EDITED BY

AN

WARREN NEIDICH
ACTIVIST
READER

Books
Archive
NEUROAESTHETICS
EDITED BY
AN

WARREN NEIDICH
ACTIVIST
READER

Books
Archive
NEUROAESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION
Warren Neidich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CO GN I T I V E C AP I TAL I S M:
P ROVO C AT I O N S A N D D I S P OS I T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . 42

DI ST E N DE D N E RVO US SYST E M:
N E T WO R KE D ME D I A AN D
ITS NE URO LO G I C AL T URNS
Anna Munster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

O R DI N ARY PSYC H O PAT H O LO GI ES

OF COGNIT I VE C API TALI SM
Tiziana Terranova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

T H E PSYC H E AN D T H E C AR R I O N :
ON TH E LO G I C O F
DRIVE AND SU B SUM PT I O N
Reza Negarestani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

AU TO MAT E D CO GN I T I O N AN D C AP I TAL
Luciana Parisi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

TH E SUBVERSI O N O F SU BVERSI O N:
R E LOADI N G T H E
E MANC IPATO RY POT ENT I AL O F
C RE ATIVE PRACT I C ES NOW
Cécile Malaspina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

N E UROAEST H E T I C S
AN D T H E UN I MAGI N AB L E
Franco “Bifo” Berardi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

C ULT UR AL- N E UR AL P L AST I C

E N TAN GL E ME N T AN D T H E
EMERGING RECOMBINANT BRAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

P LASTIC BR AI N
Dimitris Papadopoulos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
 A B R I E F ESSAY O N T H E T R AN S C E N D E N TAL
P OETRY OF T HE BR A I N I N TR A N S I TI O N
Elisabeth von Samsonow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
MAN GUÉ B R AI N : C R AB S WI T H B R AI N S
AS CO L L ECT I V E C ULT UR AL B R AI N S
Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
T H E I D E A O F A WI R E D B R AI N
A N D I TS L I M I TATI ON S
Slavoj Žižek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
S I MUL AT E D ME MO RY
AN D T H E WI R E D B R AI N : T H E E ME RGI N G
S U P ERO R D I N ATE PR ECA R I AT
Warren Neidich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
A C T I V I S T N E U R O A E S T H E T I C S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
T H R E E N EU ROA ESTHETI C S
Charles T. Wolfe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
ARTISTIC PRACTICES AS CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . 388
SY N T H ES IZI N G S EN S AT I O N : O N F LO R I A N
H EC K ER ’ S L IS T EN I N G S O U N D S
Ina Blom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
O N CO N S C I O US N ESS : K E R RY T R I B E ’S
P E R FO R MAT I V E AEST H E T I C S
Juli Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
E MBO DI E D E N TAN GL E ME N TS I N
“ T H ES E T I MES” : R E F L ECT I O N S O N
I N T E RCO R P O R E AL I T Y
AND SOC IAL D I STANC E
Victoria Pitts-Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
ART AN D T H E C H AN GI N G H UMAN :
N E UROAEST H E T I C S I N A C R I S I S O F L AB O R ,
E NVIRONMENT, AND EM B O D I M ENT
Anuradha Vikram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

WH AT T H E H E L L I S ACT I V I ST B I O G R A P H I ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
N E UROAEST H E T I C S ? C O LO P H O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Elena Agudio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

M AC HI N E-F I CTI ON I N G N EUROCULTURE :

ME T H O DS FO R C R I T I QUI N G
N E U ROSC I EN TI FI C I N TERV EN TI ON S
I N ART AN D P H I LOS O P H Y
Tony D. Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

DI GI TAL T R AN S I T I O N/N E UR AL C AP I TAL I S M

O F THE B R AI N : WHAT CA N A RT BR I NG?
Yann Moulier Boutang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

AT T E N T I O N AL WO R L D -MAK I N G,
ME TA-AT T E N T I O N AL DE R I VAT I V ES , AN D
H Y PERSTI TI O N A L A M BI VA L EN CE
Yves Citton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
 At a time when different speech-actors are attempting to
mediate the face of cultural discourse—including those closely
aligned with aesthetics proper (such as postcolonialism, cura-
torial practice, and performance studies) as well as those
claiming rights from heterodox corners of cognitive science
(such as cognitive archaeology and “cognitive poetics”)—a new
vocabulary needs to be invented to clear up the ideological
accretions and obscurities that seem to be the order of the day.
I suggest that, in reflecting on the intersections of the eye and
the hand, the hand and the brain, the virtual and the neuronal,
without necessarily glorifying these intersections as some new
immaterial utopia or decrying them as a final stage in human
alienation, it may be helpful to achieve some clarity with regard
to these positions—these so-called neuroaesthetic programs—

Three with the hope of later unpacking their logics and future reper-
cussions. I shall suggest a distinction between three kinds of
neuroaesthetics, which I will term, for the sake of convenience,

Neuro- the positivist, the idealist, and the militant.

Positivist neuroaesthetics seeks to locate the origins of artistic

aesthetics and cultural expression within the determined confines of

so-called cerebral modules and to link cognitive and, by
extension, cultural functions such as the forms of produc-
tion observed on the walls of major art museums. I term this
Charles T. Wolfe “positivist” thinking because this kind of critique developed by
the Frankfurt School is (uncritically) grounded in an appeal to
“naive” or “brute” facts that are presented as transparently and
unproblematically stated by “the science,” an entity that—so
the positivist would have it—one cannot argue with. Positivism
in this sense aligns with a kind of “scientism” where facts about
brains (or genes, or gender . . .) are presented without any regard
for social or political context, or any interpretive dimension.

Key flaws of positivist neuroaesthetics are its flagrant lack

of attention to either cultural history (sometimes couched in
terms of cultural memory) or the socioeconomic circumstances
that produced the settings, expectations, and materials for

296 297
observation, as well as neuro-developmental evolutionary I picture a future for writing that dispenses with mystery
processes taking place on the individual or population level. wherever it can, that embraces the astounding strides in
In a species of “category mistake” reminiscent of evolutionary thought-organ research. Ideally, a future where neuro-
psychology, with its appeals to static paleolithic forms of life, imaging both miniaturises and becomes widespread,
this variant of neuroaesthetics seeks to tell us, factually, that augmenting the craft of authors, critics, agents and
cubism is an expression of “the way we actually see.”1 Here the publishing houses.2
distinctions between artistic practice, representation, truth,
and the activity of the brain itself are quite thin. The problem This quote speaks as if new images of the organ of thought
is only magnified when the focus of positivist neuroaesthetics somehow altered the organ itself into needing, by necessity, a
turns away from “science” to the actual production of cultural new art form to satiate its own representation. Positivist neuro-
forms without regard for the extreme differences inherent in aesthetics also runs into difficulties when it comes to dealing
the scientific method and the artistic method. Artistic facts with abstraction, minimalism, irony, or the various “post-”
and scientific facts are two very different species of knowledge strategies: What is the difference (in terms of pathways and
formation (without this distinction having to rest on a shopworn neuronal firings) between Joseph Beuys’s multiples and Martin
distinction between the natural sciences and the humanities). Kippenberger’s collages of these same multiples that seek to
destroy their “auratic” power?
When positivist neuroaesthetics speaks of the functioning of
art, it has a predilection for clumsily explaining matters of taste, In contrast, a more idealist neuroaesthetics does not seek to
whether in the past (cubism) or the future. Take, for example, “explain” one field, for example, painting, by another field, such
this grotesque statement concerning literature (even if neuro- as neuroanatomy aided by neuroimaging: How does a series
aesthetics overall, including its positivist variant, tend to focus of black and white stripes in a photograph or painting cause
on the visual arts): reactions in the visual cortex? Rather, in a
stronger recognition of plasticity without
2 D. G. Walter, “What
any claim for a “science” to explain
neuroscience tells us about cultural production—not least given a kind
the art of fiction,” June 10,
1 The two “classics” are nervous system (in an a Psycho-Historical Frame- 2012, http://damiengwalter.
of historical overdetermination and sedi-
Semir Zeki, Inner Vision: An oddly empty understand- work for the Science of Art com/2012/06/10/what-neu- mentation of perception—it emphasizes,
Exploration of Art and the ing of art and a revealingly Appreciation,” Behavioral roscience-tells-us-about-
Brain (Oxford: Oxford Uni- general invocation of and Brain Sciences 36 the-art-of-fiction/.
like Deleuze, that “creating new circuits
versity Press, 1999) and V. neuroscience): L. Lumer (2013): 123–80, comment 3 Gilles Deleuze, “On The in art means creating them in the brain.”3
S. Ramachandran and W. and S. Zeki, La bella e la on 151–52. See also Fer- Time-Image,” in Negotiations
Hirstein, “The Science of bestia. Arte e neuroscienze nando Vidal, “La neuroes- 1972–1990, trans. M. Joughin
What is idealist about this? I’m not using
Art: A Neurological Theory (Bari: Laterza, 2011). For a thétique, un esthétisme (New York: Columbia Univer- this term pejoratively (as the materialist
of Aesthetic Experience,” helpful warning on these scientiste,” Revue d’Histoire sity Press, 1995), 60. Note,
Journal of Consciousness issues (which interestingly des Sciences Humaines however, that Deleuze—in
might when criticizing their opponent for
Studies 6, nos. 6–7 (1999): comes from the natural- 25, no. 2 (2011): 239–64 a manner recalling his late failing to take into account materiality, or
15–51. Ten-odd years later, istic side rather than from and Chiara Cappelletto, statements on the virtual and
Zeki is still claiming that a defense-of-art-and- “Neuroaesthetics: Origins, attacks on advertising—de-
things, or basic physics, or embodiment);
our understanding of art its-mystery sentiment) Perspectives, Problems,” clares immediately prior to nor am I referring to historical versions
changed thanks to our see Lambros Malafouris, in Neuroaesthetics: Can this statement that aesthetics
new knowledge of the “Mindful Art,” comment on Science Explain Art?, ed. O. cannot be separated from the
of this view, like Platonic idealism (only
Nicolas J. Bullot and Rolf Pombo, S. Di Marco, and “complementary questions of the Forms are real) or Hegelian idealism
Reber, “The Artful Mind M. Pina (Lisboa: Fim de cretinization and cerebraliza-
Meets Art History: Toward século, 2010), 81–100. tion” (emphasis mine).
298 299
(the structure of the world and the structure of our minds Clark put it, we are inseparable from the “looping interactions”
cohere). Rather, I mean that an idealist neuroaesthetics focuses between our brains, our bodies, and “complex cultural and
especially on the mind and its contents. Now, one might say, technological environments.”5 Our brains and cognitive abilities
Deleuze explicitly invokes the brain! Indeed, and that is note- have evolved, but so have the environments that scaffold the
worthy in a context—twentieth-century European thought— development of our skills. This sense of “scaffolding” goes back
in which claims about knowledge in general (or culture in at least to the 1960s (and if one wishes, to Descartes’s image
particular) tied to neuroscience would be viewed suspiciously of the blind man’s usage of the stick in his Dioptrics6), when
at best. However, a Deleuzian neuroaesthetics remains idealist Gregory Bateson spoke of the existence
in the way it folds the cerebral back onto the mental, reflecting of numerous “message pathways outside
his Bergsonian inspiration: 5 Andy Clark, Natural-Born
the skin,” which carry messages that are
Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies then incorporated as “part of the mental
and the Future of Human
Our current inspiration doesn’t come from computers Intelligence (Oxford: Oxford
system whenever they are relevant.”7
but from the microbiology of the brain: the brain’s organ- University Press, 2002), 11.
43. See also Lambros Mala-
ized like a rhizome, more like grass than a tree, “an uncer- fouris’s “material engage-
Unlike both the positivist and idealist
tain system” with probabilistic, semialeatory, quantum ment theory” in How Things versions of neuroaesthetics, militant
Shape the Mind: A Theory of
mechanisms. It’s not that our thinking starts from what Material Engagement (Cam-
neuroaesthetics presents itself as a tool
we know about the brain but that any new thought traces bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013). for positive political change. It shares
6 René Descartes, Diop-
uncharted channels directly through its matter, twisting, trique, sections I, IV, VI in
with the idealist form a commitment to a
folding, fissuring it . . . New connections, new pathways, Œuvres, ed. C. Adam and P. kind of ontological monism in which the
Tannery (Paris: CNRS/Vrin,
new synapses, that’s what philosophy calls into play as it 1996), vol VI.
aesthetic and the neuronal occur on one
creates concepts, but this whole image is something of 7 Andy Clark, Microcog- shared plane, without either being more
nition (Cambridge, MA: MIT
which the biology of the brain, in its own way, is discov- Press, 1989), 63–66, 132–35;
fundamental than the other. It speaks the
ering an objective material likeness, or the material Gregory Bateson, Steps to an language of fluidity and nonlinearity and
Ecology of Mind: A Revolu-
working. Something that’s interested me in cinema is tionary Approach to Man’s Un-
harkens to the call of intensities at critical
the way the screen can work as a brain.4 derstanding of Himself (New points of assemblage and disassemblage.
York: Ballantine, 1972), 458. I
am not committed to a par-
As such, it adds the impetus to precisely
Idealist neuroaesthetics contemplates a field of complexity and ticular position in the debate “create new circuits” without shying away
as to whether such scaffold-
admires it, without privileging “science” over “art”: it is an imma- ing is then integrated into a
from, for example, the biological features
nentist position. However, idealist neuroaesthetics is not limited biological “mind” or not. That of perception. Whether it is in the form
is, in some readings, Otto’s
to metaphors for mental activity or reflections on cinema. In notebook, which he uses as
of an artistic intervention, a curatorial
fact, culture is considered a power modifier that modulates an external “prop” to remind practice, or a theoretical statement, this
him to go to the exhibition at
neurobiological activity which, results in changes in the shape MOMA (in Clark and Chalm-
more militant neuroesthète makes use
of neural architecture at the microscopic and molar level. ers’s celebrated example), of “the histories, critiques, practices,
is an aid for his damaged
memory, not part of the
apparatuses, spaces, and non-spaces
A more naturalist version of this posi- organism “Otto.” Arguably, and temporalities of artistic practice” as
the neuroaesthetic position
tion would appeal to the notion of “scaf- here (common to positivist,
these manifest themselves in painting,
folding,” according to which, as Andy idealist, and militant variants) sculpture, performance, film, video, and
4 Deleuze, “On philoso- is to view the scaffolding as
phy,” Negotiations, 149. itself (neuro)biological.
300 301
installation art, “to counter these arguments and instead incite quite similar to that of another intriguing yet at times nebulous
a different truth production program or alternative paradigm concept, cognitive capitalism,12 because both share a duality
at odds with institutional practices.”8 of the normative and the natural, the virtual and the actual, the
avant-garde and the status quo. That is, cognitive capitalism
These paradigms share with the extended cognition thesis the is both (a) a description of an actual, “second nature” status
claim that the results of these cultural changes are linked to anal- quo in which our brains are a key component of our labor, so
ogous changes in the network structures of the brain with which that the system of exploitation correspondingly targets this
it is coupled. Here we find projects as diverse as Warren Neid- fact, and (b) a project to overcome this state of affairs with
ich’s visual and/or cognitive ergonomics and the still-unexplored a normative, virtual impetus to create increasing difference
Vygotskyan project to connect political reform to knowledge of and disturbance in the network. The Guattarian and Marxian
the cortex.9 Again, like the more idealist form of neuroaesthetics, threads here (these are overlapping rather than distinct!) are
these do hold that “the power of art is to create additionally important because rather than invoking some sort of “wonder
evolving forms of variability in the environment that couple with tissue” of the brain (and the looping interactions of brain and
the equally diverse forms of the brain’s own variability.”10 Thus, art) they keep clearly in view the reality of relations of produc-
Neidich’s interest in noise and improvisation is a means to this tion rather than simply handing over agency and transforma-
end. Yet these are not strictly “aesthetic” projects (or else, in a tive power to (neuro)plasticity.13
very expansive sense of the aesthetic, akin to Guattari’s “new aes-
thetic paradigm”), for they add a meliorist dimension, namely, the Here it is helpful to sound a cautionary note about the revo-
production of alternate zones of affect and perception, with im- lutionary potential of plasticity, as Victoria Pitts-Taylor does
plications for a distancing from mainstream social production.11 elegantly. She notes that plasticity “offers the possibility of
The promise and the paradox of a militant neuroaesthetics is taking up the biological matter of the
body while defying biological deter-
12 Heesang Jeon, “Cogni- minism” (a vocabulary of potentiality we
tive Capitalism or Cognition
8 Warren Neidich, “The me éthique: Spinoza avec li’s paper “On the Origins of in Capitalism?: A Critique of
encounter also in Vygotsky’s appeals to
Architectonics of the Vygotski–I–Fondements Marx’s General Intellect,” Cognitive Capitalism Theory,” the cortex). But, she observes further,
Mind’s Eye in the Age of anthropologiques,” Revue Radical Philosophy 2, no. 6 Spectrum 2, no. 3 (2010):
Cognitive Capitalism,” in Skhole.fr, May 26, 2016, (Winter 2019): 43–56 and 90–117.
there is no state of pure potentiality
Brain Theory, ed. Charles http://skhole.fr/node/493. on second nature, Cat Moir, 13 For a related critique that is somehow free from the forces of
Wolfe (London: Palgrave What the “social brain” “Second Nature and the of how New Materialism
MacMillan, 2014), 265. concept implies for the Critique of Ideology,” in He- projects agency onto all
shaping, rendering this concept—and the
9 Charles Wolfe, “From older concept of “second gel and the Frankfurt School, of matter, thus nullifying ontological feature of brains it captures—
Spinoza to the Socialist nature” (given that the brain ed. P. Giladi (London: Rout- problems of injustice or
Cortex: Steps Toward the by definition is neither a ledge, 2021), 115–39. concrete struggles for
at most ontologically neutral: “The brain
Social Brain,” in Cognitive “virgin forest” nor a system 10 Warren Neidich, The equality, see Cat Moir, Ernst not only appears to us (through neuro-
Architecture: From Bio-Pol- of industrial exploitation) Glossary of Cognitive Activ- Bloch’s Speculative Material-
itics To Noo-Politics, ed. cannot be explored here; ism (Berlin: Archive Books, ism: Ontology, Epistemology,
scientific revelations) to be ontologically
Deborah Hauptmann and the task is difficult given 2019). Politics (Leiden: Brill, 2020), open to shaping, but (if the theory is right)
Warren Neidich (Rotter- that quite incommensura- 11 Félix Guattari, Les trois 13–49 and “What is Living
dam: 010 Publishers, Delft ble sets of vocabularies, in- écologies (Paris: Galilée, and What is Dead in Political
it is always already actively shaped and
School of Design Series, tuitions, and commitments 1989), 25, 29; translation, Vitalism?,” in Vitalism and its shaping. Thus plasticity cannot be seen
2010), 184–206; Pascal are at play (Lukácsian and The Three Ecologies, Legacies in 20th-Century Life
Sévérac, “L’éducation com- Darwinian, constructivist trans. I. Pindar and P. Science and Philosophy, ed.
as an ontological condition captured, or
and anti-constructivist Sutton (London and New C. Donohue and C. T. Wolfe
. . .). An important resource York: Athlone Press, 2009), (Dordrecht: Springer, forth-
would be Matteo Pasquinel- 37, 39–40. coming).
302 303
not, by capital, or as a biological fact to be freed from social
and cultural ones.”14

Neuroaesthetics is not one project; I have sought to distinguish

three important variants. They differ from each other both in
the extent to which scientific discourse (concepts, explana-
tions) is privileged over other forms of discourse and in the
extent to which a transformative (melioristic, sculpting, meli-
orative) dimension is attributed to the theory cum praxis of
neuroaesthetics. Notably, militant neuroaesthetics (including
“cognitive activism”) seeks to take advantage of the fact of
our plasticity and interrelation with social and cultural forms,
to create “new forms of variability.” This is a far cry from
neuro-advice for writers and publishers, or scientists claiming
to discover laws of aesthetic experience or stimulus-response
models of beauty.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank
Lee Nelson and Warren Neidich for their
useful suggestions.
304
14 Victoria Pitts-Taylor,
“The Plastic Brain: Neoliber-
alism and the Neuronal Self,”
Health 14, no, 6 (2010): 647,
648. See also Pitts-Taylor,
The Brain’s Body: Neurosci-
ence and Corporeal Politics
(Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2016).
A N ACTI V I ST N E UROA ESTHETIC S R EA DER

E D I TED BY Warren Neidich

P ROOFR E A D E R Sarrita Hunn

CO PY EDITO R Bonnie Begusch

P U B LI S H E D BY Archive Books

GR A PH I C D ES I G N Sara Marcon, Archive Appendix

P R I N TE D BY Bianca & Volta Milano Italy

O R D E R S Archive Books Reinickendorfer Straße 17 13347 Berlin

orders@archivebooks.org

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2021 the authors for their texts the artists for their contributions
Archive Books

An Activist Neuroaesthetics Reader is the first of two volumes of documenta-

tion presented by Verein zur Förderung von Kunst und Kultur am Rosa-Luxem-
burg-Platz e.V. for Activist Neuroaesthetics, a festival of events curated by Warren
Neidich, Susanne Prinz, and Sarrita Hunn celebrating the 25th anniversary of
artbrain.org.

This publication has been made possible with funding by Hauptstadtkulturfonds.

ISBN: 978-3-948212-84-1
In the past ten years, a crisis has begun to emerge that is almost as
significant as the one caused by the advent of cybernetics and imma-
terial labor. Just as the pioneers of the idea of cognitive capitalism
(such as Antonio Negri, Silvia Federici, Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Maurizio
Lazzarato, and Mario Tronti, among others) realized that the then
coming digital economy would have serious consequences for labor
and the production of subjectivity, so too will the imminent transi-
tion from the information economy to full-blown neural capitalism
in which the material brain is at the center of capitalist commodifi-
cation. This transition requires a new epistemological understanding
with which to unpack, expose, and resist the consequences of this
coming age. Activist neuroaesthetics is one such methodology.
Activist neuroaesthetics attempts to make the processes of digital
dominion and governmentalization—which are becoming more and
more prominent in late-stage cognitive capitalism (or neural capi-
talism)—opaque, visible, and known. In this way, activist neuroaes-
thetics is a form of consciousness-raising that endeavors to subvert
positivist neuroaesthetics’ attempts to co-opt the very neural basis
of autonomous action and normalize it. —Warren Neidich

Contributors include Elena Agudio, Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Ina Blom,

Yann Moulier Boutang, Juli Carson, Yves Citton, Cécile Malaspina,
Anna Munster, Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung, Warren Neidich,
Reza Negarestani, Dimitris Papadopoulos, Luciana Parisi, Victoria
Pitts-Taylor, Tony David Sampson, Tiziana Terranova, Anuradha
Vikram, Elisabeth von Samsonow, Charles T. Wolfe, and Slavoj Žižek.

An Activist Neuroaesthetics Reader is the first of two volumes of docu-

mentation presented by Verein zur Förderung von Kunst und Kultur
am Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz e.V. for Activist Neuroaesthetics, a festival
of events curated by Warren Neidich, Susanne Prinz, and Sarrita Hunn
celebrating the 25th anniversary of artbrain.org.