper treats archival discontinuity not as a limitation but as a productive method of inquiry. The study follows the trajectory of ElOspina’s metal furniture from its industrial origins to its later reappropriation by artists, revealing a historical tension between utility and the production of meaning. By tracing the movement of objects from foundry to home, archive, and artistic practice, the paper challenges universal narratives of design history and argues for a more plural understanding of modernity, knowledge production, and material culture in Latin America.
Abhishek Hazra: An inauthentically decolonial Southern subject, anxiously ascends and descends a stairway
Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design & Technology, Bangalore, India
Through simple, repeated acts of regression and progression, this multi-modal lecture-performance activates the iconic stairways of the Weimar Bauhaus while reflecting on the politics of Decolonial Theory. In a tangential register, it highlights the disturbing irony that in parts of the Global South, the emancipatory discourse of Decolonial Theory is increasingly harnessed to infrastructures of unfreedom. Drawing on speculative scenarios rooted in Abhishek’s longstanding interest in non-institutionalised forms of knowledge production, the performance also enacts the contradictions of representation at conferences where the Global North invites the Global South. In the present conjuncture, Decolonial Theory, despite its institutional capture, or perhaps because of it, is arguably a prevailing paradigm for critiquing the colonial legacy. But does this imply that a Southern researcher-artist should, almost by default, feel affiliated with its program of epistemic delinking from the West?
Hito Steyerl, Oleksiy Radynski: Where Russia Ends
Akademie der Bildenden Künste München, Germany
Kyiv, Ukraine
The first-ever trial in a German court related to a war crime committed during a Russian invasion of Ukraine is taking place at the moment. But the “crime” in question is not the mass aerial bombing of the civilian population, the abduction of Ukrainian children, or the occupation of a nuclear power plant. It is not even a trial against a serviceman in the army of the aggressor. It is a trial against a member of the Ukrainian military who stands accused of blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines. Nord Stream is widely seen as a piece of infrastructure that made the Russian invasion of Ukraine possible in the first place. It also delayed the necessary energy transition in Germany, causing new spikes in energy prices as well as new dependencies, which in turn contribute to a sharp rightward turn in German politics. Ongoing state subsidies for new German drone start-ups producing often defective but overpriced products, as well as for outdated tanks, at the expense of education and culture, add to a widening divide between rich and poor.
Screening of Where Russia Ends (2024, Director: Oleksiy Radynski, Development: Philipp Goll & Oleksiy Radynski, Producer: Lyuba Knorozok). Introductory talks by Hito Steyerl and Oleksiy Radynski. Discussion moderated by Elena Vogman.
Oleksiy Radynski, Lyuba Knorozok: Special Operation (2025)
Kyiv, Ukraine
Special Operation (2025, Ukraine/Lithuania,65 min., Colour & Black/White, Director & Screenplay: Oleksiy Radynski, Editing: Taras Spivak, Sound Design: Vladimir Golovnitski, Producer: Lyuba Knorozok).
When Russian troops occupied Ukraine’s Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant on 24.02.22, in the very first hours of their all-out invasion of Ukraine, their activities were documented by CCTV cameras. They turned the territory of the nuclear power plant into a military base in an attempt to occupy the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, located just a hundred miles away. Special Operation is based on that footage, recorded at the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history, creating an almost disembodied examination of military logic.
Discussion with Oleksiy Radynski and Lyuba Knorozok moderated by Olexii Kuchanskyi.
►︎ Saturday, 7 November 2026
10:00–10:45Limona, Fotowerkstatt
11:00–12:00Start at University Library
Clementine Butler-Gallie, Luise Leon Elbern: Desire, Dissidence, and Path-Making: Walking as Artistic Research
Berlin, Germany; Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Walking always begins with a pull: a quiet impulse that aligns us toward an elsewhere. In urban contexts, this pull sometimes materializes as a trace, a desire path; those informal, crooked lines in the grass or gravel that reveal how people move through space differently from prescribed routes. This pull is expressed by a desire.
This contribution combines the format of presentation, drawing on the year-long program of artist-led walks titled Dissident Paths co-curated for nGbK, Berlin (2025-26), with a walk-based workshop. Through which we will explore desire and dissidence as forces shaping how bodies move, encounter one another, and imagine alternative possibilities for public space. We will examine how walking redirects attention, creates social, spatial, and epistemic relations that open spaces of access engagement, and alternative or unplanned uses of built environment, and therefore new knowledge.
12:00–13:00Media House/SCC, Studio 1
10:00–12:00Start at University Library
Lilla Kammermann, Lilla Varga: Tripping on Modernist Monuments
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
The Tripping on Modernist Monuments artistic research project explores how monuments—whether intentionally or unintentionally—make societal conflicts visible, and how expertise from monument preservation, activism, art, and engineering can be integrated. Rather than focusing visually pleasing representations, the project engages with built heritage in its raw reality, its current use, and its entanglement in postsocialist politics.
This walk demonstrates how student-led, collaborative research can function as a counter-hegemonic academic endeavor that reimagines the methodologies of knowledge production. Reflecting on the time that has passed since the XV. Bauhaus Colloquium, it traces heritage dating back to the era of the I. Bauhaus Colloquium, situating it within the broader context of knowledge production across the former Eastern Bloc and Yugoslavia.
10:00–13:00Media House/SCC, Kinosaal
Sarah Ciston, Ren Loren Britton: The Secret Grant: Reclaiming Research Bureaucracy
Academy of Media Arts Cologne, Germany; Berlin, Germany
How do research grant indicators (mis)shape the way research forms? How do research horizons make and unmake ‘transformative research’ and what are the ways of feeling transformative successes? This workshop will put pressure on the terms that shape who gets resources for research and how, in order to imagine research outcomes otherwise. We will open up a series of embodied activities and conversations that strive to reclaim and refuse ‘research grant indicators’ as bureaucratic instruments of collective for closure. We will explore tools and practices that instead put indicators in service of indicating practices of communal + mutual aid, collective and embodied research, pleasure-centered demands of and on the collective body so that a body politics of liberation would be possible. Moving from a queer-, trans*- and crip-informed practice that questions what it means to optimize time, or to gather ‘results’ — we will take each of the indicators of a success of a grant and play with them.
10:00–13:00Start at Belvederer Allee 1, presidential parking lot
Jan Engelke, Svenja Hönig, Bianka Trötschel-Daniels, Luise Rellensmann, Lukas Strasser, Jens Casper, Dustin Jessen & Fritz Specht, Gottfried Schnödel, Yann Colonna: The Car and the City – A Conversation in Motion
International Heritage Center, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
This Walking Panel explores how automobilism has reshaped social and urban space, and what endures amid today’s pressures for transformation. Treating automobility as both object of study and epistemic pattern of modern societies, we examine the tension between movement and stability, past and present, using the concept of legacies to link historical processes, material heritage, and their current reassessment. A walk through Weimar—past pedestrian zones, traffic-calmed streets, parking areas, and bypass structures—makes tangible how automobilism shapes urban form, use, and perception. The format relocates research from seminar rooms into public space, engaging the colloquium’s four perspectives: transformative research and its proximity to protest; the entanglement of industry, funding, and innovation narratives; the interplay of proximate artifacts and global material histories; and diverse, activist, community-based research cultures. Walking itself becomes a method for unlearning automobilism as a dominant spatial and epistemic order.
10:00–13:00University Library, meeting room
Renée Ridgway, Anders Visti: Re-search.site: The Pasts and Futures of Search
London South Bank University, UK; Aarhus, Denmark
For more than two decades, Google Search has shaped how people navigate the web and how knowledge is found online. But things are changing. The uptake of generative AI is transforming search from a tool that points to information, into a system that increasingly offers synthesized answers, produced on the fly.
The workshop investigates search at this moment of transition by using the re-search.site to aesthetically compare participants’ search results from diverse browsers and search engines through data visualisations. It also explores what it means to (re)search in a world where answers are written for us, with a ‘chatbot rodeo’ consisting of a range of LLMs.
The workshop invites participants to think about search not only as a technical system but incites critical discussions about hyperlinked ‘classic search’ and the ‘future of search,’ whilst advancing search literacy in an open and caring environment.
Bring your laptops, keywords (research interests) and prompts!!!!
Facilitated by researcher/artist Renée Ridgway and artist/programmer Anders Visti.
►︎ Installations and Exhibitions
University Library, Basement Floor
Aliaksandr Shuba: Contexts, Institutional History, and the Bauhaus Colloquiums between 1976 and 1989
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
The exhibition on the history of the East German Bauhaus Colloquiums at the Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen (HAB, former name of Bauhaus-Universität Weimar) is dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the first event. This exposition appears as a scholarly continuation of recent and ongoing research inquiries into the university’s institutional past during the latter half of the 20th century, and a collaboration between Aliaksandr Shuba and specialists of the university archive (Das Archiv der Moderne and Universitätsarchiv) and University Library of the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. It casts reflection on the complex history of the international colloquiums in Weimar and Dessau during the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Through the rigorous prism of preserved academic documents from the unique university collection in Weimar, the exhibition presents five international gatherings held in the years 1976, 1979, 1983, 1986, and 1989, which were dedicated to the appropriations and reflections of interwar Bauhaus and its protagonists in relation to the existing political and professional concerns and discourses of its time. Visitors are invited to see a unique corpus of fascinating insights and historical evidence, which varies from the preserved personal materials of the events’ key protagonists, Christian Schädlich (1922–2021) and Bernd Grönwald (1942–1991), to official insights drawn from the HAB Akten files. The primary intention of this research endeavor is to demonstrate a selection of fundamental documents related to the colloquiums and their emergences, such as the concept for the first academic event, which was shared with the state institutes of the GDR in East Berlin and is representative of the broader state socialist political and administrative discourses, and to present the authentic documents encountered by the participants and organisers, including the original invitations and programmes, among other insights from the universtiry collections.
Screenings on Thursday and Friday afternoons, 5 and 6 November 2026
Films shown as part of selected colloquium panels will also be screened separately for those who are unable to watch them during the relevant panel.
5 & 6 November, 12:30-17:40 pm Media House/SCC, Kinosaal:
12:30–12:40 pm — Esteban Pérez (Berlin), Volcanic Futures (2025)
12:45–1:05 pm — Esra Oskay (Ankara), Anonymous Censorship Notes (2024)
1:10–1:30 pm — Sophie Hamacher (Berlin), Visio Cordis (2026)
1:35–1:55 pm — Abhishek Hazra (Bangalore), An inauthentically decolonial Southern subject, anxiously ascends and descends a stairway (2026)
2:00–3:05 pm — Padraig Robinson (Berlin), Masquerades of Research: Part I & II (2022)
3:05–3:15 pm — Esteban Pérez (Berlin), Volcanic Futures (2025)
3:20–3:40 pm — Esra Oskay (Ankara), Anonymous Censorship Notes (2024)
3:45–4:05 pm — Sophie Hamacher (Berlin), Visio Cordis (2026)
4:10–4:30 pm — Abhishek Hazra (Bangalore), An inauthentically decolonial Southern subject, anxiously ascends and descends a stairway (2026)
4:35–5:40 pm — Padraig Robinson (Berlin), Masquerades of Research: Part I & II (2022)
University Library, Basement Floor & Main Building Hallway, Second Floor
Nanne Buurman: becoming ghost: opa was/n’t a nazi
Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany
Originally developed in 2025 as part of a curatorial research project on the Leipzig Academy of Fine Arts during the Nazi era and right-wing continuities at art schools, Nanne Buurman’s book installation explores how the complementary Cold War politics of memory in the former GDR and FRG continue to shape patterns of historiography to this day. Its first iteration was on display at the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte in Munich in March and April 2026.
Taking her East–West German family history as a point of departure, Buurman investigates the sociopsychological dynamics of denial, repression, anxiety, and aggression as responses to researching difficult heritage. Its first three chapters were dedicated to Tegernsee, Leipzig, and Grimma as places where historical and contemporary, personal and political hi/stories of the right intersect in uncanny ways.
For the XV. International Bauhaus Kolloquium, she is working on a site-specific actualization of the installation. It will be on display in the main building and the library complemented by reflections on “g/hosting the past” as a curatorial method for addressing the affective afterlives of National Socialism in her symposium talk.
Main Building, Hallways Ground & First Floor
Irem Aslanbas, Berk Bulut, Richard Hruskoci, Serap Kacmaz, Annika Knapp, Frederick Kubin, Florian Marenbach, Ben Patzina, Ambar Luna Quintanar, Julius Scholz, Marlene Sewtz, Campbell Shaw, Eylül Aydın Simsek: Looking Closer: The Bauhaus Colloquiums
Students and Exchange Students of Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
Exhibition elaborated from archival material of the International Bauhaus Colloquiums, held since 1976 in Weimar.
Main Building, hallway ground floor
Laurie Robins: Anchors
Philadelphia, USA
Philadelphia (US), once a center of manufacturing, is now an example of an “eds and meds” centered economy. Universities and university hospitals are the largest employers within the city, encompassing 35% of the workforce and including nurses, doctors, cleaners, groundskeepers, cafeteria workers, drivers, administrative staff, lab technicians, security guards, lecturers, teaching and research assistants, maintenance staff, medical residents, dental assistants, and many more. Of these, over 17,000 are represented by unions.
Anchors is a photo and text project about organized labor at the two largest “eds and meds” institutions in the city; Temple University/Temple University Hospital and University of Pennsylvania/Penn Medicine. The project has been produced with the Philadelphia Labor Council (AFL-CIO) and its first iteration is on display in their offices. For the International Bauhaus colloquium a selection of images and texts are being presented alongside additional informational material and a short text by Pennsylvania State Senator Nikil Saval.
abhaya rajani: A propagatory infection of studioअँक़्क़्वाःंaccqueī
Goldsmiths University of London, Art Department, UK
The intervention of studioअँक़्क़्वाःंaccqueī is a speculative yet tangible anti-caste anti-colonial feminist fluid queer unapologetic inter-action with Gropius Zimmer at The Bauhaus. A material dialogue that holds an anti-linear Dalit collective of me, my ancestors and our shared ecological kins as propagatory infection, an anti-theory that is being mended in my ongoing PhD. These process-based actions navigate our relation with/ against institutional boundaries to curate potentialities for cosmic gathering. Through stitched threads forging the creature of Galactic Worm, a tethered tongue and soft domesticity informed by my body and ancestral Dalit ecology, collectively culminating fictional ecology of
अँक्क्वाफ्फ्फे प्लु पोर्टलेसोरकुलोयझोम्त्च्कण
accqfffeplu portalesorkulyataloizomtchkan
A made-up word that holds Dalit – linguistics, cooking ingredients, transgenerational soil, mythologies and dreaming while reasserting ‘untouchability’ to pervade tactile touch and tenacious tongue.
Ching Wang, Laurent Gutierrez: The Right to Imagination
When confronted with a constant stream of information, does only a particular imagination survive?
Here we employ an anti-archiving experiential art installation. By placing text, data, oral accounts, and other heterogeneous archives across multiple screen windows, it simulates the interplay of information through automated, irregular clicking, pausing, and deletion. As information flashes by, the content-along with its underlying logic and emotions—enters the viewer’s field of vision unguarded. And when people realize that something is about to vanish, the impulse to remember intensifies markedly, giving rise to diverse impressions.
As viewers navigate, the windows occasionally glitch or malfunction, simulating an uncontrollable experience. At the same time, the installation incorporates sound elements, with directional speakers playing ambient sounds of daily life, along with weak signals. Yet when a listener gets too close to the sound source, the sounds transform. Even within the same installation, different viewers gather different fragments of information, depending on the moments they linger. Eventually, only the sound of whispered conversations remains in the space, while the screens retain a handful of fragments, replaced by disjointed words and characters that can no longer form any coherent meaning. Afterward, as time passes, these fragmented pieces settle into memory, growing more subjective, and gradually fading, leaving ever-wider gaps. It is precisely within these gaps that the space for imagination emerges; the wider the gap, the freer the imagination.
This installation requires the viewer’s participation to complete its meaning, enacting a contradictory experience that must be remembered by the body as it is forgotten by the mind—thus transforming an objective observation into an individually lived experience.
Philipp Bieronski: NOISE
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany
NOISE investigates Gaussian noise as a central yet usually invisible element of AI image generation. The project translates this hidden digital process into a spatial, participatory laboratory in which digital and analog states are continuously transformed into one another. A custom-built spraying machine materializes digitally generated noise, which is then physically handled, scanned, and reintroduced into the AI image-generation process. In this loop, material behavior, environmental conditions, and human interaction become active de sign factors. By opening up processes that normally remain hidden within the black box of AI systems, NOISE creates an experiential space for critically reflecting on authorship, transparency, technological infrastructures, and the broader social and political implications of AI-based content.
Performance Schedule:
Wednesday 4 Nov.: 1 pm
Thursday 5 Nov.: 12 noon, 1 pm
Friday 6 Nov.: 12 noon, 1 pm, 4 pm
Saturday 7 Nov.: 10:30 am, 11:30 am
Venues
-
►︎1Media House/SCC, Studio 1 & Kinosaal
-
►︎2University Library, Maurice-Halbwachs-Auditorium
-
►︎3Limona, Glaskasten & Fotowerkstatt
-
►︎5Main Building
-
►︎6Prellerhaus, Fotostudio
Statement in Response to NJH
[English version below]
Die Stellungnahme des Netzwerks Jüdischer Hochschullehrender (NJH) zur Programmgestaltung des XV. Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquiums „Politics of Research“ erreichte die Bauhaus-Universität Weimar am Nachmittag vor der Eröffnung des Kolloquiums. Die Mitglieder des Programmkuratoriums der wissenschaftlichen Konferenz haben daraufhin sehr kurzfristig eine erste knappe Antwort formuliert und das NJH zur Teilnahme am Kolloquium eingeladen. Mit dem nun vorliegenden Schreiben möchten wir ausführlich auf die erhobenen Vorwürfe bezüglich wissenschaftlicher Konzeption, Auswahlverfahren, Mitwirkender und institutioneller Verantwortung eingehen.
Stellungnahme der Bauhaus-Universität Weimar zur Kritik des Netzwerks Jüdischer Hochschullehrender am XV. Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquium „Politics of Research“
Die Bauhaus-Universität Weimar nimmt die Stellungnahme des Netzwerks Jüdischer Hochschullehrender (NJH) vom 3. November 2026 zum XV. Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquium „Politics of Research“ ernst. Wir teilen das Anliegen, Antisemitismus entschieden entgegenzutreten und die Sicherheit, Würde und gleichberechtigte Teilhabe jüdischer und israelischer Wissenschaftler*innen, Künstler*innen und Studierender zu gewährleisten.
Gleichzeitig weisen wir die Vorwürfe bezüglich der wissenschaftlichen Konzeption, der Auswahl und der Mitwirkenden des XV. Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquiums sowie der institutionellen Verantwortung der Bauhaus-Universität Weimar zurück. Die Darstellung des NJH differenziert aus unserer Sicht nicht zwischen den unterschiedlichen Ebenen von wissenschaftlicher Forschung und politischer Positionierung, individuellen Meinungsäußerungen und institutionellem Handeln, wissenschaftlicher Begriffsbildung und antisemitischer Diskriminierung. Die Schlussfolgerungen der Stellungnahme des NJH über die Veranstaltung und die Universität sind aus unserer Sicht durch das tatsächliche Programm und unser Auswahlverfahren nicht begründet.
Gerade weil wir die Bekämpfung von Antisemitismus als eine zentrale institutionelle Verantwortung verstehen, halten wir eine präzise, differenzierte und an überprüfbaren Kriterien orientierte Auseinandersetzung für unerlässlich. Dabei steht auch der Schutz der Wissenschafts- und Kunstfreiheit im Mittelpunkt, die nicht erst dort beginnt, wo wissenschaftliche Positionen gesellschaftlich unumstritten sind.
1.Wissenschaftliche Konzeption und Unabhängigkeit der Auswahl
Das XV. Internationale Bauhaus-Kolloquium widmete sich unter dem Titel Politics of Research den politischen, institutionellen und epistemologischen Bedingungen der Wissensproduktion. Die interdisziplinäre Konferenz fragte nach Forschung unter den Bedingungen zunehmender Politisierung von Wissen und Kunst, KI-gestützter Verfahren und veränderter institutioneller und gesellschaftlicher Rahmenbedingungen. In vier thematischen Tracks – Practices, Institutions, Ecologies und Epistemologies – wurden unterschiedliche Forschungspraktiken, institutionelle Machtverhältnisse, situierte Wissensformen und die politischen Voraussetzungen wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis diskutiert. Ein zentrales Anliegen des Kolloquiums war es, die Universität als Ort der Wissensproduktion kritisch zu untersuchen. Dazu gehört die Auseinandersetzung mit etablierten Wissensordnungen und mit dekolonialen, feministischen und anderen kritischen Forschungsansätzen. Wir betrachten die Verteidigung wissenschaftlicher und künstlerischer Unabhängigkeit als Teil dieser Auseinandersetzung. Dieses Verständnis spiegelt sich auch in den kürzlich veröffentlichten Impulsen des Wissenschaftsrats zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Demokratie (2. November 2026) wider. Darin betont der Wissenschaftsrat die Eigenständigkeit wissenschaftlicher Entscheidungen gegenüber politischen Erwartungen und zugleich die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Wissenschaft. Wissenschaftliche Freiheit setzt demnach voraus, dass wissenschaftliche Entscheidungen nach fachlichen Kriterien getroffen werden, während unterschiedliche Perspektiven, Widerspruch und kontroverse Positionen Bestandteil des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses bleiben, auch und gerade unter Bedingungen gesellschaftlicher Polarisierung.
Die Auswahl der Beiträge erfolgte nach wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Kriterien. Die Redner*innen der Abendvorträge wurden aufgrund ihrer fachlichen Expertise, ihrer internationalen wissenschaftlichen bzw. künstlerischen Anerkennung und ihrer Relevanz für die Fragestellungen des Kolloquiums eingeladen. Die weiteren Beiträge wurden im Rahmen eines internationalen Open Calls und eines Peer-Review-Verfahrens ausgewählt. Ausschlaggebend für die Auswahl waren auch hier die wissenschaftliche und künstlerische Qualität sowie die inhaltliche Relevanz der eingesendeten Beiträge. Nationale oder institutionelle Zugehörigkeiten, persönliche politische Überzeugungen oder die Beteiligung an öffentlichen politischen Debatten bildeten weder positive noch negative Auswahlkriterien. Ebenso wenig wurden nationale Repräsentationsquoten angestrebt.
Die vom NJH hervorgehobene Tatsache, dass im Programm keine israelische Hochschule oder Forschungseinrichtung als institutionelle Zugehörigkeit eines Mitwirkenden genannt wird, erlaubt daher keinen Rückschluss auf einen politisch motivierten Ausschluss. Weder fand eine bewusste Ausgrenzung wissenschaftlicher Positionen aus Israel statt noch wurden Beiträge aus politischen Gründen zurückgewiesen oder Einladungen aufgrund nationaler Zugehörigkeit unterlassen. Die Stellungnahme des NJH enthält keine Nachweise bezüglich eines solchen Vorgehens vonseiten des Programmkuratoriums des XV. Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquiums.
Darüber hinaus sagt die im Schreiben hervorgehobene Abwesenheit israelischer Hochschulzugehörigkeiten nichts über die Beteiligung jüdischer Wissenschaftler*innen und Künstler*innen am Kolloquium aus. Dem Programmkuratorium gehören zwei jüdische Mitglieder an; auch unter den Vortragenden und Keynote-Sprecher*innen sind jüdische Wissenschaftler*innen und Künstler*innen vertreten. Jüdische Perspektiven sind politisch vielfältig und lassen sich weder auf die Zugehörigkeit zu israelischen Institutionen noch auf eine bestimmte Haltung zum Staat Israel reduzieren (s. Leitlinien 7 und 9 der Jerusalemer Erklärung zum Antisemitismus).
Das Internationale Bauhaus-Kolloquium wurde 1976 in der DDR begründet und hat eine Geschichte unter politischen Bedingungen, in denen wissenschaftlicher Austausch und internationale Kontakte ideologischer Kontrolle unterlagen. Diese Geschichte erinnert uns daran, wie wichtig es ist, wissenschaftliche Entscheidungen nicht von der Überprüfung politischer Loyalitäten abhängig zu machen. Gerade vor diesem historischen Hintergrund sehen wir uns verpflichtet, die Eigenständigkeit wissenschaftlicher und künstlerischer Auswahlentscheidungen zu verteidigen. Die Einladung zu einem wissenschaftlichen Kolloquium eröffnet in unseren Augen einen Raum, in dem Positionen vorgestellt, diskutiert und kritisch befragt werden können. Dabei ist es für Forschende wertvoller Alltag, unterschiedliche Positionen, Perspektiven und Widersprüche immer wieder in die Diskussion einzubeziehen. Diese Komplexität in der Gesellschaft stets aufs Neue zu vertreten war auch bei der Erarbeitung des Programms unserer Konferenz ein Anliegen. Den Raum für komplexe Diskussionen zu erhalten, betrachten wir als eine zentrale Verantwortung der Universität.
2.Wissenschaftliche und künstlerische Qualifikation der kritisierten Beteiligten
Das Schreiben des NJH richtet sich insbesondere gegen vier Wissenschaftler*innen, deren Beteiligung am Kolloquium infrage gestellt wird. Auffällig ist dabei, dass ihre wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten, Forschungsbeiträge und fachlichen Qualifikationen wenig betrachtet werden. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dagegen Unterschriften unter Aufrufen, Beiträge und Weiterverbreitungen in sozialen Medien sowie einzelne Begriffe und Formulierungen, die aus wissenschaftlichen Publikationen isoliert zitiert werden. Hierbei entsteht der Eindruck, dass der offene Brief des NJH weniger daran interessiert ist, sich in die komplexe öffentliche, politische und wissenschaftliche Debatte um den andauernden Krieg in Gaza einzuschalten als vielmehr daran, möglichst großen öffentlichen Druck zu erzeugen. Insbesondere kritisieren wir den Angriff und das gezielte Herausgreifen von Einzelpersonen, um so politische Konflikte zu individualisieren, zu moralisieren und zu einer andauernden Tendenz beizutragen, die kritische Wissensproduktion unter Verdacht stellt.
Wir halten es für problematisch, wissenschaftliche Qualifikation und die Berechtigung zur Teilnahme am akademischen Austausch anhand politischer Äußerungen außerhalb des konkreten wissenschaftlichen Veranstaltungszusammenhangs zu beurteilen. Eine solche Vorgehensweise birgt die Gefahr, einzelne politische Positionierungen zum Maßstab wissenschaftlicher Teilhabe zu machen und die fachliche Auseinandersetzung durch eine Überprüfung persönlicher Äußerungen zu ersetzen. Die Qualifikationen und Auszeichnungen der kritisierten Beitragenden dokumentieren die fachlichen Gründe für die Beteiligung dieser Wissenschaftler*innen am Kolloquium.
Wissenschaftsfreiheit heißt hierbei: Auseinandersetzung mit kontroversen Positionen und die kritische Prüfung von Argumenten. Die Universität übernimmt damit Verantwortung für die wissenschaftliche Qualität und die Bedingungen des Austauschs. Die Stellungnahme des NJH legt jedoch nahe, dass die Beteiligung von Personen, denen bestimmte politische Positionierungen zugeschrieben werden, bereits als problematische institutionelle Handlung zu bewerten sei. Damit wird aus der individuellen Positionierung eine institutionelle Verantwortlichkeit abgeleitet, ohne hinreichend darzulegen, worin ein entsprechendes Fehlverhalten der Universität bestehen soll. Wir halten diese Schlussfolgerung für nicht überzeugend; wir sehen sie selbst als Teil eines Vorgehens, das Räume offener, kritischer wissenschaftlicher Diskussion gefährdet.
3.Antisemitismus, Staatskritik und wissenschaftliche Begriffe
Die Bauhaus-Universität Weimar tritt Antisemitismus, Rassismus und jeder Form der Diskriminierung entschieden entgegen. Gerade deshalb halten wir eine präzise Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitischer Diskriminierung, Kritik an der Politik eines Staates und wissenschaftlichen Analysen historischer und gegenwärtiger Herrschaftsverhältnisse für unerlässlich. Begriffe wie Kolonialismus, Siedlerkolonialismus oder Apartheid sind analytische Kategorien internationaler wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Ihre Anwendung auf konkrete historische und gegenwärtige Verhältnisse muss wissenschaftlich untersucht, begründet und kontrovers diskutiert werden können. Die Verwendung solcher Begriffe stellt für sich genommen weder einen Beleg für Antisemitismus noch eine abschließende wissenschaftliche Bewertung dar
Die Stellungnahme des NJH nimmt entsprechende Unterscheidungen aus unserer Sicht nicht durchgängig vor. Unterschiedliche Formen politischer Kritik, wissenschaftlicher Begriffsverwendung und öffentlicher Positionierung werden in einen gemeinsamen Verdachtszusammenhang gestellt, aus dem eine grundsätzliche Kritik an der Programmgestaltung abgeleitet wird. Damit droht die notwendige Differenzierung zwischen legitimer, auch scharfer Kritik an staatlichem Handeln und tatsächlich antisemitischen Aussagen verloren zu gehen.
Dies betrifft auch die Bewertung politischer Boykottforderungen. Forderungen nach dem Boykott staatlicher, kultureller oder wissenschaftlicher Institutionen sind politisch und wissenschaftlich umstritten und müssen hinsichtlich ihrer Ziele, Begründungen und möglichen diskriminierenden Wirkungen kritisch beurteilt werden. Dabei ist insbesondere zu prüfen, ob eine Boykottforderung Menschen aufgrund ihrer jüdischen Identität oder israelischen Herkunft ausschließt, antisemitische Stereotype reproduziert oder wissenschaftliche Zusammenarbeit pauschal aufgrund nationaler Zugehörigkeit verhindert. Entscheidend ist nicht allein die politische Zuschreibung, sondern die konkrete Aussage, ihr Kontext und ihre mögliche diskriminierende Wirkung.
Die unterschiedlichen wissenschaftlichen und politischen Definitionen von Antisemitismus zeigen, wie wichtig eine differenzierte Beurteilung ist. Die IHRA-Arbeitsdefinition ist kein Gesetz und wird hinsichtlich ihrer Anwendung auf Israel und Palästina kontrovers diskutiert. Die von internationalen Wissenschaftler*innen verfasste Jerusalemer Erklärung zum Antisemitismus bietet einen weiteren Bezugsrahmen, der ausdrücklich zwischen Antisemitismus und Kritik an Israel unterscheidet, ohne antisemitische Formen solcher Kritik auszuschließen.
4.Internationale völkerrechtliche und menschenrechtliche Debatte
Wir halten es für wichtig, daran zu erinnern, dass Israels Vorgehen in Gaza und im Westjordanland Gegenstand einer breiten internationalen Debatte über Völkerrecht und Menschenrechte ist. Im September 2025 kam die unabhängige Untersuchungskommission des UN-Menschenrechtsrats zu dem Schluss, dass Israel in Gaza einen Völkermord begangen habe. Zu vergleichbaren Einschätzungen gelangten Amnesty International sowie die israelischen Menschenrechtsorganisationen B’Tselem und Physicians for Human Rights–Israel. Auch wenn diese Einschätzungen von einem abschließenden Gerichtsurteil zu unterscheiden sind, bilden sie einen wichtigen Teil der internationalen wissenschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung, an der sich auch die International Association of Genocide Scholars beteiligt hat.
Vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) ist weiterhin ein Verfahren wegen möglicher Verstöße Israels gegen die Völkermordkonvention anhängig. Das Gericht hat bereits mehrfach verbindliche Schutzmaßnahmen angeordnet. In einem Gutachten vom Juli 2024 erklärte es zudem Israels fortdauernde Präsenz in den besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten für völkerrechtswidrig. Mit Blick auf die israelische Gesetzgebung und Praxis im Westjordanland und in Ostjerusalem stellte der IGH auch einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 3 der UN-Antirassismuskonvention fest. Im November 2024 folgten Haftbefehle des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (IStGH) gegen den israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Benjamin Netanjahu und den ehemaligen Verteidigungsminister Joaw Gallant. Ihnen werden Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit vorgeworfen.
Auch die deutsche Unterstützung Israels steht völkerrechtlich zur Debatte. Nicaragua hat Deutschland vor dem IGH verklagt und wirft der Bundesregierung unter anderem vor, ihre Verpflichtungen aus der Völkermordkonvention verletzt zu haben. Im April 2026 äußerte der Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarats zudem scharfe Kritik an unverhältnismäßigen Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit in Deutschland, insbesondere bei Protesten in Solidarität mit Palästina (Memorandum zu Deutschland, 15.4.2026, „Germany: Commissioner calls for protection of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly“). Vor diesem Hintergrund halten wir es für problematisch, politische Kritik an Israel pauschal unter Antisemitismusverdacht zu stellen, anstatt konkrete Äußerungen auf ihren Gehalt hin zu prüfen. Die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung mit dokumentierten Menschenrechtsverletzungen darf nicht davon abhängig gemacht werden, ob bestimmte politische Loyalitätserwartungen erfüllt werden.
5.Institutionelle Verantwortung
Die historische Verantwortung, die sich aus der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Jüdinnen und Juden und – in unserem unmittelbaren Kontext – aus der Geschichte Buchenwalds ergibt, nehmen wir uneingeschränkt ernst. Diese Verantwortung verpflichtet uns sowohl zur entschiedenen Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus als auch zu einer sorgfältigen, historisch informierten und differenzierten Auseinandersetzung mit gegenwärtigen politischen Konflikten.
Das NJH verweist in seiner Stellungnahme auf die Beschlüsse des Deutschen Bundestages von 2019 und 2024 sowie auf die Stellungnahme der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz gegen Antisemitismus. Wir teilen das Anliegen, Antisemitismus und anderen Formen der Diskriminierung an Hochschulen entschieden entgegenzutreten und jüdische sowie israelische Wissenschaftler*innen, Künstler*innen und Studierende sowie weitere marginalisierte Gruppen zu schützen. Diese Verantwortung ist für uns untrennbar mit dem Schutz der Wissenschafts- und Kunstfreiheit verbunden. Wissenschaft und Politik stehen in einem wechselseitigen Verhältnis, folgen jedoch unterschiedlichen Logiken und Verantwortlichkeiten. Die Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre schließt die Möglichkeit ein, politische Herrschaftsverhältnisse, koloniale Geschichte, staatliche Gewalt und institutionelle Macht kritisch zu untersuchen. Dies gilt unabhängig davon, welche Staaten, Institutionen oder gesellschaftlichen Akteure Gegenstand der Forschung sind. Die Universität trägt die Verantwortung, die Bedingungen für eine solche Forschung und den offenen wissenschaftlichen Austausch zu gewährleisten.
Öffentliche Förderung begründet die Verpflichtung zu wissenschaftlicher Qualität, zum verantwortlichen Umgang mit Fördermitteln und zur Einhaltung rechtlicher Vorgaben. Sie darf jedoch nicht als Instrument politischer Einflussnahme auf wissenschaftliche Inhalte oder Auswahlentscheidungen eingesetzt werden. Öffentliche Kritik an wissenschaftlichen Veranstaltungen und die Aufforderung an Förderinstitutionen, mögliche Verstöße gegen Förderbedingungen zu prüfen, sind selbstverständlich legitim. Sie gehören zur demokratischen Öffentlichkeit. Problematisch wird es jedoch, wenn politische Zuschreibungen an die Stelle einer differenzierten Auseinandersetzung mit wissenschaftlichen Inhalten treten oder wenn institutioneller Druck dazu führt, wissenschaftliche Auswahlentscheidungen ohne sachliche Prüfung infrage zu stellen oder zu revidieren. Der Wissenschaftsrat betont in diesem Zusammenhang die Verantwortung der Hochschulen, Räume für kontroverse wissenschaftliche Debatten zu sichern. Diese Verantwortung umfasst sowohl den Schutz vor Diskriminierung und Einschüchterung als auch die Möglichkeit, unterschiedliche Positionen zu vertreten, zu hinterfragen und kritisch zu diskutieren. Wissenschaftliche Unabhängigkeit bedeutet dabei nicht, sich gesellschaftlicher Kritik zu entziehen, sondern ihr mit wissenschaftlichen Mitteln und in institutioneller Eigenverantwortung zu begegnen.
6.Zeitpunkt und Auswirkungen der Intervention
Die Stellungnahme des NJH erreichte die Bauhaus-Universität Weimar am späten Nachmittag des 3. November 2026, unmittelbar vor der Eröffnung des Kolloquiums am folgenden Tag. Der Zeitpunkt stellte das Programmkuratorium und die Universität vor erhebliche organisatorische und institutionelle Herausforderungen. Die Vorbereitungen einer mehrtägigen internationalen Konferenz mussten unterbrochen werden, um auf die schwerwiegenden Vorwürfe und auf das zugleich an Landesregierung, Förderinstitutionen, Landesbeauftragte und internationale Presse gerichtete Schreiben zu reagieren. Wir halten Zeitpunkt und Form der Intervention für problematisch: Die kritisierten Personen wurden öffentlich benannt, das Programmkuratorium öffentlich der Nichteinhaltung wissenschaftlicher Standards bezichtigt, ohne zuvor Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme zu erhalten. Eine sachliche Prüfung oder ein Austausch vor der Eröffnung waren nicht möglich. Auf unsere Einladung vom 4. November hat das NJH bislang nicht reagiert. Damit wurde eine Beschädigung der Betroffenen, der Veranstaltung und der Universität in Kauf genommen.
Die wissenschaftliche Offenheit des Internationalen Bauhaus-Kolloquiums schließt ebenso die Auseinandersetzung mit kontroversen Positionen ein wie die kritische Prüfung der eigenen Voraussetzungen und Auswahlentscheidungen. Wir haben das NJH deshalb bereits in unserer ersten Stellungnahme eingeladen, am Kolloquium teilzunehmen und die dort verhandelten Fragen im direkten Austausch zu diskutieren und halten an der Einladung für weitere Gespräche fest. Dieser Austausch betrifft ja unmittelbar das Thema des Kolloquiums: Politics of Research untersucht unter anderem die politischen und institutionellen Bedingungen, unter denen Wissen produziert, anerkannt, verbreitet oder ausgeschlossen wird. Die aktuelle Auseinandersetzung macht deutlich, wie eng wissenschaftliche Forschung, gesellschaftliche Konflikte und institutionelle Machtverhältnisse miteinander verbunden sind.
(Translated with DeepL.com (free version))
The statement from the Netzwerk Jüdischer Hochschullehrender (NJH) concerning the programme for the XV International Bauhaus Colloquium ‘Politics of Research’ reached the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar on the afternoon before the colloquium opened. The members of the programme committee for the academic conference subsequently drafted a brief initial response at very short notice and invited the NJH to participate in the colloquium. In the following letter, we wish to address in detail the allegations raised regarding the academic concept, the selection process, the participants and institutional responsibility.
Statement by the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar on the criticism levelled by the Netzwerk Jüdischer Hochschullehrender regarding the XV International Bauhaus Colloquium ‘Politics of Research’
The Bauhaus-Universität Weimar takes seriously the statement issued by the Netzwerk Jüdischer Hochschullehrender (NJH) on 3 November 2026 regarding the XV International Bauhaus Colloquium ‘Politics of Research’. We share the commitment to resolutely counter anti-Semitism and to ensure the safety, dignity and equal participation of Jewish and Israeli academics, artists, and students.
At the same time, we reject the allegations regarding the academic concept, the selection of participants and the contributors to the XV International Bauhaus Colloquium, as well as the institutional responsibility of the Bauhaus University Weimar. In our view, the NJH’s account fails to distinguish between the different levels of academic research and political positioning, individual expressions of opinion and institutional action, academic conceptualisation and anti-Semitic discrimination. We believe that the conclusions drawn in the NJH’s statement regarding the event and the university are not substantiated by the actual programme or our selection process.
Precisely because we see the fight against anti-Semitism as a key institutional responsibility, we consider it essential to engage with the issue in a precise, nuanced manner, guided by verifiable criteria. Central to this is also the protection of academic and artistic freedom, which does not begin only where academic positions are socially uncontroversial.
1.Academic Concept and Independent Selection Process
The XV International Bauhaus Colloquium, entitled ‘Politics of Research’, focused on the political, institutional and epistemological conditions of knowledge production. The interdisciplinary conference explored research in the context of the increasing politicisation of knowledge and art, AI-supported processes, and changing institutional and societal frameworks. Across four thematic tracks – Practices, Institutions, Ecologies and Epistemologies – the conference discussed various research practices, institutional power relations, situated forms of knowledge and the political preconditions of scientific knowledge. A central aim of the colloquium was to critically examine the university as a site of knowledge production. This includes engaging with established knowledge systems and with decolonial, feminist and other critical research approaches. We regard the defence of scientific and artistic independence as part of this debate. This understanding is also reflected in the recently published recommendations on the relationship between science and democracy by the Wissenschaftsrat (2 November 2026). In it, the Wissenschaftsrat emphasises the independence of scientific decisions from political expectations and, at the same time, the social responsibility of science. Scientific freedom therefore presupposes that scientific decisions are made on the basis of professional criteria, whilst different perspectives, dissent and controversial positions remain an integral part of scientific discourse, even – and especially – in conditions of social polarisation.
The contributions were selected on the basis of academic and artistic criteria. The speakers for the evening lectures were invited on the basis of their expertise, their international academic or artistic standing, and their relevance to the themes of the colloquium. The panel contributions were selected through an international open call and a peer-review process. Here too, the decisive factors for selection were the academic and artistic quality, as well as the relevance of the submitted contributions. National or institutional affiliations, personal political convictions or participation in public political debates were neither positive nor negative selection criteria. Nor were national representation quotas sought.
The fact highlighted by the NJH – that the programme does not list any Israeli university or research institution as the institutional affiliation of any contributor – therefore does not allow for the conclusion that there was a politically motivated exclusion. Nor was there any deliberate exclusion of academic positions from Israel, nor were contributions rejected on political grounds, nor were invitations withheld on the basis of nationality. The NJH’s statement contains no evidence of such conduct on the part of the programme committee of the XV International Bauhaus Colloquium.
Furthermore, the absence of Israeli university affiliations highlighted in the letter says nothing about the participation of Jewish academics and artists in the colloquium. The programme committee includes two Jewish members; Jewish academics and artists are also represented amongst the speakers and keynote speakers. Jewish perspectives are politically diverse and cannot be reduced either to affiliation with Israeli institutions or to a particular stance on the State of Israel (see guideline 7 and 9 of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism).
The International Bauhaus Colloquium was founded in 1976 in the GDR and has a history shaped by political conditions in which academic exchange and international contacts were subject to ideological control. This history reminds us of how important it is not to make academic decisions contingent on the verification of political loyalties. It is precisely against this historical backdrop that we feel obliged to defend the independence of academic and artistic selection decisions. In our view, an invitation to an academic colloquium opens up a space in which positions can be presented, discussed and critically examined. For researchers, it is an invaluable part of their daily work to continually incorporate different positions, perspectives and contradictions into the discussion. Ensuring that this complexity is consistently represented was also a key concern when drawing up the programme for our conference. We regard maintaining a space for complex discussions as a central responsibility of the university.
- Academic and artistic qualifications of the criticised participants
The NJH’s letter is directed in particular against four academics whose participation in the colloquium is being called into question. It is striking that little attention is paid to their academic work, research contributions and professional qualifications. Instead, the focus is on signatures on petitions, posts and shares on social media, as well as individual terms and phrases quoted out of context from academic publications. This gives the impression that the NJH’s open letter is less interested in engaging with the complex public, political and academic debate surrounding the ongoing war in Gaza than in generating public pressure. In particular, we criticise the attack on and the deliberate singling out of individuals, which serves to individualise and moralise political conflicts and contributes to an ongoing tendency to cast suspicion on critical scholarship.
We consider it problematic to assess academic qualifications and eligibility to participate in academic exchanges on the basis of political statements made outside the specific context of an academic event. Such an approach carries the risk of making individual political stances the yardstick for academic participation and of replacing scholarly debate with a scrutiny of personal statements. The qualifications and honours of the contributors who have been criticised demonstrate the academic grounds for these scholars’ participation in the colloquium.
In this context, academic freedom means engaging with controversial positions and critically examining arguments. The university thereby assumes responsibility for academic quality and the conditions under which such exchange takes place. However, the NJH’s statement suggests that the involvement of individuals to whom certain political stances are attributed should already be regarded as a problematic institutional act. This implies that institutional responsibility is derived from an individual’s stance. We do not find this conclusion convincing; indeed, we regard it as part of an approach that threatens spaces for open, critical academic discussion.
- Anti-Semitism, Criticism of the State and Academic Concepts
The Bauhaus-Universität Weimar takes a firm stand against anti-Semitism, racism and all forms of discrimination. It is precisely for this reason that we consider it essential to draw a precise distinction between anti-Semitic discrimination, criticism of a state’s policies, and academic analyses of historical and contemporary power relations. Terms such as colonialism, settler colonialism or apartheid are analytical categories used in international academic research. Their application to specific historical and contemporary circumstances must be open to academic scrutiny, justification and critical debate. The use of such terms does not, in itself, constitute evidence of anti-Semitism nor does it represent a definitive academic assessment.
In our view, the NJH’s statement does not consistently make such distinctions. Different forms of political criticism, academic use of terminology and public stances are placed within a common context of suspicion, from which a fundamental criticism of the programme’s content is derived. This risks obscuring the necessary distinction between legitimate – and even sharp – criticism of government action and statements that are actually anti-Semitic.
This also applies to the assessment of calls for political boycotts. Calls for the boycott of state, cultural or academic institutions are politically and academically controversial and must be critically assessed in terms of their objectives, justifications and potential discriminatory effects. In particular, it must be examined whether a call for a boycott excludes people on the basis of their Jewish identity or Israeli origin, reproduces anti-Semitic stereotypes, or categorically prevents academic collaboration on the basis of nationality. What is decisive is not merely the political characterisation, but the specific statement, its context and its potential discriminatory effect.
The varying academic and political definitions of antisemitism highlight the importance of a nuanced assessment. The IHRA working definition is not a law and is the subject of controversy regarding its application to Israel and Palestine. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, drafted by an international group of scholars, provides an additional framework that explicitly distinguishes between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, while acknowledging that such criticism can also take antisemitic forms.
4.International debate on international law and human rights
We believe it is important to recall that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank are the subject of a wide-ranging international debate on international law and human rights. In September 2025, the independent commission of inquiry set up by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Amnesty International, as well as the Israeli human rights organisations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, reached similar conclusions. Although these assessments must be distinguished from a final court ruling, they form an important part of the international academic debate, in which the International Association of Genocide Scholars has also participated.
Proceedings are still pending before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning possible violations by Israel of the Genocide Convention. The Court has already ordered binding protective measures on several occasions. In an advisory opinion issued in July 2024, it also declared Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territories to be contrary to international law. With regard to Israeli legislation and practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the ICJ also found a violation of Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. They are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Germany’s support for Israel is also the subject of debate under international law. Nicaragua has brought a case against Germany before the International Court of Justice and accuses the German Government, amongst other things, of breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention. In April 2026, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights also levelled sharp criticism at disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly in Germany, particularly in relation to protests in solidarity with Palestine (Memorandum, 15.4.2026, „Germany: Commissioner calls for protection of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly“). Against this background, we consider it problematic to automatically suspect political criticism of Israel of being anti-Semitic, rather than examining specific statements in their context. Academic scrutiny of documented human rights violations must not be made contingent on whether certain expectations regarding political loyalty are met.
5.Institutional Responsibility
We take the historical responsibility arising from the Nazi persecution and murder of European Jews and – in our immediate context – from the history of Buchenwald, extremely seriously. This responsibility obliges us both to combat anti-Semitism resolutely and to engage with contemporary political conflicts in a careful, historically informed and nuanced manner.
In its statement, the NJH refers to the resolutions passed by the German Bundestag in 2019 and 2024, as well as to the statement by the German Rectors’ Conference against anti-Semitism. We share the commitment to resolutely counter anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination at universities and to protect Jewish and Israeli academics, artists and students, as well as other marginalised groups. For us, this responsibility is inextricably linked to the protection of academic and artistic freedom. Academia and politics are interrelated, but they follow different logics and have different responsibilities. Freedom of research and teaching encompasses the possibility of critically examining political power structures, colonial history, state violence and institutional power. This applies regardless of which states, institutions or social actors are the subject of the research. The university bears the responsibility for ensuring the conditions necessary for such research and for open academic exchange.
Public funding entails an obligation to uphold scientific standards, to manage funding responsibly and to comply with legal requirements. However, it must not be used as a means of exerting political influence over scientific content or selection decisions. Public criticism of academic events and calls for funding bodies to investigate possible breaches of funding conditions are, of course, legitimate. They are part of a democratic public sphere. Problems arise, however, when political attributions take the place of a nuanced engagement with academic content, or when institutional pressure leads to academic selection decisions being called into question or revised without objective scrutiny. In this context, the Wissenschaftsrat emphasises the responsibility of universities to safeguard spaces for controversial academic debate. This responsibility encompasses both protection against discrimination and intimidation and the opportunity to advocate, scrutinise and critically discuss differing positions. Academic independence does not mean withdrawing from societal criticism, but rather addressing it through academic means and with institutional accountability.
6.Timing and implications of the intervention
The NJH’s statement reached the Bauhaus-Universität Weimar in the late afternoon of 3 November 2026, immediately prior to the opening of the colloquium the following day. The timing presented the Programme Committee and the University with considerable organisational and institutional challenges. Preparations for a multi-day international conference had to be interrupted in order to respond to the serious allegations and to the letter addressed simultaneously to the state government, funding bodies, state commissioners and the international press. We consider both the timing and the form of this intervention to be problematic: the individuals criticised were named publicly, and the Programme Committee was publicly accused of failing to adhere to academic standards, without first being given the opportunity to comment. It was not possible to conduct an objective review or engage in dialogue prior to the opening. The NJH has not yet responded to our invitation of 4 November. Consequently, damage to those affected, the event and the University was accepted as a consequence.
The academic openness of the International Bauhaus Colloquium encompasses both the examination of controversial positions and the critical scrutiny of its own assumptions and selection criteria. We therefore invited the NJH, in our very first statement, to take part in the colloquium and to discuss the issues raised there in direct dialogue, and we stand by this invitation for further discussions. This exchange is, after all, directly relevant to the theme of the Colloquium: ‘Politics of Research’ examines, amongst other things, the political and institutional conditions under which knowledge is produced, recognised, disseminated or excluded. The current debate highlights just how closely scientific research, social conflicts and institutional power relations are intertwined.
Contact and Supporters
►︎Contact
+49 (0) 3643/58 11 17
ibhk2026[at]uni-weimar.de
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
President’s Office
Geschwister-Scholl-Str. 8
99423 Weimar, Germany
Curatorial Committee
Prof. Peter Benz (President, Bauhaus Universität-Weimar), Prof. Dr. Jasper Cepl, Jun.Prof. Kerstin Ergenzinger, Prof. Dr. Mona Mahall, Dr. Jana Mangold (coordinator), Dr. Marcin Pietruszewski, Dr. Elena Vogman
Design Credits
Leonard Behre
Mona Kerntke
Sun Möller-Park
Coding
Leonard Behre
Mona Kerntke
Nicolás A. Concha R.
Jonas Märtens
►︎Supporters
