what questions could anyone at all now ask! and does anyone really want to know? and more importantly, do I? seeing and undertanding the main assumption,that it could be of value, is a fallacy, but principly not wrong. when we compare the mass of information to the exsisting space, we see the need for simplification or compensation for the mass (too much, too fast) breaking down and distributing general authorised powers will produce homogeneous information thread, and increasingly become readable. if at all. with increasing disintegration, a condition is approached witch is commonly known as" what does this mean?". this question will not be answered! the art here propogated claims no demands and therefore wants only dissolution, leaving a constant happening. the possibility to interpret falls away^ we don`t know what`s going on anyway.

the visibilíty and deformation of a piece needs a complex structure of sequels to grant the appearance of importance.
the visibile is what?
we don`t know it. so fucking what! what do we know?
anyway, deformation and deconstruction generate a new structured picture that has yet to be interpreted.

the metamorphosis from picture (light refraction) to number combination (0, 1) pionts out tendential fragmentisation as well as high loss on information flow. here we will mistrust the movement of the pieces and observe them.
any futher refraction must be carefully examined. and that is when?

soon