*Text by Giulia Carpentieri

Nowadays the scenario of a fast landscape resounds , spreading in our socio- cultural and political-economic system, changing its aspect and values. The contemporary art system develops the increasingly common vision of a potentially despotic unreal future, not only in the artist. Misrepresented acoustics and identities forewarn a fertility change. In order to better understand how the contemporary structure is changing and what is going on with our way of thinking and making art, it’s our interest to take advantage of this current state of cohabited disorder to open a debate table between those who perform contemporary independent rising art.
Apparently static however in never-ending motion between overproduction and sensory dizziness, young children of this indecipherable generation redraw the reference points for a perpetually changing totality, through the remains of the past and the markings of the present inside of an Uroboro. Trying to acquire a coherent image of our time we put together the fragments of a broken down puzzle without following the rules or respecting the limits. We don’t want to accurately replicate the image on the box, on the contrary we want to deconstruct it in order to build a new interpretation, consumed and regenerated inside and outside by the world. The target of this intervention is to contribute to weld a communication net between different roles and individuals, through each ones’ deepening of experiences, considerations on current structures and possible evolutions that characterize new contemporary expressive practices. We are trying to encourage a continuous dialogue between several ideas, in order to be able not just to identify our era with an overall image, since the attempt would be useless, but rather to be a proactive part of it.

Starting with Jan Hoet’s Chambres d’ Amis in 1986 with the subversive exhibitions in domestic environments, from the second half of the 20th century the need of artists and curators for a reformation of the idea of space in the sphere of artistic exhibits is clear/undeniable. At that time there was the need to create a more intimate dialogue, in this case transmitted/spread by the domestic environment, between the piece and the user. Today this issue is still very profound, however distinguished by the selection of hosting spaces. Indeed it’s not only domestic environment: places such as garages, woods, abandoned plants, parkings, shops, hotels and many more follow.
These alternative cases posess their own baseline identity due to the structure and often create a strong dialogue with the pieces such that they become a part of them. In your works, this element born by the communication with the location is frequently highlighted/stressed.
Therefore, do you think we need a new kind of communication of the piece through the space? Nowadays what drives a curator and an artist to adopt these settings? Is it “just” an economic necessity or is it an ongoing rebellion throughout a re-appropriation of exhibiting spaces, against the white elitist politic of the white cube offered by the institutions?

SOLOSHOW: Almost a decade ago, around 2012, posted an image macro reading the following in all caps over an indistinct photograph:


This expresses two primary truths of our historical moment: the fact of overabundance levelling traditional forms of value, and the aesthetic encounter seeping out from the work (maybe surpassing it entirely), bleeding into the oils between my finger and the screen, re-congealing as an image experienced asynchronously on thousands of private screens with millions of possible contexts, access points, and virtual meanings. Likewise, the value of standard institutional curation has altered as complex forms of image sorting and parsing have become entirely commonplace; user-content platforms encourage us to create, collect, index, archive, and “process” images in highly nuanced ways.
The gallery becomes redundant. Images and objects without standard market value don’t need standardized showrooms; this frees them to determine their own values and demand more sensitive settings. Reciprocity is established between our environments and the visual conventions we absorb through documentation; we earmark certain kinds of lighting or iconography as “belonging” to platform-specific micro-aesthetics, anomalous materials become mediums which require sometimes banal, sometimes beautiful spaces as backdrops. Rituals are established: hauling around a messy folder of printouts to find the perfect room to place them in; performing alchemy with personal tokens from the sentimental to the post-sincere. Creating and curating becomes a responsive form of material perception and social interfacing.
Networks and connections are formed on the basis of complex, sensual, high-turnover visual passions and critical-lyrical resonances, rather than economic access or professional proximity. The intention of all production, here, is ultimately revelatory – showing our stuff, sometimes collaboratively, sometimes antagonistically. It is a unified isolation. Nights spent alone downloading and manipulating audio files, sewing a garment to capture in the mirror, sneaking into buildings to photograph a painting; to post it online; to be experienced by other artists - also usually in isolation at the moment of beholding. This unity is often ambiguous, unregulated by standardized values and organically emerging from the multiple, sticky, gossamer intersections of our individual paths and the visual forms we adopt to interpret them.
Solo Show speaks to this sense of unified isolation; this strangely hermetic-social practise of being deeply and ethereally connected in a network, or an ecosystem, of visual grammars with which we interface others and our world – while also being in solitude. At the moment, many galleries are rushing to update their practise and respond to isolation – Solo Show stands as a meeting-point for the many solitudes which have long underscored contemporary aesthetics. The works are created as rituals of spatial intimacy; their destiny is to exist as images: the ecstatically exiled offspring of a damaged, but endlessly proliferating, world.

MRZB: We always had a resistance to consider spaces as empty containers. We conceive them more organically, as systems dependent by their specific conditions. Each space is a different organism, in which things are subjected to its own relational, situational, and environmental specificities. The work comes to be a symbiotic expression and a node of these relations.
In certain kinds of spaces we often found ourselves considering our work as cancerogenic formations, parasitic infestations, internal calcification in the belly of the host, piercing through its bowels, fermenting, expanding and corrupting them.
Just like germs and parasites wouldn’t exist without the flash and the bones hosting them, between work and space is triggered a symbiotic relationship.
Other kinds of environments are more free and the relationship has different outcomes. Something lives in the dry riverbed, it hides in the forest or in the living room’s tapestry. In these environments it feels the work is defined by spectral forces, thick fogs soaking and submerging them. Thousands of eyes gleam and expand to perceive the infectious presences, they dig and devour the light and digesting it, they transform it into darkness.
We are superstitious and we do not believe places are souless.

Frame of

The Hunt of Shuum, in a v tight pale Dimple

2020, online

In these years artistic creations through digital application got a substantial part of the artistic production, almost entirely drawing on it the spotlights of the contemporary scenary.
With great relief of those who trembled thinking about a new-media totalitarianism as a unique language, passion for artifact and material has luckily returned, re-establishing expressive balance.
With horrific features, typical of an exhumed body, we find ourselves in front of more than one aesthetic trend that look at “classical” tecniques, but never nostalgically: just outlined pencil sketches, material sculptures, many objects and paintings for every taste; even the employed materials reveal a transversal appeal to poor art ideals, informal materials and especially a reference to Nouveau Realisme. The very use of waste, of fetish object, often opens a dialogue with or postpones to a natural element, which might be the setting where the piece is arranged, its shape, a used element or the same artifact; we are driven towards a dystopian sublimation of the human condition in nature and in the object world that sorrounds us. Which is your opinion about this trend that has its roots in the past? Which are the needs and requirements that pushed towards this call to have a contact with the matter? Which will be the opportunities to trace a rift/breach for new art visions in the field of current contemporary scenary?

PIETRO AGOSTONI: Not only the fundamental principles upon which a work is made are called into question, but the work itself, the authorship of the artist and the whole context around which the word ‘art’ orbits.
Technology understood both as a technique and medium itself has been, in a certain sense internalized in art as well as in our lives. If in the past we could have imagined a future in which this would have become the very subject of research, today we can say that it accompanies, feeds or more simply serves the artistic process as well as any instrument.
It also seems appropriate to emphasize, as you said yourself, that this story has already bored us. The false dichotomy between art and what's trending has blurred the boundary between artist and content creator who knows how to use Adobe suite.
Considering the fact that we live in an era where new media and digital media are over-used, a naïve, more instinctive and material perspective towards creations - may appear to be winning. Personally, I approach the topic in a very open and versatile way. In my work both approaches coexist and feed each other, guaranteeing a multi-faceted vision of the reality and unreality that surrounds us.

Pietro Agostoni 


2018, Macao, Milano

F&F: Over time the need to look at the past in order to find balance through the sudden urban, industrial, political / social changes of the present has presented itself several times. A need which is now cyclical and that takes history into account. In the present time where material and digital find a common space, the interplay between past and present becomes a spontaneous step in our research. We mostly use objects that have a concrete and tangible life, unescapably creating realities that belong to a post-technological imaginary. This is to say that even though the used medium is not technological, the context is. Besides the medium, it is time that determines contexts, needs and questions. Once the enthusiasm for a new medium is exhausted, once innovation has become something ordinary, reflecting on the possibilities and the so-called new medium turns into a necessity that we are now accustomed to. It becomes just another possibility among the different alternatives offered by the past. The medium determines the message, which is why, since we have no faith in progress, the use of bodily objects and waste that relate to a world that, rather than going forward, goes backwards, came spontaneous to us. "Plants" have no power to exact revenge on the industrialization era we live in and they succumb to the new world. As you have often said, these fetish elements dialogue with natural elements, perhaps because progress is in contrast with nature what we are losing is a more primordial contact that seems increasingly eager to re-emerge. The need to use these specific materials is strictly linked to the creation of environments, we like to imagine rooms in which other worlds are created, realities to be experienced first-hand through touch, smell and direct contact which creating an easy or uneasy feeling. We like to create relationships between the observer and the observed, and to show the energetic emanation of the elements implanted in a space. As regards to the possibility of tracing new perspectives in art, we believe that to create a new path on an artistic level and find fertile ground for artistic creation, it is necessary to first reach a social opening / fracture, probably by redesigning society itself.
The evolving world changes art, the container defines the content. Art can be anticipatory, in the sense that it can reveal what is still unspoken, but it always limits itself to listening, sometimes risking to fall into endless masturbatory reflections. We believe that in our case the artistic activity is closer to the idea of distraction than reflection, even if those aspects inevitably coexist. Today we are more concerned with finding opportunities to trace a socio-cultural opening in this overpowering nothingness.

Frenk & Fresca

The weird and the eerie

2019, Museo della ceramica Mondovi

RICCARDO D’AVOLA CORTE: I think that today this dialogue is necessary and essential. I always have it faced having been born almost in the mid 90's as something natural, not perceiving the technological element as an entity completely separate from reality. I believe in the same way that this dialogue between "real" and "virtual" is an opportunity that allows us to extend our vision, but also to enrich research and allow us to open up dialogue with other scenes, going beyond geographical boundaries, infact in some cases completely demolishing them. I say this about what has been my path so far. How long specifically what about my work ,I was influenced more by aesthetics, from the fascination of the various artistic currents, but not only, perhaps from the apparatus most tied to a certain type of cinematography.
The reference to the material derives from a need linked to all that constitutes the senses, the loss of control, direct contact. Although I think necessary this dialogue with the virtual, lost that materiality is an irreplaceable element and that must maintain a balance. I have become increasingly aware that progress in progressing more and more preponderant by technologies was and is in a certain sense not only changing the way we interface with others is also changing the way we live relationships on all levels.
Interfacing through a device at some point felt that everything was flattening out. Coexisting with the technological apparatus, however, also means staying within a format, a well-circumscribed circuit (honestly it isn’t enough for me). My need was and is to want to recover a condition that is out from the ordinary control that we believe we exercise, reflecting on what it’s complex is coexist and how diffiucult it is to deal with your emotions.
Leaving even quite extreme situations to emerge. By also relying on other senses other than sight. On the other hand, this overabundance of images and data flows has made us basically focus on images leaving us with a sense of alienation.
I find that the opportunity is precisely to be able to recover our sensitive condition (of course I did it in a somewhat radical and extreme way) by stopping it to dehumanize us, we are not or we cannot reduce ourselves to mere behavior either simulation, man is not a machine if anything is inside it . therefore, the dialogue between Nature or the natural element with the artificial element is necessary (not only for art). This attempt to want understanding how we can coexist is a challenge in the making, that not can be understood in the immediate nor in the present, I think more of the legacy of what is done at the end of a path.
The slit in some way I think has already opened is lies in ours need to want to discover it, to go digging to want to continue doing it. On the other hand, I believe there is a part of my generation that does not look back with romantic nostalgia towards for other artistic movements, I think it have taken the necessary, just as I believe that our influences are different (related to historical and social reasons ) and far from those worlds.
(Working with dehydrated natural elements means not only using an archaeological elements but above all leaving them almost entirely as them are, not using them as a prosthesis but rather as a necessary elements of this hybrid exoskeleton).
For me, materiality remains a necessary element but one must nevertheless get out of the misunderstanding of the image, and enter between the cracks, scratches, holes, touch them with your hand, tear them away with bites, caress them, embrace them, we are body and I wonder how can we disregard this condition? Can it really be reduced to mere behavior or just data flows?
I close by leaving us with a reflection that I wrote some time ago.
//matter, //flesh, ///body, perceiving the other, allows me to enter a land (or field or ring) without jurisdiction, in a private space, without filters, having a naked body in front of me.
Feeling the other enter brings me into a relationship of forces, of which soon memory will fade away. At the limit of desire, without form, pure or not it gives space to thought, which isn’t reduced to a gesture, but to the loss of control that reveals itself in different forms, sometimes as a ferocious act of prevarication, others as a disharmony in search of a missing nature for a nature, it is (that we miss) missing in itself, in human being. Without ever being consoling. This is materiality, my need to feel what's underneath the epidermis. So do beyond everything, the now inconsistent and saturated image, beyond the result, but where the structure is only made of broken bones and open wounds. Materiality is deprived of technique, out of any format. Someone would say between the indefinite and the vague, someone would say. It is in the stomach.

Riccardo D’Avola Corte

Every night I dream you, but when I wake up you keep leaving me again stunned in my bed!

2019, Online

Over the past 50 years we have witnessed the fast increase of communication by new technologies. This phenomenon has indeed involved every aspect of our society, invading and changing its basic systems. Even the art world was forced to reinvent and adapt itself to these new tools and their innovative dynamics. Suffice is to say how the artists, and not just them, use social media as platforms for self- promotion. The phenomenon I would like to highlight throughout your opinions is focused on the increasing use/application of the documented online practice, in other words how the use of technological communication is leading to the development of a new aspect/experience of artistic display.
We can surely affirm that in our age the online contents function in general, and in the contemporary art scene in particular, is certainly au pair, if not superior, even to a physical show experience. In your project for the Wrong Biennale, Rhizome Parking Garage you used this method to establish an expository network between different places and artists, later enclosed and showed by creating a fantastic web- site. An actual online pavillon.
What drove you to use this approach? In your opinion which are the potentialities and the possible development/advancement of this phenomenon in contemporary art? Do you think that the increase of web contents and platforms for display and fruition of the pieces could jeopardize the existence of museum institutions and art galleries?

RHIZOME PARKING GARAGE: The idea initially started as just a collaboration, the idea being each of us would document a show in a parking garage, as we do not live in the same city.
Though it became clear the approach could be expanded to include a large number of participants across the globe. The rhizomatic element was only then identified by Noah. The approach grew very organically and happened to align with the Wrong Biennale. A driving factor to start the project was the idea of eliminating the need or reliance on a singular space, and in doing so circumvent costs, such as shipping or rent , basically going around the normal capital driven methods. An inspiration also came from the group the situationist, and in particular an essay “All the Kingsmen” in which they say “Thus, whereas surrealism in the heyday of its assault against the oppressive order of culture and daily life could appropriately define its arsenal as “poetry without poems if necessary,” for the SI it is now a matter of a poetry necessarily without poems.” In a way the decentralized group show offers a sort of posture in which we can perhaps at least experiment with the idea of poetry necessarily without poems, in that it allows a break from the art complex that in many ways is dragged alongside the motions of the oppressive culture industry. I always think of that classic meme “pics or it didn’t happen” on its head to say “pics so it did happen”... the degree of fidelity to make this happen varies on material and audience.
How “believable” do we need it to be? it could be likened to an uncanny valley of exhibition experience. Most of my favorite art I have experienced via reproduction. So for me to work in a language of reproduction makes complete sense. The project is formulated in many ways like guerrilla tactics, it attempts to add to a shift the subject to take back their own environment. It’s really important for me to note that we had both been working in digital exhibition spaces for years, independently, and as part of the vast rhizome of deep instagram art explorers, and wider networks of internet exhibitions and residencies, where a really unique vocabulary of aesthetic formats, languages, ecosystems, and so on are developing.
These are people that have been working with the internet and instagram as exhibition spaces for years before all of the official institutions like galleries and museums came running to jump on the bandwagon. The fringe or the novel is always at some point subsumed into the typical, and in this way the online exhibit will be part of the white cube space as well, though I don’t know if it will ever replace the white cube. Though as the digital exhibition becomes more typical it will gather with it the weight of commercialism and will be hijacked by corporations, “Pepsie-Lockhed Martin presents Jeff Koons in AR by MOMA” this being a possible show title lol. WIth the global pandemic, we have actually now seen this, large and well known galleries and art houses now making digital walkthroughs and digital exhibitions, Travis Scott’s Fortnight concrete. I could also see a future in which digital galliers are the only accessible space for those outside of the upper class. I often feel like online exhibitions are the only way I personally will ever be able to see most of the artists I admire,I don’t live in that big of an “Art town” and don’t get many opportunities to see contemporary art. I think it also allows new possibilities for archiving and perhaps in this way augmenting the cannon allowing the scope to grow beyond the traditional white male gaze.
The idea of a truly democratic exhibition, an exhibition that counties forever, perhaps acting in this way as a document or index of its time. In this way the show has continued receiving unsolicited applications (and complete projects!) long after the initial “deadline” had passed. This way online and decentralized shows can be very generative and validates the rhizomatic nature and success of the project. The parking garage is a universal space, generic for better and for worse. So many people have access to this kind of space - physical or digital, and artists/people can control their own context, but are also framed by that context. There are other spaces like the parking garage and perhaps this approach will allow a sense of community and friendship to be established and allow new paths into the discourse of contemporary art. For me it was important to recycle Buckminster Fuller’s dymaxion map - which also gets us to conceive differently of our world, Spaceship Earth even, right? I wish that we could get more diverse locations on our map. We had artists in every continent but Africa, and a lot of singular representations of places and densities in other places. Perhaps this could allow a new record of history, decentralized, and effort perhaps even to dismantle the white-colonilist cannon.

The world of experimental/avant-garde sound proves to belong to a charming but not yet well-de ned nim- bus, especially in its capability to establish a dialogue with new contemporary aesthetics. e main feauture of this kind of experience is the setting that language variety tends to create around the user. The wide expression of this kind of immersion is the capability to drag us from an auditory fruition to a visual one, still preservng intact the initial message, yet diversifying the communication that conveys it.
Far away from what we call sound art, this trend doesn’t produce auditory installations or interactions betwe- en sounds, objects and user, but rather creates senarios, atmospheres that envelop the user’s senses, still kee- ping a styling coherence between what we see and waht we feel.
The sound is analyzed, deconstructed, misrepresented and mixed with references to musical genre in uences that we grew up with since the 90’s: pop/techno/house/ dance/gabber hardcore and many others.
What I and immensely interesting is the rupture that consequently insinuate itself in the contemporary scene: these events take place in alternative settings, detached from auditory institutions and from the art world, and are able to acquire a communication capability even through an appearence-identity choice, that is o en disturbed and characterized by auditory and visual distorsions.
Is ri demolishes without fear every single pillar on which the certanties of great art systems are founded on, and allows us to remove the boundary lines between visual and auditory artists, to bene t from spaces and collaborations in a totally original way and, above all, to be able to think about how and what an “artistic” experience means today. E lack of rules and the freedom of movement.
Given the traits of your productions what do you think about all this? In your opinion when does an auditory production distances itself from the target of a “musical” fruition, to approach the sound listening as a manu- factured element? What brought you to build an aesthetic imaginary that you belong to, opening yourselves to a dialogue with the rising contemporary visual scenary?

VIBRISSE: Hi and thanks for having us! We have to say that the thing we like the most about contemporary digital aesthetics is indeed the fact that the nimbus in which they take up space is lacking a precise definition, it’s not yet been entirely catalogued in easily marketable labels such as previous “scenes” were in a much shorter time. Surely the market is catching up with that, but we feel there is still some space left for trying things, doing something interesting, and more importantly having fun.

As for VIBRISSE, it is fair to say that we didn’t really build our own aesthetics but rather we just like to summon images and sounds from our background that we then filter according to our taste of the moment. We are the globalization children so that common set of influences is pretty much shared within our generation: we’re talking about stuff from PS1 videogames to Y2K, all the way to Pokémon trading card commercials, early-CGI cartoons, and MTV binge-watching. Incidentally, that’s why there are so many Britney Spears, Destiny’s Child, and SOAD and Linkin Park remixes constantly surfacing the underground music scene. With VIBRISSE, it’s basically like we’re trying to patch all these things up in a final outing that would allow us to relive the endorphin flooding our 11-yo, still-developing brains were experiencing at that time while watching Transformers Beast Wars or playing with our Tamagochi. From a certain point of view, you might say there’s also a nostalgic component to it, in the late Capitalism sense as to how people tend to idealize their past as the only moment in which we could be free of responsibilities and social pressure and whatnot - most importantly without a job. At the same time, we are trying to escape that feeling as we’re interested in seeing whether something new could really be done today. That’s why, for example, we’re so drawn to late ‘90s club genres such as ‘ardkore and gabber: those subcultures where imbued in a notion of Future that is now long lost. People in those scenes saw technology as something that would break old patterns, and yeah we’d love to be in that state of mind again even if we feel the opposite of that all the time.
All that being said, we can also unquestionably state that underground art is undergoing a crazy lively phase in which there are literally hundreds of artists under the radar of traditional art systems and profit that are putting their work online at such a fast pace it’s impossible to keep up. These artists live and thrive in a non-physical environment that is the online one: the artwork is created on (and meant primarily for) the software/app space. A few artists that we can mention among our favourites are surely Flufflord, Galen Tipton, Tissue Hunter, Oblinof, Sam Rolfes, K095C, s1m0nc3ll0, the Quantum Natives crew, and so so many others. Most of them also work as musicians, as to confirm the bond between graphic art and music that we feel it’s today even tighter than before. Just consider every track on YouTube or Soundcloud or Bandcamp that comes with an extra slot to fill on screen. Music and its visual aspect are inextricably connected, one is enhanced by the other on a whole new level thanks to ubiquitous media and software. They are intertwined to the point that, for us, most of the times we can predict whether we’re going to a mix or a record or a track before playing it, just by looking at the artwork coming with it, or even special typefaces, emojis, and weird symbols in the title.
We love certain branches of contemporary underground art that mix diverse ideas and approaches, having different languages cross paths with each other and reach unpredictable outcomes. We believe the absence of intermediary, “professional” figures in the DIY process allows for lively, fresh, and frank exchanges that ultimately also result in more direct and spontaneous outings in which profit- free artistic expression can be promoted. We love stuff that is playful and FUN, as we truly believe that exclusivity, presumption, and snobbery in art only act as social and class discrimination tools towards the people. The concept of pureness and immaculateness is fundamentally a fascist, fearful, and wrong way of looking and thinking about things. All the most influential and meaningful art has in fact been done with the courage of hybridizing influences, bastardizing ideas, and dissolving boundaries. In short, let’s make a mess out of everything!

BCAA SYSTEM: We will start with the last question, because it kind of answers the others too. BCAA is a 6-member collective, so it is very natural for us to operate between in between of many borders, as all of us have a slightly different area of interest. Some of us are active in the field of visual arts, others produce music or write – so for us merging these ways of expression together was always the way to go.
Moreover, we quickly realised that this way of working and thinking is much more incentive and it opens up new possibilities of creation. And it also says a lot about the world we live in. Because the conditions we have to deal with today (from racism to rising temperature of the planet) are not just separate events, but outcomes of a huge complex of networks and relations we cannot understand apart of each other. This becomes even more apparent in recent events of the fucked up 2k20.
And the structure of art should reflect and react on this complexity, because it can work as a great mediator of these spread and entangled problems. But in order to be able to speak about this world, it is almost impossible to lock yourself up just in the means of one single medium. Therefore we always try to make our work diverse and elusive, so it can speak to the audience on multiple levels. For example, our last audiovisual project No~one Is an Island was released as a music compilation, but also as a video presented in a gallery environment. All these layers can function separately, but are also part of a bigger whole, in which our intentions echo through different media channels and multiplied objects, sounds and words, often overlapping even from one project to several others. This way our themes travel between many context and spread the message in various ways.
But we feel that this way of expression is a natural state of mind for many people connected with arts, because we all inhabit a both radically differentiated and unified environment of a kind of post post-Internet world, where everything always morphs and travels between programs, platforms and media forms. In the virtual sphere, an album release is often as much a visual event as an auditive one, and many contemporary artists today create music themselves. Because of this post-media situation, it feels completely casual to a lot of people to just switch between, create new mergings and first and foremost, to always create under the close reciprocal influence existing between contemporary visual art and experimental music. So these tendencies are quite common, but in our case they might be more visible, as we amorphously encompass many different roles – an art collective, a label, a DJ crew, a theoretical unit, a circle of friends, and whatever else we can or must become.


Right From Here Everything Is Flickering

2018, In De Ruimt, Ghent

1 Shoggoth appear like the alterity of alterity, the spices without-spices, the biological empty of whole. Life without shape but geometrically definited: << Sticky clusters of bubbling cells >>. (Tra le ceneri di questo pianeta, Eugene Thacker)