Author Archives: Ronny Hardliz

Participants 2017

Participants 2017 are:

Alessi, Alberto
Professor of Theory of Architecture. UL University of Liechtenstein.

Beutler, Martin (tbc)
Artist, Firma für soziale Plastik, Bern, Switzerland.

Harboe, Julie (team)
Lecturer. Future Laboratory CreaLab, Lucerne School of Business, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts (LUASA), Switzerland.

Hardliz, Ronny (team)
Artist, Berne, Switzerland.

Huwiler, Bernhard
Artist, Berne, Switzerland.

Kivland, Sharon
Artist, Reader in Fine Art. Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Sadowsky, Thorsten
Director of Kirchner Museum Davos. Ernst Ludwig Kirchner Platz, Davos, Switzerland.

Schuchert, C. Lars (team)
Scientific research assistant. LUASA – School of Engineering and Architecture, CC Typology & Planning in Architecture (CCTP), Horw, Switzerland.

Simon, Joshua
Director and Chief Curator, MoBY – Museums of Bat Yam, Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israel.

Steudler, Sandro
Artist, Zurich, Switzerland.

Zellweger, Christoph (tbc)
Artist, Dozent MA Design (HSLU) / Professor of Art and Design, Senior Resarch Fellow (Sheffield Hallam University). Hochschule Luzern, Design und Kunst, Luzern, Switzerland.


INVERSE STRIKE! – A Call to Continue to Work

WOF – World Ornamental Forum


INVERSE STRIKE! – A Call to Continue to Work


WOF is an open work, a spatial essay subject to methodological and thematic changes. The functions of current artistic research, pressing scientific questions, as well as new methodologies are inverted: rather than institutional, they become political. As a work-oriented space WOF is neither a networking platform nor a publication tool; rather it is an incubator for radical artistic and scientific spatio-discursive practices. It offers a structured site for discursive and material reflections of open work. An integrated event, it shows the reviving power of ‘the museum of the future’ as a profoundly critical place of research.


The current exploitation of critical and creative intellectual work has proven to be nothing more than the expansion of the historical exploitation of the proletariat. Beyond that, however, the increasing redundancy of meaningful work within cultural, educational and research institutions of neoliberal management, signals a paradigm shift.


The dominating institutional preoccupation with certificates, visitor numbers, compulsion of publication, employability, questionnaires, and quality control for cultural institutions, regenerates but itself and degrades the institution to an aestheticized form of neoliberal politics. In times of the obtrusion of totalitarian tools in public spheres, the critical question of not showing such aesthetic of non-aesthetic is highly relevant. Whoever refuses to stop producing intrinsic meaningful work generates an act of political resistance: Inverse Strike!


WOF makes a global call to continue producing intrinsic meaningful work, from 26 to 29 April 2017 at the Kirchner Museum in Davos; to show the urgency of your work, discuss it, and continue working.

Please send a three-minute video by 1 March 2017 that shows what you are working on. Not the question as such, but the fact that there is an intrinsic question, perhaps yet unknown, that gives a sense to your work is critical.


There are no registration fees, however, a binding commitment after acceptance is mandatory because your presence during the entire event is indispensible for a fruitful collaboration.


Ronny Hardliz, independent artist

Julie Harboe, art historian, Future Laboratory CreaLab

Thorsten Sadowsky, Director of Kirchner Museum Davos

burning house



WOF – curatorial/knowledge

the two things that

don’t work

in my dissertation.


Burning House –>

script for a realisation of

la maison brûlée

film by Georges Bataille.


Wof on the WORK

Ring of fire, exhibit fire

burn a hole, brand, mark, brandmarketing?

The irony of postirony?


The camera turns

einen Film drehen.

The utopian paradigm

a pinhole to imagination.


The inside of another outside annihilates your walk on the line of flight

unscheduled backs to the starts.

With your back to the outside and an empty schedule, time drills.

The study exhibits the recto of praxis and the verso of politics.


Verses of politics

The angelic messanger

who has absolutely nothing to add.

Politics of versus.


WOF World Ornamental Forum – May 4-8, 2016 – Kirchner Museum Davos



You are hereby called to offer your address of interests for the participation at the WOF World Ornamental Forum 2016 concerned with ‘Indifference and Rhythm’. This address can have the form of a letter, a video, or any other form of your choice. You yourself are addressed as an artists or researcher independently from discipline and field. The form of the WOF is a situated exhibition/presentation (effectuation) and participation/discussion (exploration), of both artistic work and research work. The aim, however, is not the effectuation of pre-existing knowledges. Rather, in your address, you should propose in what way you intend to touch the very limits of your knowledges.


At the WOF we will offer a rhythmic space of situated effectuation and exploration in which the work of both artists and researchers can be generated, experienced and transformed as indifferent examples. All artists and all researchers will choose their particular site and time-slot of exhibition, presentation, or other form of effectuation, inside or outside the museum building. There will be times of isolated concentration alternating with times of encounter and exchange.Kirchner Site Projekt


In your address of interests, which can take any form whatsoever such as a letter or a video, please be concerned with the following questions:

  • How do you intend to deal with the limits of your knowledge?
  • What kind of practice, experience, or knowledge do you intend to leave behind?
  • What will the WOF 2016 have been once you have left? How will it have changed you?

Include notes on what technical support you might need for the WOF, if applicable.

Please also include a note about yourself.

Deadline is 1st of June 2015.


Departing from Différence et Répétition (Deleuze, 1968), thus leaving the conception ‘of discontinuity (threshold, rupture, break, mutation, transformation)’ as L’Archéologie du Savoir (Foucault, 1969) behind, we intend not so much to curtain a new philosophy but rather to render some contemporary tendencies of philosophy and other practices as indifferent towards either traditional or differential philosophies. Our contention is that precisely by such in-differentiation the matter between differences can be made productive as a site of encounter. A philosophy of indifference is not one that announces the next paradigm of philosophical thinking. It rather is paradigmatic in nature. It is capable of suspending the value systems in both traditional and differential western cultures in favour of the immeasurable value of an example. The example, never being uniquely the thing as such and always being only one of which it stands for, does not function in terms of dialectical logic. The logic of the example is analogical, creating rhythmic spaces rather than repetitive lines.

Ornament is always also an indifferent example of how it could be different. There is playfulness involved, however, this playfulness is serious in terms of what other uses could be imagined. In ornament, the passage from one use to another (or the transformation of ethos) does neither happen as continuous evolution nor as sudden break. It’s just an allusion of another possibility of use, both disruptive and embedded. Ornament can therefore be seen as the primary site of a rhythmic philosophy of indifference. Ornament creates rhythms of potential uses while it is simultaneously indifferent to both the thing as such and that what it could stand for.

What we experience through the work of art is also a suspension of use, not in favour of a new use but merely for the sake of being suspended. Precisely this instantaneous suspension of use (and truth) allows for a specifically artistic exploration of any subject whatsoever. This kind of exploration in suspense is what we call artistic research.

mushrooms after rain

Isn’t what we call a ‘rhizome’ here rather a sequence of infinitesimally small ‘old oak trees’?

What if Foucault, Deleuze and Co. had – rather than proposing a radically different approach to reality – only changed scale from ‘singular’ and ‘final’ macro-satisfaction to ‘multiple’ and ‘continuous’ micro-satisfactions, not making the slightest change to satisfaction as such?

What if we asked: What is ‘indifference’ as opposed to ‘identity’? And then, what does it require from us to make A and B not differ? And what’s the role of satisfaction in this work of equality through indifference rather than through identity?

In the cycle of life, life does not happen on the line from father to seed to son, from old oak tree to seed to young oak tree, but rather on the surface inscribed within these lines, a surface not directly accessible by those on the line, however, a surface inseparable from the line and those on it.

This surface emerges as an inevitable result of any free making and construction, however, it can not be constructed as such. This surface of non-construction is just there, has always been there. Our only possible relation to it is to make it not differ from our lives and thus make it matter.

There is always both satisfaction and appreciation, simultaneously, and there is no difference between an old oak tree and a rhizome: the difference is in the air when we smell mushrooms after rain.


\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/Which key-notes would you like to share with all of us?

It is quite simple to fold past events into the present, but to fold present events into the future and to forget anticipated futures effectively is a difficult task, particularly if there are distinct anticipated futures. The “coming” offers an adequate conceptual space in which such active forgetting of anticipated futures can be achieved through the passage of time.

In addition to stomping and melting as forms of setting and virtuality the expansion-form describes the affective and effective forces of spatial contamination.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/What is the relevance of WOF in your work? How do its aspects reflect in your current projects and how could you imagine integrating the questions WOF raised in future projects?

Thanks to all of you for making the WOF! You may have realized that I have not participated in the building of a model. The reason is that the WOF itself is my model including the question of its making. The WOF is an artistic research project that among other aspects examines spaces of freedom for art’s involvement in academic research contexts. This question is relevant for an ethical redefinition of the artwork and art practice in a globalized market-driven art world dominated by a consumer-friendly curatorial system of transnational large-scale exhibitions. Claiming that the art worlds of the 1970s were just romantic ineffective refuges would mean to disregard their capacity of transforming socio-political issues into artistic material exhibiting real difference. Today, contrarily, the art world seems materialized as consumable material representing the world’s capitalist infrastructure.

Philosophically speaking we could say, for example, that art is the exhibition of the potential of not not being. The wonder of art resides in the sensation of the freedom that it could have been radically otherwise – and that it is not. While everything exhibits itself as it is and thus cannot be otherwise, art exhibits itself as its impossibility of being otherwise and thus constantly reemerges as it is: and makes us wonder. There is an intrinsic connectedness between art and the world in which it is embedded: within the immanence of gesture. But at the same time art’s gestures can only be connected to aims outside the wonder of art. While the gesture of walking leads to a position, the gesture of art leads nowhere, to atopy, to a-position (just) so to speak.

Thus, the WOF is constitutive for my dissertation wall sandwich – The Architectural in Art Practice from Destruction to Non-Construction. The cave and the ‘studiolo’ (an Italian Renaissance intellectual translation of the eremitic cave or the monastic cell into a hybrid architectural typology of a bourgeoise “study” room) are exemplary spaces of the architectural as non-construction: a hole in the ground and virtual space. The cavities left by the footprints of “ornament” and “gesture” as well as the virtual molds of melting or expanding models constituted an experimental framework of non-constructive art practice.

The focal shift in the art world (and beyond) from architecture to the urban and the global (and beyond) finds an institutional parallel in the Swiss context from art & architecture (Kunst & Bau) to art in public spheres (Kunst im öffentlichen Raum). The WOF together with the concept of non-construction point beyond public space towards a virtual artistic infrastructure.