Anna Munster
University of New South Wales, Australia
____________________________________
It’s a stinking hot day in mid-July in Venice, literally. The mosaic stench of
refuse, algae and petrol fuelling the vaporettos rises visibly, up off the city’s
tepid canals. I am here for the 52nd Biennale of the Arts, 2007, and, like many
‘art’ tourists, the parklands of the Giardinni, housing the participating nations’
pavilions and première artists, provide some air-conditioned respite. Here the
footsore can disentangle that particular criss-crossing of sensory boundaries that
unravels when navigating the Veneto. I head for the Russian pavilion: not only
does it hint at an associated coldness but in publicity announcements I’ve
already discovered that this year Russia’s theme is the relation between ‘the real
world and technology’. Nothing colder. An eight-metre water tank greets me on
entry, with a rhythm pulsating along its length. Wave is an installation,
comprising a hydraulic pulsation travelling the length of the tank, driven by the
screen-based breath of its artist, Alexander Pomomarev, emanating from a
projection behind it. Suddenly, the sensation of cold, purified water is
everywhere, gliding over my sweaty limbs. In another room Pomomarev’s
Windshield Wipers, transposes mechanical motion into data, as actual windscreen
wipers mounted against monitors wash away the displayed images. At the same
time and relentlessly, each ‘view’ is replaced by an image of water, which is
relentlessly replaced by a ‘view’, which is wiped away…
The chill rising up through my bones comes from the orchestration of the
aesthetic and political dimensions of this work, which mesh so brilliantly and
evoke for me everything that is truly chilling about contemporary digital
aesthetics. Here digital art’s cultural signals are cross-processed with a proto-
fascist politics. This installation, so overwhelmingly immersive and epic, at once
strips its audience of complex sensory engagement with its world. We are left to
slouch against the wall and submit instead to its total spectacle. The world it
evokes is one of violence without force. Its models are characters in battle with
each other, using weapons borrowed from gaming; rockets perpetually launch in
the background; the models loop through endless gestures of bloodless, yet
relentless, conflict. This is anaesthesia – the nonsensing space of mainstream
digital visual culture – a flat space that, as Last Riot intimates, is also synonymous
with the contemporary politics of perpetual war.
Such praise in favour of Romantic dramaturgy finds its full embodiment in the
‘nineties’ of the twentieth century, in the hyped up digital rendering of virtual
reality.2 Indeed Wagner has been very much at home in emergent digital culture
and has been invoked genealogically in order to theorize the origins and future
of multimedia in Randall Packer and Ken Jordan’s Multimedia: From Wagner to
Virtual Reality (2001). Multimedia, too, would offer the dream of total experience
(albeit upon the rather constrained stage of the computer desktop), by
synthesizing the various elements of audio, visual, text and graphic files together
with interactive gesture, all via the orchestration of digital code. Wagner
becomes the genesis of a particular imaginary for the way digital code will
operate, not only aesthetically but also as digital worldview. The total
Wagnerian or multimedia artwork involves a practice of fusing all aspects of the
aesthetic (or all sensory modalities) under the aegis of a kind of ‘meta-form’. As
Packer and Jordan see it, opera was Wagner’s totalizing meta-form; the meta-
form of the digital is the interactive interface in which call-response gestures
literally orchestrate the fusing of all sensorial varying media (2001: xvii-iii).
But this connection of the total artwork to the meta-form of interactivity gives the
operations of computation a particular status. It accomplishes more than simply
giving the digital interface a binding or synthesising function. It sequesters the
In Last Riot, the inclusion of Wagner plays out as a critically reflexive tactic aimed
squarely at the politics of codification and its concomitant mobilization of affect
from Romantic to digital aesthetics. It marks out the fate of such a genealogical
relationship rather than simply legitimating the traversal from Wagner to the
digital spectacle as the inevitable march of art history. The total spectacle of the
installation deliberately retraces the passage that aligns this digital aesthetics
with the chilling totality that such synthesis performs. Wagner’s fusion of the arts
allowed a passing of the heterogeneous into the homogeneous via the elevation
of an epic musical form – tragic opera – to meta-form, becoming the vital breath
that united elements, senses and functions. Deleuze and Guattari note the
Romantic passage from the aesthetic to the political in the following way:
The problem is truly a musical one, technically musical, and all the
more political for that. The romantic hero, the voice of the romantic
hero, acts as a subject, a subjectified individual with “feelings” but
this subjective vocal element is reflected in an orchestral and
instrumental whole that on the contrary mobilizes nonsubjective
“affects” and that reaches its height in romanticism (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1988: 341).
In this totalizing experience, small spaces for intensive thought and its extensive
action are subsumed rather than being allowed to play themselves out. So, too,
while offering relief from the heat, the digital spectacle of Last Riot confirms that
the escape from the multimedia interface in digital aesthetics has only fused the
varying sensory elements of sound and colour into a space, which freezes all
movement.
At the heart of the macro-passage from the aesthetic to the political that Last Riot
performs, there is a micro-passage from experience-affect to action-thought. The
What kind of conceptual space, what conceiving of space for thought, can arise in
the middle of engaging with such synthetic art? How might the multi-sensorial
experience become something other, where the elements of sound, colour,
gesture and so forth are given lines that sometimes exchange, meld and yet
nonetheless depart from each other in order to open up new worlds of the felt?
And in the feeling, of thought? How might synthesizing continue to open up a
space in which thought runs off along these lines as well, becoming eccentric,
wild and fleeing? Thought, that is, about the exchange of sensations but also
cognition generated in the very action of sensory exchange. Must the synthesis
of heterogeneous elements – an operatic overture, cold colour palettes, a dark
overwhelming space – collapse into a totalized digital world? A world, which is
an immersive stage, upon which not the future artwork but the future of warfare
is instead rehearsed and performed? What room in this to conceive-imagine how
aesthetics and the cosmologies, toward which it gestures, might synthesize
differently?
The question, and it is one engaging the efforts of many contemporary artists and
thinkers, is how to affect that passage or, put differently, how to pass affectively
between the aesthetic and the political so as to maintain the passage’s movement
rather than collapse the movement of one into the other. Wagnerian affect is
soaring, immediate and complete: a total passing of art into the public and of
public life into the aesthetic. For Wagner this must occur through dramatic
Last Riot consciously details the ways in which the passages between
compositional elements amidst the arts and between the artwork and public
space – the space of bodies in public congregating, moving, relating – are
subsumed by a post-Wagnerian meta-synthesis. This is a syn-aesthetics of
transparency, senseless flows, seamlessness. But Last Riot does not offer us any
alternate passages for other aesthetico-political movement(s). It is an apocalyptic,
epic hymn to the digital cooling of the senses. It leaves us cold as each sensory
bloc is poured into another effortlessly; as we stand still, and without moving us.
It is the senses’ last riot.
Or is it? Something riotous has been going on in the digital and electronic
audiovisual domain over the past decade. Carsten Nicolai’s work across sound,
vision, signal, noise and the ecologies of these provides different working
methods and processes for synthesis and syn-aesthetics. In telefunken (2000),
digital ‘signal’ criss-crosses media players: instead of an image signal from a
video player, a CD player is hooked up to a television monitor. Audio tracks
playing on a CD in a gallery space visually generate the movement, pulse and
pace of white lines across television monitors. Nicolai calls this connection of CD
to TV ‘erroneous’, giving us an insight into something else at work in digital syn-
aesthetics (2002:78). For Nicolai, digital signal does not simply flow from one
machine to another. Rather, the idea is to see what happens if an error in
connectivity occurs. This is not simply the error as it appears in avant-garde art
making in, for example, the Dadaist movement. It is the error as a fundamental
problem encountered in the digital milieu – a milieu comprised of the forces,
In the work of Nicolai, Robin Fox, Ryoichi Kurakawa and others, in festivals such
as the yearly Cimatics audiovisual extravaganza, in VJing and in the curation of
digital art into exhibitions such as See this Sound, in Linz, the senses are getting a
work around.3 Weaving its way through these various events and performances
is a concept that intermittently pops up within aesthetics: synaesthesia. Thought
about the synaesthetic has traversed both artistic composition and scientific
approaches to human perception – artists and writers such as Rimbaud, Rimsky-
Korsakov, Scriabin, Messaien and so on have been labeled as possible or actual
neuro-synaesthetes (van Campen, 1997; Harrison and Baron-Cohen, 1997).
Twentieth century artists such as Kandinsky and Cardew have suggested a
necessary conjunction particularly of the visual and the sonic; that art made in
one necessarily calls up the other sensory modality.
Yet it is not just that the synaesthetic and the digital converge here. The process
of audiovisual synthesis taking place in the installation is drawn into an
epistemological and ontological space of the Kantian ‘a priori’. This seems to me
to be architecturally problematic – a problem for the space digital aesthetics
wants to compose. Accorded the status of a structural architecture, which would
condition the space of perception-experience, synthesis occupies a similar place
as the Gesamtkunstwerk. Must it? More on this later for indeed there may just be
another way to think the ‘meta’ in meta-synthesis. In the meantime, it is
worthwhile staying with this twisting of the neural and the digital together via
more recent work on synaesthesia in both the perceptual (neurological) and
aesthetic (cross-processing of digital signal in contemporary audiovisual art).
There are two main competing neurological hypotheses for synaesthesia: Cross-
Modal Transfer (CMT) and Neonatal Synaesthesia (NS). One derives from the
other but makes more radical neurological claims. The CMT hypothesis is
slightly older and was developed as a result of work by Meltzoff and Borton who
posited that infants have the ability to recognize objects in more than one sensory
modality (1979). So, for example, something that a baby has only touched can
nonetheless be visually recognised by it. The process involved in this infantile
experience involves the transfer of sensory ‘data’ across modes – haptic to visual.
Visual recognition is here understood as something that must exist prior to
intermodal processes. The process is possible because of the infantile brain’s
cognitive ability to abstract representations from objects. It is this capacity for
abstraction that points to where joining – the ’syn’ – of all the sensory modalities
occurs. The CMT hypothesis rests upon the proposition that synaesthesia is
primarily a function of inherent cognitive capacities for abstraction and
representation in the human brain.
As VJ, Mark Amerika alludes here to both mesh and potentiality as simultaneous
pauses in the synaesthesia of contemporary audiovisual digital experience. If we
are to deploy a digital syn-aesthetics, we must be willing to allow both the ‘syn’
and the ‘aesthesia’ resonant activities and architectures. But this may also
necessitate giving up the idea of the artwork as total experience, where it seems
to have shifted since losing its objecthood.5 New subjectivations must follow
from this – not only for ‘the artist’, ‘the viewer’ but also for ‘art’. I will return to
this when I attempt to understand current artistic experiments in cross-
processing digital signal syn-aesthetically. What I want to suggest is that
similarly we cannot approach the digital as exemplary of synaesthetic
experience, if by this we mean that interfacing with digital art presents us with a
totality of sensory engagement.
Deleuze and Guattari posit the difference between Romantic and modern
(contemporary) thought as a difference in approach to the question of synthesis
(1988: 342–3). Romantic philosophy requires a formalizing synthetic identity for
thought, which makes matter intelligible across all difference – organizing it as a
continuity – the a priori synthesis. Modern/contemporary philosophy should
elaborate thought’s materiality in order to harness forces that are not in
themselves thinkable. Thought brought into relation by thinking, and by the
thinking of thought with what is outside of itself; likewise for
modern/contemporary visual sonic art/music. Visual art passes through the
image in order to render other forces, the nonvisual, visible, perhaps, for
example, as can be felt in the fleshy sounds of Francis Bacon’s painting. Sound
art and modern music (Boulez, Cage and so on) connect the sonorous with its
materiality and cosmology, which, according to Deleuze and Guattari are its
Interestingly enough, there is both a machine and a process in the sonic realm,
which, for Deleuze and Guattari, precisely achieves this non-Romantic mode of
synthesis – the synthesizer:
It is the parametric operation of the synthesizer that uses one force – for example,
the force of a wave being pushed through different ranges of voltage frequency –
against the force of another element of sonic matter, which makes the synthesizer
a relational apparatus. Synthesis thus shifts away from its function as the
unifying ground it held in, for example, Kant’s judgements, toward a shifting
terrain. This terrain is always in the process of being diagrammed as sonic and
nonsonic elements consistently relate to each other in the making of what
Deleuze and Guattari describe as a field of ‘generalized chromaticism’ (1988: 95).
The sticking point is the digital. Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘discovery’ of the
asignifying semiosis of the synthesizer arrives right on the cusp of the release of
the digital synthesizer into the music market. Quite apart from where it ends up,
unsurprisingly, in the New Romantic melodies of Duran Duran, Ultravox and
Boy George during the 1980s, the synthesizer becomes an instrument for solving
what is both a technical and political problem. This is already occurring during
the 1960s but is not quite apparent at the level of musical and aesthetic
production during that period. Most synthesizers in the 1960s and even up until
the late 1970s are still large, customized and sit in a number of avant-garde
recording studios such as those of the Cologne Recording Studio used by
composers such as Stockhausen.6 Indeed, it is quite possible that by solving the
problem in the specific way that it was solved, digital synthesis is able to rejoin
its old neighbour, the synthetic a priori.
Modular systems dealing with the organization of electronic systems were on the
rise during the 1960s. Together with hardware such as transistor devices, entire
systems for electronic sound synthesis could be packaged in smaller more
transportable units that were customized but mutually compatible (Manning,
2004: 101–5). Filters and oscillators could be put together to synthesize the one
sound simultaneously. Previously sound synthesizers featured sliders and
knobs where the electronic signal was processed at one point, synthesized and
then passed down the signal line to the next point of synthesis. So, first
oscillated, then filtered for example. However now the system could be
designed so that an external set of voltage characteristics could control the signal
outside its passing from one process to another. This allowed a secondary set of
interconnections to produce the control information for any of the individual
modules, creating the beginnings of a meta-data or ‘control’ layer of data, which
acted upon the signal allowing it to be processed in a way specific to the forces of
those actions (that is, the particular set of voltage characteristics).
Kurokawa has passed between the synthesis of audio and visuals to open up the
conjunctive potential of the electronic. No longer is ‘mysterious hoze’ only a
driving dance track but one comprised of other universes of reference such as jazz
(which of course dance music is but which can become drowned out by a
Cross-signal processing of digital signal – for example, the use of digital sonic
signal to trigger, produce and modulate transformations and formations of visual
signal in practices such as VJing – is an area that has already attracted some
attention as an example of a different kind of syn-aesthetics. Mitchell Whitelaw
has argued that the transcoding of sound and image in the work of
contemporary Australian artists Robyn Fox and Andrew Gadow can be
understood in terms of cross-modal binding (Whitelaw, 2008: 259–276). Here the
sound-image produced in these digital audiovisual environments might be
thought as a cross-modal ’object’, which both points to the underlying digital
signal and to a domain of correlation between modalities. Correlations (co-
relations) Whitelaw suggests are part and parcel of perceptual experience –
edges and limits in a given perception that suddenly make it shift from sensation
to meaning. Sher Doruff has also suggested that neural synaesthesia does not
need to function as ground for the digital and, we can add, nor should ‘signal’
across wires legitimate the neurology of synaesthesia (2007). Instead, she puts
forward the idea of a transdisciplinary synaesthetic practice. A practice of inter-
composing bodies, signals, machines where sensory modalities are not the
starting points of relation and fusion is not the necessary outcome of their co-
mingling. Instead, an image-sound sensed is a contraction of the practice,
emerging out of the resonances set off by digital aesthetic generative
architectures for sound, gesture, proprioception, image, electronic signal etc.
Mark Amerika puts it another way, suggesting that VJing as a lifestyle practice of
writing the image into existence involves processing (or transferring) the
energies of sensation and perception before we cognitively organize them:
Perhaps…and yet meta-data is also simply data about data.11 Or, put another
way, data exerting a singularly informatic force upon other data – in-forming
data about data. This ‘other data’ can likewise become meta-data and so on. In
fact, this does happen in a cross-signal programming environment when a
number of parameters (or ‘patches’, which are small and discrete code modules)
all wrangle for their place in a sequence of programming events. It is often not
clear in a live audiovisual cross-signal processing situation what signal, what
data is telling what other data what to do. Setting up a number of sequential
patches can nonetheless result in recursions that cause or stall the working
together of data, resulting in ‘erroneous’ or unexpected interactions and the
invention of new image-images, image-sounds, sound-sounds and sound-
images. Signal’s micro-movement becomes compositional and not necessarily at
the hands of the subject position of the composer/artist. From an array of micro-
passes, signal flutters, stutters and modifies signal. As Whitelaw suggests, signal
in cross-processed audiovisual aesthetic ‘objects’ is not a case of simple
transmission of information from A to B:
It seems, then, that in these types of signal cross-processing events we revisit the
analogue voltage-controlled synthesizer where continuous variables or flux
patterns between voltage and sonorities contract into emergent sonic sensations.
But we have shifted design away from a separate control line –the voltage-
controlled synthesizer’s command-control cybernetic heritage. Instead the ways
in which audiovisual artists and VJs are using in digital cross-processing,
modules are constantly shifting around, never acquiring ground, in fact. In
cross-signal processing audiovisual events, especially in live and somewhat
aleatory circumstances, digital synthesis loses its tendency toward the synthetic a
priori. Sensation that finds lines of expression through cross-signal processing is
no longer causal nor is it a fixed phenomenon. Rather it becomes visual
sonification, sonic visualization, diagramming a resonating, moving architecture.
Not structural but relational. Not synthesized but conjunctive. Something that
builds rather than is built. A digital syn-aesthetics finding its compositionality in
analogue mode.
Notes
1
For a full description and set of images from the work see, AES+F’s website at
http://www.aes-group.org/last_riot.asp
2
See for examples articles such as Meredith Bricken’s ‘Virtual Reality: No
interface to Design’, Cyberspace: First Steps M. Benedikt ed, Cambridge,
Massachussetts: MIT Press, 1991, pp. 363–382. This kind of article espousing VR
utopianism emphasised the experiential transparency between computer-
generated environments and their audiences, especially of a kind of exchange
between onscreen actors and avatars and interactants. The rhetoric of presence
likewise dominated the discussion of these kinds of simulations and the
interaction with users or audiences.
3
The Cimatics festival has been held for 7 years and is supported by Cimatics
Platform, an international organization based in Brussels supporting and
exhibiting audiovisual art. It started as a VJing Festival in 2003 but has expanded
to include an array of auidovisual sculptural and kinetic events, masterclasses
and performances. Its website can be accessed at: http://www.cimatics.com.
See this Sound is an exhibition, which historically examines the interrelations of
sound and image via electronic and digital media arts. It examines these from
4
It should be clear that the aim of this essay is not to provide an explanation for
synaesthesia as a neurological phenomenon. However, this does raise the issue
of why it is that synaesthesia as thought neurologically requires a causal
explanation as such. If, for example, an ontogentic approach were to be adopted
by neurologists (following Simondon), synaesthesia might simply sit within a
spectrum or continuum of human perception as a potential mode through which
perception individuates. Synaesthesia would already be part of the ontogenetic
field of human perception; one of its potentialities. To a certain extent, the
concept of neuroplasticity (ie that the brain is in a constant relation of
neurobiologcal formation with its milieu), which is now becoming more accepted
within the neurosciences, holds out the possibility that a more ontogenetically
inclined mode of thinking might permeate this field. If the brain is process rather
than entity – suggested by the neuroplastic notion that neurobiological change
can and does consistently occur – then this might also suggest that perception too
is no longer an ‘outcome’ caused by certain wirings of the neural pathways. For
a good and accessible overview of neuroplasticity, see Norman Doidge, The Brain
That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science,
New York: Penguin, 2007.
5
I am here referring to Western art theoretical debates of late modernism in
which Michael Fried positioned Minimalism as a new art ‘position’ to break with
both representationalist and modernist/medium-specific concerns especially as
evidenced in mid-twentieth century painting. For Fried, Minimalist sculpture, in
particular, was concerned with the wholeness and indivisibility of the object (See
Michael Fried ‘Art and Objecthood’, Art and Objecthood: Essays and Reviews,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, 148–172). In turn, this issue about
the objecthood of the Minimalist work of art was also countered and debated by
the equally strong Conceptual Art movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Lucy
Lippard’s Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object (Berkley and LA:
University of California Press, 1997) remains a key text in this debate, where she
politicizes the assertion of objecthood in Minimalism and (white, middle class,
chiefly male) American art criticism of the period.
However, the debate moved into somewhat different territory during the 1990s
with the emergence of both ‘environments’ that were art works, such as virtual
reality art, the dominance of video installation at biennales and festivals and the
art criticism of Nicolas Bourriard’s ‘relational aesthetics’ (See Nicolas Bourriard,
Relational Aesthetics, Paris: Les Presse Du Reel, 1998). Bourriard emphasizes
notions such as participation and interaction as key aspects of twenty-first
century art: neither object nor concept is crucial, instead the ‘experience’ counts.
Deleuze briefly writes about the difference between analogue and digital
synthesizers, arguing that whereas analogue synthesizers are ‘modular’, digital
synthesizers are ‘integral’ (See Gilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation
London: Continuum, 2003, 116). What is integral about the digital synthesizer is
the way in which it integrates all operations upon sound and by sound, making
it pass through binary codification. I do not think Deleuze’s distinction between
the two kinds of synthesizers actually holds historically as it is the analogue
voltage controlled synthesizer that introduces a ‘control’ line operation upon its
modules. Likewise, digital synthesizers use a modular design. It is the case that
a cybernetic model of codification is at work in both the analogue voltage
controlled synthesizers and early digital synthesizers. This is what I have tried to
indicate in this essay. Deleuze further argues in this text that it is modulation
(which can be seen in the example of the subtractive synthesis of frequencies in
analogue synthesizers) that characterizes the analogue. It should however be
noted that in a much later text, Deleuze argues that modulation is characteristic
of control societies, which characteristically are also codified digitally. I think he
later sees that it is not the digital nor analogue per se that are at stake but the
question of the command-control model that is immanent to the logic of first-
order cybernetics (See Gilles Deleuze, ‘Postscript on the Societies of Control’
OCTOBER 59, Winter 1992: 3-7). My thanks to Troy Rhoades for directing me to
Deleuze’s remarks on analogue and digital synthesizers.
7
The music video ‘mysterious hoze’ by ditch (Rioychi Kurokawa, dir. 2007) can
be accessed on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/opdisc#p/a/u/1/_eqBT6YbXBs.
8
The term ‘heautonomy’ is borrowed from Deleuze’s work on the time-image in
avant-garde cinema, in which he uses it to refer to the disjunction achieved
between the acoustic and the visual in the films, for example, of Marguerite
Duras (Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The time-image, London: Continuum, 2005:
247ff). Duras’ cuts between sound and image deterritorialize the self-identity of
the sonic and the optical, which in classical and narrative-based cinema tends
towards the affirmation of a wholeness between the two. In VJing or music
videos created by electronic audio-visual artists such as Kurokawa, the
Deleuze, Gilles. 2005. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and
Robert Galeta. London: Continuum.
Deleuze, Gilles. 2005. Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Trans. Daniel W.
Smith. London: Continuum.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. 1988. A Thousand Plateaus. Trans. Brian
Massumi. London: The Althone Press.
Doruff, Sher. 2007. ‘Extreme intervals and Sensory Fusions: the Hinge’.
Mutamorphosis: Challenging Arts and Sciences [conference proceedings]. Prague.
(November 8-10). http://mutamorphosis.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/
extreme-intervals-and-sensory-fusions-the-hinge/.
Edwards, Paul E. 1996. The Closed World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elliasson, Olafur and Chris Gilbert. 2004. ‘Interview with Olafur Elliasson’.
BOMB, 88. http://www.bombsite.com/issues/88/articles/2651.
MacKenzie, Adrian. 2006. Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. New York: Peter
Lang.
Massumi, Brian. 2002. ‘Buildings, Biograms and the Body Topologic’. Parables
for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.
177–207.
Nicolai, Carsten. and Hans Ulrich Obrist. 2002. ‘Hans Ulrich Obrist in
conversation with Carsten Nicolai’., Autopilot [catalogue of Carsten Nicolai’s
work]. Berlin: Die Gestalten-Verlag GmbH. 74–82.
Packer, Randall and Ken Jordan. 2001. Multimedia: from Wagner to Virtual
Reality. New York: WW. Norton and Co.