Research Fellow Jesper Alvær (2013 — 2016)
Oslo National Academy of the Arts / Fine Art
Norwegian Artistic Research Programm

Viva Voce, October 2017 (transcript)

Disputasjon Jesper Alvær

JA: Welcome to the Oslo National Academy of Arts. Welcome to (?? 00:00:45), Work work, staging dislocation in artistic and non-artistic labour.
Oslo National Academy of Arts offers education on the first cycle and the second cycle. You are also part of Norwegian research fellowship programme which is a third cycle programme we offer (?? 00:01:09). The third cycle programme is an equivalent to an academic HND programme and as a matter of fact we are just about to establish our own PhD programme as we speak which will be quite exciting in itself. I’m also glad to see that the Head of the National Programme, (?? 00:01:29) is present.
The Norwegian Artistic Research Fellowship Programme was established in 2003 and since them Oslo National Academy of Arts has accepted more than 30 research fellows. It brought in 60 candidates and 21 fellows are present in the programme here. As such this institution is quite probably one of the key institutions in the national research fellowship programme. I would like to underscore the importance of being part of the programme as since the research and also the production insight and knowledge done in this programme is quite crucial and quite important for knowledge production and key working in general. It’s a big statement for our community.
I’m going to leave the floor now to the Dean (?? 00:02:34) of the Fine Arts Department Stine Hebert who will guide us through todays programme. So very welcome.


SH: Thank you I am new Dean at the academy, so I haven’t had the pleasure of following Jesper’s journey but so it’s very exciting to be able to be here for the final culmination and to guide you through the day. Jesper is the eighth fellow at the academy to complete his Viva Voce and he has been supervised by Mike Sperlinger, Professor at the Academy of Fine Art here in Oslo. Jesper presented his artistic project to the Committee on the 14th and 15th November 2016 and he delivered his critical reflection on 1st May this year. The Appraisal Committee consists of Professor Dora Garcia who is chairing the committee, she is a Professor here at the Academy of Fine Art. And it consists of Andreas Siekmann, Artist and Carmen Mõrsch who is a professor at the Zurich Academy of the Arts.
I’ll briefly introduce the programme of the day before we start. First up is Jesper’s presentation then we’re going to have a short break and we will reconvene for discussion and then we’ll open up for questions from the audience and finally there’s a conclusion from the Committee. So without further ado I will like to pass the floor to Jesper.

JA: I have about 45 minutes, can you hear me okay (?? 00:04:27). So I’ll be going through the dissertation and I would like to start with thank you all for coming and not least the committee for going through great lengths to assessing the material for the last period of time. After exposing the work to the committee in form of a series of four individual witnesses giving their respective testimonies in Oslo. All relevant material to Work, work… is now collected and put together on a website, that soon will be made available to the public. This website is named as you see here, “” and contains a short written reflection and documentation of most of the projects submitted in final assessment in form of an extensive archive, as seen here on screen. So, we will go through some of this. Here is a series of chapters talking a bit about the work of thinking.
According to the assessment protocol, I have received several critical remarks from the committee, after their first exposure to the work. This allowed me to some degree, to mitigate some of those concerns in the last phase of preparations. Also including for example inadequate documentation of artistic material: lack of contextualisation, and questions raised around research ethics. To meet these demands, I have structured this first 45 minutes as my defence, as follows:
The first part, contextualisation, where I will be locating a few examples from debates relevance of my own artistic practice of using the invitation text to this event today as a point of (?? 00:06:23). In the second part, will be a brief description of exhibitions and case studies that I have initiated and developed and in some cases presented during the fellowship programme. For those not familiar with the works being discussed. In this section I will use the web page here for a chronological overview and give some examples.
The third and final part will be an attempt to merge some of the points above in some form of general discussion in reflection, pointing as well to some raised ethical concerns.
I will by reading the some previous of the part again, in other words, to comment on various aspects touching upon some functional, methodological and ethical questions. So while I’m reading this paper I will put in the background a film.
This is documentation of an exhibition from House of Artists in Oslo, connected to this project and this was as it is. Contextualisation of work. The project Work, work: Staging dislocation in artistic and non artistic labour explores shifts in conventions in regulating artistic labour in the expanded field of art, responding to the radical shifts in artistic practice, related to its deskilling, distributed agency and blurred authorship and through employment, delegation and other forms of collaboration, Work, work scrutinises relations linking artists and other participants of artistic processes, asking how much can one subtract from the professional role of an artist and still be able to share artistic faculties with others. In other words, what is artistic competence after deskilling and how can it be mutualised?
It is impossible here to go into depth of any of these terms, but we may note in passing, the staging and dislocation, in artistic and non-artistic labour, and we’ll discuss this later.
Deskilling is another term, in particular elaborated by John Roberts, a writer on new forms of sociability and participation in art, often associated with relational/post-relational aesthetics. In the essay Fragile Productivity: Artists Activities beyond the Exhibition System, the curator and scholar Karen van der Berg, delivered a recognisable description of the current art-scene. She gives five examples of artistic role models beyond the exhibition-gallery nexus and examine their position within the late capitalist working society. The artist as a researcher. The artist as a social engineer. The artist as a project creator. The artist as an activist, and, finally, the artist as an agent of art. Later in the same article, she asks, concerning artists self-definition as workers, what are the alternatives? What are the precise circumstances in which an artist works if he or she understands himself or herself as an independent knowledge worker or a critical activist, and not a supplier to the art market? Does he or she actually work beyond an operationally closed system of galleries, and beyond established critique and key players like curators? More importantly, does it really make sense to talk about art in terms of labour and production? However, the present tendency of radical self-questioning seems to cast new problems, since this critical reflection of the social meaning of art and the mechanisms of the art market, and the conditions of artistic production have, at least for the moment, turned into a self-referential matter, not to say a kind of fashion.
Some dominant debates, such as participatory art, Claire Bishop, artistic collaborations, Grant Kestner. Post relational aesthetics, Nicolas Bourriaud. Re-conceptualising site specificity, Miwon Kwon. The expanded field, Rosalin Krauss. Other processes of collaboration and use in Art, Stephen Wright. To name a few, provide an overlapping outline of contexts and each of the debates comes with a typical rooster of artists attached, to best exemplify differentiations in artistic practices.
As a general backdrop, institutional critique, then and now, plays a crucial reference point in much of this. Gerald Raunig and Gene Ray’s edited publication, Art and Contemporary Critical Practice – Reinventing Institutional Critique they describe in its introduction, an emergent genealogy of institutional critique and on the operations of its canonization, reflected in the web journal transversal, under the title ‘Do You Remember Institutional Critique? They state that “what appears in retrospect as the ‘first wave’ of institutional critique was initiated in the 1960s and 70s by artists such as Michael Asher, Robert Smithson, Daniel Buren, Hans Haacke and Marcel Broodthaers, among others. They investigated the conditions of the museum and art field, aiming to oppose, subvert or break out of rigid institutional frameworks. In the late 1980s and 90s, in a changed context, these practices were developed into diverse artistic projects by new protagonists like Renee Green, Christian Philipp Müller, Fred Wilson and Andrea Fraser. To the economic and political discourse of their predecessors, the practices of this ‘second generation’ added a growing awareness of the forms of subjectivity and the modes of its formation. Second wave practices continued however to circulate under the name of institutional critique.
Another example, in her text, Occupational realism, Julia Bryan-Wilson describe another artistic strategy where artists (or occupational realists) operate in society with double agency. If most occupational realists are uninterested in putting their labour within the context of traditional museum or gallery display, they are equally uninterested in what could be called theatricality, if we use the basic definition of theatricality to mean of or for the stage. Other meanings of theatricality, that which is marked by pretence, extravagant exhibitionism, or artificial emotion, further highlight what these artists are intentionally not doing. In fact, they often do not want their customers or colleagues to witness or acknowledge what they do as art, they want to vocationally pass. Kinmont, one of her favourite case study of an occupational realist, speculates that few of his customers are aware that his bookselling is also an art project, and if they are aware, they are prone to take him less seriously as a dealer. The notion of the audience is here complicated and fractured, there is a work audience which need not or should not know that one of its workers has a value-added position as an artist, and then there is the art audience.
Stephen Wright in his essay the delicate essence of artistic collaboration, he asks, “What competencies, aptitudes, and perceptual habitus can artists contribute to collaborative endeavours?” He refers to François Deck has developed game-related models for contributing autotomising skills to collaborative processes, fostering the autonomation of citizen-participants, in a practice that at once prefigures and prepares for the sort of civic associationism or collaboration that I have in mind. François Deck calls competence-crossing.
But these actions are not opportunities for artists to weasel their way into collaborative processes in order to reclaim them for their own artistic glory. The point is rather to put their artistic know-how at the disposal of a collective project, without forsaking their own autonomy: to find a way to compound complementary skills, one partner’s inabilities complementing the abilities of the other.
Bringing my own practice into these contexts, as we will soon see in some examples, some of the projects do intervene in the apparatuses, as a descriptive or observatory investigative practice. Interventionist, in a sense of intervening in the apparatuses, into conventions which define artistic competences in the expanded field. But not only describing, but sharing these dispositions, with a lack of closure, asking what this is? In a continuous self-reflection, an evolved type of practice. The sociologist Pascal Gielen is one among others that have been researching current shifts in the art world and he attempts to analyse the being of artists in the expanded field of art. This self displacement, or dislocation includes a radical self-critique, or doubt and may look for ways of sharing, not by representation, or claiming political relevance, to create a situation or a theme, but as descriptive and investigative, using collaboration and delegation as tools.
This practice takes up a position between formalists and engaged artists, employing artistic competencies in everyday situations, but without an overt political agenda. For example in different political parties in Oslo. Applying a type of formal sensitivity, or aesthetical sensitivities, without the aim of improving the political party life or political agenda. This is close to a debate about relational art and double agency as discussed above.
Further, this position is paradoxical because it takes a strong authorial position according to Bishop, in terms of conceptual scripts, but this position is decentred, because the realisation is totally up to other subjects and this authorial position is deconstructed via self-reflection and via the very process of distributing agency. Volunteers, as we shall see in the next example in the Warsaw Museum of Modern Art, may ask themselves: Am I part of this work? Who knows? Questions of artistic competence, open endedness, open conceptual structures. We find this in responses from interviews with museum volunteers in Warsaw.
The interviews: with an obvious sense of direction, but on the other hand – lack of results – again open endedness. This comes close to a dialogical position, described by Grant Kester in One and The Many. How provocative can you be? Distributed authorship, dialogical situation: a neither or, position.
So that was the first part. In the second part: brief description of exhibitions and case studies that I have initiated and developed and in some cases presented during the fellowship programme. As mentioned, this is for those not familiar with the works being discussed. I will run through some of those now.
So this is the front page and here is an overview of the activity. I take this opportunity to include for assessment which is also been available. First, Mother, Dear Mother Exhibition Kunstnernes Hus. There was an exhibition called Competence, Exhibition Fotograf gallery, Prague, (?? 00:19:19) There’s an exhibition as part of making use, Life in Post artistic Times, Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw. There is an unpublished case study, anonymous artist, that was initiated in the exhibition (?? 00:19:35). I will not present the (?? 00:19:43) of work and I will talk a little bit about the background narrative interpretation and my thought, and show some examples. Also show some examples from the witness testimonies which was a way of exposing the project for the committee, instead of having an exhibition it’s an alternative to an exhibition.
I’ll start with the Exhibition at the House of Artist and I’ll just run through quickly to give a sense of what’s happening there, the exhibition across the two days. So this was a model which was produced before the exhibition it was on one of the bigger rooms downstairs and if you think about how the body, or how the body has been managed, there were sounds from radio broadcasts which the audience had headphones and they moved into the space and in the space, there was certain programmed lights and five different elements. So the audience could somehow hook up to this loop which was going and lasted for about 15 minutes.
So here we see in the images, so if you were in this space you would see your favourite artist over there, there sound is related to that element. So we shift you seen the video you seen while I was reading its very soft light shifting causing different results. That’s (?? 00:21:47) as the sketch. Here are some images from the actual installation. So when we had the exhibition this was the first element, the first sculpture mounted in the wall, called the Breakthrough. There were… here is the back side of that. Here is overview. So these were miniature sculptures which were made and given to workers in the labour union for long term achievements when they were completing the jobs. So when we were looking at that part it was a really (?? 00:22:52) they did a necessary job. This non image cinema there was a song called Mother Dear Mother, which was also part of the exhibition. This part was a one to one copy a Vanessa Baird’s refused at the time of the work, that was supposed to be installed so there was a public debate about the workers that they did not want to have that work installed because they associated that work to trauma (?? 00:23:25) and whole public art organisation were debating and there it kind of became a big public debate which I invited Vanessa Baird to store that work and exhibition, but it was not her’s at the time so still using those headlines it was installed in kind of relation to those miniatures which was kind of very small but also connected to that. They came together. So I will play a short part of the radio broadcast. The radio broadcast was in Norwegian and this is a transcript.

[Radio Broadcast]

Okay so that was kind of the 40 minutes radio broadcast which if you spent time, somehow the idea was that through language you could somehow stop the abuse and respond as the civil subject to these beautiful things. So it was very much Norwegian kind of experience for some people.
I’ll jump to the next exhibition which was Competence in Prague. This was basically four rooms, and when you entered the first room as you see here in the top left, you were asked if you would like to see this exhibition you would have to make a drawing of your hand. So most people, most people accepted this rule to enter the exhibition and sat down and did a drawing of their hand. They submitted this drawing through this kind of slot and they also put their hand as you can see in the vault so the gallery attendant behind the wall could see if the person had made an attempt to make this drawing. Then the person was submitted individually would move on to the next room. Here is the next room where you can see they’re looking at the exhibition, there is five different photographs and from three of those photographs came an audio, through the headphones, you could sit down, and you could listen and there were three different stories, which somehow connected to the topic of competence, which is the competence, imaginary. I’ll see if I can play one of sound pieces.

[Audio Presentation]

So when you passed in the second room the person behind the screen would allow you to enter into the third room. In the third room there is only a chair as you see here. There is another person hired to sit behind that screen so it’s almost like confessional where you sit down but there’s a person very close and the person behind the glass also experience the drawing and the person was explaining their experience from the first room and that conversation would be elaborated with attention to create a certain imaginary space for the person behind the screen would say can you imagine the drawing taking another shape of the 3D and produce this kind of unexpected for most people production of a shared imaginary space, an active imaginary experience, which would last five, ten minutes depending on the situation. Then the person would again be led to the last room of the exhibition and then see only one image in the show which would then be the photo of their hand while they had it inside the whole to be accepted into the second room, so they would actually realise that during this voyage they had actually produced themselves in the exhibition. So in this case we transfer the sharing of artistic (?? 00:31:09) is actually directly put over to the audience. So that the competence and the impression of to what degree you can share that sense. Then after the fourth room that would ultimately there’s a certain, for many people an unexpected experience (?? 00:31:32).
Some of the background of this exhibition as based on interviews done with Czech immigrants who left before communism so people who immigrated, particularly industrialist members, who immigrated to South America, to Brazil. They had to give up everything and move and re-establish themselves in new centres in Brazil and were travelling and had interviews with these very old people now and had to see if there’s a parallel in the set of competencies or skills that you leave behind, the certain skill of the language, wellbeing, the culture, and then reinvent yourself. This was connected to a project that was also going on that we did interviews with artists who studied but somehow didn’t give their artistic, they did something different as a profession, so it’s a shift of professional, they had this specialised profession for many years and studying art, but then something happened and they’re doing something else. That was another kind of series of interviews that we did at the time which is connected to this exhibition.
We move on to one exhibition in Warsaw. In this exhibition which was a bigger group exhibition talking about art in this fresh field, or post artistic art critic practices, reporting from different fields outside the art where you can find traces of conceptual artistic views which is being extended outside the art field. So it was related to competence and it was created by a group of people who are specially working on this project, like Stephen Wright, Sebastian Sobowski and I was invited to this exhibition and initially discussed this as a kind of placement position that was not to come up with the work but to be working with the institution for a period of time and since I was doing this project here, so it was interesting maybe have a lot of opportunity around raw material to (?? 00:34:32), the different scope that we had here. I was connected to the people work with raw materials in the institution and temporary workers and education department, so we developed kind of project with them, so it’s images from the group of workers and lights before the exhibition is installed we’re working on the projecting certain imagination of the exhibition and for certain profile types like we did for several months we did different exercises. So online if you find if you look for it a description of how this was negotiated, it was the head of the educational department, she’d know what was going to happen and what she can offer for the volunteers. In this case to come up with a description without informing too much so it could still be kept in the circumstance of unexpectedness, surprise. We were working with a range of different media, doing different exercises with the media and the volunteers in the group who had been involved in the work shop, also visually made an interview for each. So it is also possible to listen to the different statements from the volunteers we interviewed. This is where we established a work group in relation to the exhibition (?? 00:36:48) and in relation to the exhibition of House of Art in Warsaw and we made an announcement in the newspapers, people were applying how to be in an advanced audience who are looking at art and that kind of construction we are inhabiting when we go and see art. So that was kind of the topic that was described in three or four different points in the region and it was put in four different newspapers in Warsaw and it was anonymous sender, so people were replying to the support group and also it was this, so we had the first meeting at the House of Art (?? 00:37:41) and it started from there with a smaller group of people and it’s also continuing today. They’ve been part of group which is not met on a regular basis so much but more frequent. This example is an exercise we were doing of the one year which was critical reflections on two objects, that was to come because we didn’t have any exhibition in the House of Art, they didn’t have complete task, so the task was maybe more (?? 00:38:20) capacity or changing it to see if it’s possible to work together as a group without having a specific artwork, so that was a series of images that were made over summer that the title of the different members of the work group would send some images and it was related to a possibility of publishing that as an anonymous contribution. They cancelled the issue for that application but that was the motivation for that. This is (?? 00:39:09) after with the volunteers in the Warsaw exhibition, also the end of the work group did a series of individual interviews that was maybe the first time I heard more about the different people, I was hearing their background, about their life, their narrative based on this biographic narrative interview which is similar (?? 00:39:43). In a minute to describe the reason why I found this biographical narrative attractive.
First it was the idea was to use this method in order to produce the reflection. This reflection that is somehow related to the projects of the fellowship activities. To produce the reflection which wouldn’t be my reflection but then submitted to a series of blind panels. The blinds panels would basically be a group of four, five people and the person who conducted it with me he would sequentially some parts of my narrative, my reflection, then he would put it up on the wall and the people would get small chunk at a time and they would speculate what’s the person experiencing at this moment of the interview and what do you think the person will say next. So there’s a certain kind of production of the spectrum of possibilities. I think the person who had this experience and the next person will say, and do this and that. Then to have different kind of experiential hypothesis and then the next part would be to show what’s actually next and then speculate on that. So they would spend about three, four hours doing this kind of small reading of the narrative and the idea was to see if it’s possible to produce a kind of parallel narrative which then the reader when you read it you wouldn’t know which will be the original narrative and which will be the speculative in a social and imaginary narrative. Setting up the groups can somehow be invested in to that. So for a different reason it was very challenging to make this happen, and I can show you a few minutes from this…

[Audio Presentation]

It wasn’t the best piece because the member of the group is more involved in the (?? 00:43:55). So this was three different panels who were analysing and the person overseeing this is a member (?? 00:44:07) this particular kind of method which he has been developing with people, he’s interested very much in the person and subjectivity, rather than social realities of that person. So he has been writing text books and I went to a course related to improving my interview skills. He did a test competence project with this interview with the others (?? 00:44:38). So I found it difficult to get the material, so I went to this course and that’s how we get these interpretive sections of (?? 00:44:54). So I invited Tom Mendroff to conduct an interview with me, which he somehow brought up in different panels and in the beginning, we thought it would be great to find police investigator, psychologists who are really skilled and trained into figure out what the person is actually saying or not saying which is very difficult so in the end the people who were actually doing the panel were most of them were kind of random people actually. I found it very hard to find people to attend that. It’s different than expected, that’s more the quality because people got really involved and they have this kind of experience that it was just get close to that person (?? 00:45:48), I think what they didn’t keep that (?? 00:45:54) and if you here are the transcript of these panels which is possible to read but it was not possible, it turned out totally different, on a different level than initially.
The last two minutes I will just show you short sequence from four different witnesses, three were filmed. These are witnesses who have somehow been experiencing part (?? 00:46:49) into the exhibition programme and asked to come here to explain about their experience of the exhibition so that was an attempt to present my work through people who see my work, the work to them and the work for the (?? 00:47:07).

[Audio Presentation]

I’m running out of time. There’s not much time as I planned to go back to each of these particular challenges, I hope there will be a chance to catch up on that after the debate, because I wanted to talk about comments which I received from the committee which was questions about how the groups are constituted. How far is the work actually moving out of its habitus, that was kind of a challenge. Why this method at this time and of the number? Contextualisation of the work. So for me it’s a question in the context conversation if I represented one way of contextualising the work, that another way would be look at the consequences of this, so that would be a different contextualising, maybe a different view. So that’s the question we can… Then maybe a difference between what’s transpiring what you’re taking in and where the work is going. As I just said there is an inspiration you identify with the practice or the work is actually located in the art which is something which we could (?? 00:49:45).
So thank you very much.

SH: So thank you Jesper.


Now we’re going to have a short break and we’ll reconvene in here five minutes past 11 for the discussion with the committee.


SH: Hello welcome back now it’s time for the discussion with the committee which will be chaired by Dora. Dora it’s over to you now.

[Talking Aside]

DG: Thank you Jesper, I will start a series of questions on behalf. First of all thank you for a thoughtful presentation, also for your effort in making a document and opinion and I understand is a kind of defence, so I want you to thank you for that. In a way I also thank you for addressing the questions we formulated in the reaction to your paper. I will insist on those questions to some, even though you tried to answer them there are still some things that are unclear. I would like to concentrate on the notions of issue. So when you (?? 00:52:06) I understand that you place yourself and you like to see your work (?? 00:52:13) but I understand the artist (?? 00:52:24) work and artistic practice, (?? 00:52:28), the receivers of this are not real experts of this art however, when you explain me that one of the most enigmatic practice that you have done which is when you describe yourself in (?? 00:52:41) I understand that you said that your idea was to employ artistic skill in everyday situations without a political agenda, you see the concept of (?? 00:52:54) you nevertheless understand that you employ artistic skill during completion as an artist in the description of the labours you have done in the research. So my question is where is the artistic competence and (?? 00:53:17) I notice the words repeated very often was anonymous and (?? 00:53:24), so it was like there wasn’t a constant effort to over create the (?? 00:53:32) of others and of yourself although in (?? 00:53:38) drive behind all the different practices. Why then, the work group was anonymous. Why did they have to be anonymous? Why there is a resistance to give to recognise officially the people who have participated in different things. When you say volunteer what do you exactly mean by volunteer, because it means many different things. When you also mention a (?? 00:54:17) which was random people, so I think you refer this to the public the biographical narrative. If I understood the biographical narrative you needed people to attend these sessions and the turn out (?? 00:54:36) is random people. So I wonder about that and how random they were and what was the impact of the randomness in the work. So that would be my questions.

[Talking Aside]

JA: So I’ll start to talk a bit about the project of membership of the political parties and how that relates to artistic competence. In 2013 I subscribed to parties in all distractions it’s not possible and I didn’t know at that time what exactly would be the outcome. But I was putting myself in different social contexts and different abilities. Since there was a big election coming up the year after I thought that could be, that’s the way I worked with, put myself in a certain context and I thought, and I still think it’s possible to be a member of the parties, to work through the organisation the political parties. I mention that there is no overt political agenda in this but still I am looking for possibilities to find a moment to maybe to use the organisation, political organisation that actually work (?? 00:56:20) but what I discovered in a lot of these work that I was not able to not be an artist. For other people I was not an artist because I wouldn’t say that I was an artist and working on an artistic project. But what was my surprise being that all this (?? 00:56:47) data is going in some double (?? 00:56:49) a double agency it was very hard to maintain, that drew on me as some kind of falsehood. So in relation to your question that was unexpected presence of falsehood took a much bigger part of involvement with all the political parties. Sometimes artistically speaking, an interesting reality. So that also another chapter which you’ve been looking at about the ethical, how you can argue to continue even if there is this (?? 00:57:36). This certain sense of uneasiness. So this is certain sensibility which you can only work on (?? 00:57:49) through a certain artistic competence because that competence of that capacity to overrule in an ethical way for yourself to say okay I can maintain this situation because it might grow something for it which has a positive outcome even if not necessarily look great and this offering is not destroying or threatening anyone else. So it is nothing to do between parties or having a sense of morality it’s more different an observation which is not politically anchored within that same political spectrum of these parties. It’s a different kind of observation. So I recognise the occupational relation as a practice, but I don’t identify (?? 00:58:46). I think it’s an interesting concept and interesting (?? 00:58:49) but the most interesting that particular artistry but it’s the most interesting that you can practice on movements within artistic groups within the 70s for example and she’s being doing a lot of research and I think it’s interesting that she’s come up with this term and these case studies which I think it’s important to bring up as a possible context but not something I think of myself. What was interesting in the critique referred to some case studies in this particular article is the double life, that if you go down for example (?? 00:59:42) and you go in and you are a waiter for example, that’s interesting description she’s actually being a waitress she can’t (?? 00:59:50). I think there’s interesting complications (?? 00:59:54).
So, I’ll move on to the second topic about the anonymous I worked with and why it was anonymous. It was anonymous on my side when the constitution of the group were made. The (?? 01:00:16) so it was a double anonymous attraction and quite a lot of people were showing up, (?? 01:00:27) people and we met over two days. So, we could choose who we met in the House of Artists, they had a meeting room here, and after that first meeting, the people understood the case, I want to do this, I want to do that, or people asked me to use code names, so there was an attraction for the question of anonymity, for me it would be very different (?? 01:00:56), my theories were professional and (?? 01:01:05) so I thought this sense of anonymity because if the group would be a strong group, which I didn’t exactly know it was going to be the case three years after that maybe that sense of anonymity could actually be a strong offering and a challenge for the programme, the fellowship programme to relate to and in that case, it worked which is ultimately the goal of data collecting. So far, the (?? 01:01:38) of this fellowship programme. I think there’s a quality besides that about not knowing that you actually don’t judge, there’s judgement. No judging. So, there’s no impression of, not even a conscious wish for a certain group of people. So, I think this anonymity allows for a certain openness and it was quite a while, but we worked together without asking lots of things like what’s your background, maybe later, I know that there’s some of the group here so maybe they have a different answer to their side in terms of what I’m saying. The work here is a bit of a different situation in Norway and of course it’s easier to collect it for some people to in friendship, this kind of exploitation of institution of volunteers in the sense its perhaps true but I noticed in Warsaw several years back when I was doing another project there’s a huge pressure in the institutions, there’s a lot of volunteers and they need some kind of working experience to be able to get a job, there’s a certain reality about what types of jobs which creates certain (?? 01:03:31). Additionally, there is (?? 01:03:36) provision for it so they also have this (?? 01:03:42) which is interesting for volunteers and what happened when I was starting this project is the museum in Warsaw with volunteers it was more and more shifting from being volunteer focused to the temporary works, (?? 01:04:01) and it was like in the volunteer disappeared totally from the official side of that project because it was moving to closely to certain subversity or possible negative association from the side of the (?? 01:04:17) which actually has a substantial number of volunteers (?? 01:04:23). (?? 01:04:31) you have those people who are volunteering but then sociologically speaking what does it mean to volunteer, it means if you won’t do it, you’re not seeing the chance to get employed. So, there’s a sort of volunteering aspect to be available to be have the chance to perform to show that you might be. So, volunteering is interesting, and you also hear in that in the interviews later on that these are different stories and they have different reasons and motivations to be a volunteer, some might have some experiences and health issues, so they are gradually volunteering to return to jobs, and volunteering is great because you can say today I’m coming, tomorrow I’m coming. So that’s a kind of positive aspect for volunteering, you don’t have that same obligation you have if you’re employed. Some people like to be part of the museum context, they are volunteering to do that.

DA: We give you five more minutes (?? 01:05:51).

JA: So, on the random people, the attendance of random people. Why random people, I mean people I found online. That I needed (?? 01:06:08) to the University so people don’t have time from the authorities who we tried to get the interview for to do a special job. So, in the end I was hiring people through classified ads, which is a Norwegian kind of site where you can find people to help you carry stuff, so that’s what I mean regarding people that in the end (?? 01:06:38).

DA: But why was it necessary, what was the sense of random people if they were not interested in the project?

JA: I think again in a similar way as before you never know and in this group, you will have a person who think it’s not going to be interesting, but that person will affect another person, so it’s difficult to foresee what will be the (?? 01:07:12). So, the person which is not based on their skills, he’s an investigator or interrogation expert, brought in a person who didn’t want to.

DA: (?? 01:07:32) Carmen.

[Talking Aside]

CM: I would like to ask you a question regarding the role of the artist and I would appreciate if you could answer that question more conceptually than empirically, so not telling too much detail of experiences you made on the project but taking them as examples, and maybe rather answer in a conceptual way of things. In the Warsaw project you mentioned briefly that the (?? 01:08:32) placement group were serving as a reference for the territorial thought and when I was working through your work and also being here last November at your presentation, everything reminded me very much of refugee and especially on the concept of the incidental person they have been promoting. I was reminded of one quote of Marshall McLuhan’s Book Understanding Media which served as a huge reference for (?? 01:09:13) where he says, to serve in a good way for contemporary society the artist has to move from the ivory tower to the control tower. Thinking about all of this and also like constantly feeling manipulated when I’m confronted with your material or being part of a setting you have created, I wondered how does your position, and your artistic approach and the way you understand your role as an artist actually differ from the incidental person 50 years ago, because many thinks have happened in those 50 years, you know. Also like the exhibitions which you presented today and which we had a chance to look at in detail so your material, many of it reminds me of laboratory situations of behaviouristic experiments from the 40s, 50s and 60s. So there’s obviously a lot of referencing of that time and of early cybernetics, and the (?? 01:10:34) behind it. So could you maybe talk a little bit about the differences because the resemblance is actually clear, you know 50 years later there must be something else going on, there must be another driver for your work than (?? 01:10:54).

JA: Thank you. I will say the conceptual artist (?? 01:11:16). I’m talking about the artist placement group and even 50 years ago it’s a long time, but I think the relevance because the concept of artist in different business and (?? 01:11:44) I still think it’s a very attractive situation today. I don’t think it’s something which was happening 50 years ago that’s not relevant today. I think a lot of those challenges they were facing were not a to do. I think still a lot of… I don’t see it as something out of date in terms of the incidental person, in terms of how they were approaching something very important.

CM: May I intervene. I still think it is important to realise that it was at the hay day of the cold war and also in Britain there was a huge (?? 01:12:47) between, especially the art field but also in the whole society between more socialist and also social democratic approaches of how to understand society and how to understand (?? 01:13:04) on one hand and more liberal to conservative approaches which were very hard to mirror in the arts. If you look back at what (?? 01:13:11) did it was actually a project of reconciliation. It was a project of reconciling those different, maybe (?? 01:13:20) readings of society and approaches of (?? 01:13:25). So you know when you say this is still relevant today I would like to know a little bit about why to say that you can translate this approach in to our contemporary life.

JA: Thank your complicating it further. I see your point in that society has shifted radically since that time and if you continue with the 80s, 90s and today, I think maybe those businesses or those kind of states, I agree that it is not that similar if you look at how far our society has changed in terms of privatisation of health care for example. But still I, yeah so that maybe brings, I didn’t study (?? 01:14:38) deeply in all these things contexts you are mentioning now so… I didn’t study moderance in the work and, but I think you have a certain sense, if you talk about the ivory tower and the distance of art to society, but if art is not coming down from the ivory tower, I think society is moving towards recognising that’s there’s a difference of distance or the ratio between art is maybe more general in society in terms of how (?? 01:15:37), this whole discussion about how the artist (?? 01:15:44) so maybe that way of looking at the artist (?? 01:15:52) so there’s a certain if you ask me about the role of the artist, conceptually I’m asking myself as well the question and it tends to go to some maybe a sense of I’m not sure, it seems like it could (?? 01:16:16) but if the certain sensitivity or certain… I’m not sure about the artist in relation to the art world and a lot of these project that I presented if you look there is participation there is a direction towards people who not actually in the art world. I’m not sure (?? 01:16:56) about the role of the artist in a conceptual way. About (?? 01:17:05) I think it’s a strong element and I think it’s something inheriting most of my work and which is something I tried to describe, where I mention political party versus certain distribution of information in Oslo politics there’s uncertainty for example of work group, it’s not clear what will be the next step. The same with the volunteer group, it’s not clear. Some projects that I’m working on is not suitable to be presented so three’s some kind of maybe not ethical, or too topical, or ask yourself the relation of not saying exactly what you’re working on but you’re working on this, so this is somehow related to work. Mystify in a sense, but… So if that is related to… I think there is not an intention to make it (?? 01:18:20) or mystify in the sense of transparency but I think the sense of not knowing, there’s no clarity it allows for a certain development of this project.

CM: I maybe just feedback to stay in philosophy or cybernetics that during the presentation of your work last November, I mean I think I also share that with the panel that I can at least speak for myself I feel like constantly like every minute, I felt like in certain laboratory experiment until the last moment when you were observing the sessions, when it became clear just implicitly by listening to the people that it was actually you, or you (?? 01:19:20) they negotiated. So you can’t just say this it’s actually not intentional because that was well very, very well crafted. You know, no matter how I feel about it was well crafted. So there must be a concept behind that you know because one of the witnesses even named you like as a god. You know were in the structures in the set ups. You said like you were acting as god. So as much as I have learnt about god it’s not like oh, sorry that happened it wasn’t intentional. So but you know coming back to the role of the artist. How does this idea of accidentality respond or is related how is it related to the idea of manipulation?

JA: So I think one important aspect in this sense of theatricality, the sense of manipulation is I had to do the organising with these witnesses and also with the panel but at the same time I was not allowed to meet with the committee or to get in touch with the committee, which (?? 01:20:49) background all the time, which was also very strange for me. Relating to your question about the (?? 01:20:56) how far we were able to, first of all who contributed to these groups, talk about it a little bit, how are we able to move your work where people would actually recognise this, and I think this was a big point and also actually people I know ideally to be further removed, someone else, and there shouldn’t be this possibility of breaking this anonymity, who is this person. So that I think as a challenge for next time if you’re doing something like that, that it has to be really…

CM: Sealed?

JA: Sealed and (?? 01:21:37) you cannot work on this kind of (?? 01:21:42) boards you have to deal with the security to get the effect I think, these things you were talking about, there was all sorts of people in the panel who came in because we also had the sense that according to the protocol the panel has to be open to the public, it’s what happened here. So you will have also one or two people who will recognise being central to this narrative which again creates a certain model (?? 01:22:09) this is not possible, this is artistic gesture which I do not want to be part of it. So it’s not (?? 01:22:22) business but I think it’s not incidental, but it could be further (?? 01:22:32) maybe that sense of falling into that position to that degree.

[Talking Aside]

AS: Only pehaps two comments because part of the question was just one related to this kind of title Work, work which in the main it was for me a deep relation to a former social democratic state and two of this project also in the transforming states taking in Poland with its enormous changing of economics, and you’ve related this work on 1st May, this kind of political and pollical party on one side and on the other side you have transformed the economics, the right of work and working rights are completely destructuring of this work and the situation that is going on. Is there any linked relation in your project, and (?? 01:23:51) and your understanding of institutional (?? 01:23:56) stressed in the generation of the 70s when the same generation was in the 90s and perhaps will become a time of reflection of what is our sense, what is your understanding in the surrounding or argument to (?? 01:24:17) generation of institution?

JA: So thank you I will start to answer in the context of the (?? 01:24:46), and I think that the transformation of the welfare state is the main topic (?? 01:24:58) definitely it has to do with those working and benefits of the welfare state. Nearly all elements of that expression the same partly in the Czech context there is this example from competence, this guy who started an IT company even if he doesn’t know anything about computers he’s using his artistic skills to build up (?? 01:25:42) IT company without getting (?? 01:25:48). So it somehow built on the story of other professionals taking out of the (?? 01:25:51) revolution as professionals. So initially I was in discussions around clarity, (?? 01:26:14) and social movements was much stronger two, three years ago taking upon (?? 01:26:23) also different profile to give over in operating with this work. Lots of application of work to this project to initially the attraction to this. I think that has changed really now this context of moving to fresh institutions to (?? 01:27:02), I think it’s moving into we see a lot of (?? 01:27:07) within different occupations and practices and more hands on and out of the art world and into the real placement context. So that would be the example for (?? 01:27:30) several hundred people in the arts and trying to build different kind of events and different movements where art can still play a role, so it’s somehow (?? 01:27:47) it’s trying to talk maybe from (?? 01:27:55) more than a political position. So there’s more, there’s a different politicalise now and you see that in (?? 01:28:04) and there’s a different order between movements, artistic movements and there is something which is different than a few years ago, there’s a shared (?? 01:28:21), shared language and so on. This is where I think you have the voices who talk about re-instituting or re-institutionalising existing structures, existing institutions in a way to (?? 01:28:48) in a way to yes to try to work exists and what’s there (?? 01:29:00).

[Talking Aside]

CM: I would like to ask about your way of documenting your work (?? 01:29:38). It is very impressive. Now also it is not really structured in the first half. But still it kind of leaves me clueless on how I should deal with it because it suggests a moment of total transparency that remind me of everything which you have in real time. So that seems to be the maximum level of transparency and honesty but then on the other hand just to listen to the interviews of the volunteers which you briefly showed in your presentation, I would need like 16 hours to do that. So obviously the total transparency comes along or is connected to a certain moment of (?? 01:30:39) because it is absolutely clear that I will never be able to do that even if I wanted to. So there is a kind of double blinding way of confronting me with this work and I would like to know a little bit more about the thoughts behind that, like what is the statement, what was the position of providing this material in that way which makes it totally accessible and totally inaccessible at the same time?

JA: Your question it hasn’t been. Well I thought that if I need all the documents produced for some people who are interesting to see the work long track, to see the additions on the time requirements of research, some people more interested in looking for other aspects. So it’s more thought in this particular case to leave it open, like I also write at the end of the archives (?? 01:31:44) so it’s true that it’s open and non-structured but structure is not (?? 01:32:10) type of document, there’s transcripts and there’s (?? 01:32:18). During the period where I was working on this I had a sense that there’s more and more material coming in, and going to keep it all for myself it will be sorted in this way, and maybe I would continue too much with this project, and look into professional aspects and (?? 01:32:48) or I could look at influence, possible perspectives and it’s also open for other people to do that if you want to do research on volunteers in museums that would be interested to look at, so it’s not intended to be necessarily an artistic collection and on reflection, or interpretation of art, but interpretation of certain material which is meant to be used as a (?? 01:33:20).

CM: I understand that but still I think it all breaks down to the same question which I have which is like your role as an artist, deciding for a certain way of doing it, for me that is the moment of obfuscation. You seem to escape as an author, the more you would categorise an index and give people way in and offer concepts, is more present as an author.

JA: I know that when I was working, starting to work on an index, but that was a question of my I didn’t need an index because I didn’t want to find to put it here that I wasn’t sure to make an index which was requested in addition to the references, how to index this project. So this is still not, it’s still in progress, it’s going to be interesting to actually take up your question and to meet you and see what happens (?? 01:34:35).

DA: I’m sorry I just want to (?? 01:34:37) I just wanted to recline to your former question.

AS: It was a misunderstanding. This question of kind of politicisation of activism that you have, it is only the backside of (?? 01:34:55) enjoying the art but the question is a safe understanding of the institution and critique on institution what does it mean for the language of presentation of documents in the sense that the institution doesn’t fit any longer the visions of the art, because we see different exhibitions that this kind of dividing this (?? 01:35:31) and the other side is kind of to be part of the justification machine, like you said you found a new language and my question is did you find a new language in your project research.

[Talking Aside]

JA: So I think this goes back to the difficulty I had contextualising the work which I didn’t do in the first half and I was working to detail of the professionality (?? 01:36:19) to relate it to these different things you talk about. I’m not sure how I would answer to how I align myself in relation to the institution. So we had an inexperience with this programme but in (?? 01:36:57) the possibility to apply (?? 01:37:05), different frameworks (?? 01:37:11) which are very difficult because things like that (?? 01:37:19) whole institution framework in itself is changed and we discussed it a bit. So (?? 01:37:40).

[Talking Aside]

DA: So I wanted to ask in the exhibition in Prague, as I understand you said that the (?? 01:38:03), they had to do it (?? 01:38:07) competence and they to play an audio that I understand that they had to listen to in the exhibition then I understand that the audio from what they describe it was a woman talking about another man she shared her house with he was (?? 01:38:28) around she assisted her (?? 01:38:35) was her roommate and then in addition to that there was stories in Czech’s going to America. How much do you think it was to stay competent? It’s a sincere question it’s not to trap you (?? 01:39:00).

[Talking Aside]

JA: So the first one, two women she’s listening to the wall and she has this imagination. Her imagination feels more real or more sure than her own (?? 01:39:26) so this is close to certain capacity to imagine which is very close to competence. So in reference to your question this is my competency, this case. There was also in the next room you imagine that you were put in isolation (?? 01:39:54) and it will be competence. So sincereness of interviews being made by others who have tested competence through years of education and (?? 01:40:15) for different reasons (?? 01:40:23). Contextualizing this, so quite old so this possible change. Some of these others were having somehow to work with others he came across those who had emigrated who returned, lsot everything and we were looking again at competence you have this certain built in competence through language, through customs, through culture and it goes to restart to have this (?? 01:41:14) citizenship of your own country. So that was the parallel of those two projects, that’s why also the (?? 01:41:24), two of these interviews with the elders which were then after having this narrative we were also asking to enter into an imaginary situation which for some people, in some cases it was very difficult because they have some difficulties with (?? 01:41:47), sort of opened up a (?? 01:41:52), for others it was possible, and it was interesting for example to hear the story of the woman who we asked if she would imagine if she was on the street in her (?? 01:42:08) and she was not (?? 01:42:11) and say what was the cat saying, she said well let’s go home. So they went back home and then she sees something on the sky (?? 01:42:29). So what is it. It’s coming as a parachute. She’s also saying it’s a grand piano. So the grand piano is coming then she moves towards it so (?? 01:42:42). Then she sits down and plays something. They ask her what she playing and she (?? 01:42:51). So this somehow opened up a certain sense of through imaginary setting a certain aspect of that person we can reach (?? 01:43:10). So that’s…

[Talking Aside]

CM: We were thinking about yesterday together about how to end this discussion. We don’t ask you how you’re going to pursue your work, how do the experiences and the knowledge you gained from the time and from this project will influence the future?

JA: I think already I’m experiencing some kind of resolve for change because I have this two years where I was actually doing my exhibition, but I could also work in a non-exhibition context and focusing on that. So I think having these three years out of (?? 01:44:35) seeing a certain sense of, some aspect of how I work have broken the routine a bit and I’ve had a chance to go somewhere else, so I’m not sure how, what will be the consequence. I see a capacity to do some other projects now. I think they are (?? 01:45:19) they are not able to be accepted (?? 01:45:26) and journey from a certain well-nourished place of the last two years.

CM: Are there certain aspects that you can name as examples that were nourishing or concepts that you can follow up?

JA: Well I think that in terms of this location, I think I need to move further away so it’s not only moving within the art world it’s maybe not dropping out but to work from elsewhere. So I think that’s maybe the strongest and most direct consequence because as I came into this programme… I have been able to (?? 01:46:42) and that’s also maybe what is connected to (?? 01:46:54) fully agree with the (?? 01:46:58) the name of the chapters not taking (?? 01:47:03) but in terms of the ethics that maybe what I discovered is that if you enter there’s a certain narrative that I can change that you yourself (?? 01:47:17) but it is quite interesting to see that the project surrendered is different after two years, three years in the working. (?? 01:47:14) when you entered so the ethical and the (?? 01:47:33) the framework is also changing so this is inspiring in terms of art. Maybe that is something that matures where it’s interesting more artistic influences. (?? 01:47:58).

[Talking Aside]

SH: Not it’s time to open for questions and comments from the audience, anyone?

M: Thank you I want to take the location and the mystery here I think it’s a great opportunity to do some (?? 01:48:44). So I thought I heard you say at the beginning that it’s a political (?? 01:48:53) and I think that’s really interesting and the question of institutional critique and you are inside the institution and performing, and I think there is (?? 01:49:13). (?? 01:49:23) I would say that you’re doing what you’re doing (?? 01:49:29) and now you’re venturing into theory, I mean you will become even more radical. I think also as alongside of that situation you are pointing out sensitivity in relation to the artist situation performed by the unknown artist. You are discovering certain sentients. (?? 01:50:05) maybe through theory or something like that. Those two aspects were very interesting for me the problems and sensitivity part of your… did I insult you?

JA: So if I understand you are asking about…

M: Sensitivity produced by non-artist.

JA: Experiential sensibility in relation to the non-artist…

M: But also producing inside of your framework you point at sensitivity (?? 01:51:07).

JA: Which is connected to me or…?

M: The radical potentially.

JA: I’m not sure if I recognise the question. Do you say where in the…?

M: Initially as you talk about the (?? 01:51:43) I have to depart from something that is not (?? 01:51:50) so you comment something, and it is from the culture, being formalist. I think that you’re presenting (?? 01:52:02) from this research. So I just find it interesting that it has a vast potential (?? 01:52:17).

JA: Are you thinking perhaps for example the (?? 01:52:21) being a part of that but not really working with the political parties. Well that’s still (?? 01:52:33) I didn’t put for one particular party to work (?? 01:52:45). But that would be like potential to put somewhere according to one case and to start to develop that case and put evidence within the organisation to work politically.

SH: There’s time for two questions.

F: Thank you Jesper for your presentation it’s very inspiring. There is one aspect that I wanted to (?? 01:53:28) which I don’t think has been (?? 01:53:29). I saw your show at the Kunstnernes Hus and I like it so much. I don’t really know why but it has to do with the aesthetics of who things were put in the room. I think today a lot the way about where people are… that one should always go in the direction that you are going. There is an aesthetical aspect of how you set the work that I think’s super interesting and it has a different level of experience for me. So I just wanted to also say that, and the images that you showed at the beginning with the sculpture and the hole in the wall. As an audience at that time I didn’t know think that I needed to listen all the material as long as I continued to create from just that experience in that space. I still think it’s really wundebar. Best exhibition I’ve seen in years.

F: Thank you so much for this presentation it’s very inspiring. I was wondering about this dismissed competence project of (?? 01:55:05) it was really good workplaces of these people but work places they have a (?? 01:55:13) I was just curious about that, if you were collecting feedback from the working environment.

JA: So this is project (?? 01:55:35) initially we let people still working and it we realised it was really difficult to get perspective because there would still be this it’s not over yet, it’s not dismissed entirely the competence. It’s still maybe if you asked me about it, so there was a strong kind of shift for people who are retired, basically stopped working because they had a different sense of looking back and there’s not that much time to start another career. So after the exhibition of competence Isabella she was continuing with this project without me and taking that different level and it’s quite interesting what she found and what she’s working on now. She found that a lot of those people who were Marxist they went into restoring, because that’s a big cultural thing and a lot of these women especially thought it was a good balance, but it was also interesting to bring this into restoring what exactly and to restore sort of (?? 01:56:53) of restoring dignity. So there’s a certain sort of return to a certain practice that there is also in the wider sector enrichment to restoring the (?? 01:57:05) of the state, (?? 01:57:12) from a feminist perspective. She’s working on it to bring it further. So she did 50 interviews so that somehow become more of her own (?? 01:57:27).

HS: I think it’s time to ask the committee to withdrawn for their conclusion but before I do that I’m going to ask the chair Dora to indicate if you think you need a short break or a longer break. Take your time it’s just to make sure to ask if people should stay in the room or if they should take a break and… okay I think it maybe needs a bit of time, so I suggest we reconvene in here when you hear the bell that you heard earlier today. Thank you very much. Let the committee leave the run first to make sure they go to the discussion room.

[Talking Aside]


[Talking Aside]

HS: Now it’s time for the final conclusion from the committee and I give the floor to Dora.

DG: Thanks to everybody, so (?? 01:59:27) we thought to (?? 01:59:32). So we would like to say that we salute the sensitivity and the regard of this work. It is well thought, it is thought through and it is very functional. We salute especially the tenacity and the ability of Jesper to engage people to convince them to (?? 01:59:53). We think this project is especially relevant for the things it points to. It really makes you aware of what (?? 02:00:06), through competence how the (?? 02:00:11) and also for the unsolved questions, like the evolution of capitalist and the role art has played and will play in it. The (?? 02:00:21) and the institution position. The role of the artist and the role of the audience the evidence of participation, the evidence of collaboration and authorship and the changes to the intricate systems which were not present at the time (?? 02:00:43) presence in this project. There is still some negative thing. The main thing that we did not find that the Viva Voce (?? 02:00:55) to the gratification of our open questions which were raised by the critical reflection and the presentation these questions to our feeling are not completely answered. We observed a collectiveness between the naming of the concepts on the one hand and on the other hand experience of accounts on the other hand. There was (?? 02:01:31) between this kind of experience and the study on the other hand. There is a very strong tendency to (?? 02:01:43) to the subject and to the audience which makes it hard for people to engage in an analysis of the work. Finally we also feel that the ethical issue that was one of the main question that was asked is still not addressed. However, in the view of weighing the positive and the negative, we pass the project. So well done Jesper.


M: I like on behalf of the Oslo Academy of the Arts to congratulate you Jesper and also ask you to express our gratitude to the committee which has done a very profound and good work. Thank you.


M: Since (?? 02:03:11) programme and congratulate you as well, so congratulations.


SH: Now a final message there will be a reception in Jan’s Office, the director’s office where everyone is welcome to join and celebrate Jesper, thank you very much for today.