some notes from day two

Notes from the 2020 Curatorial Workshop | 23-26 June 2020 |Bucharest Biennale.

These are some notes from the second day of the workshop. Again these are very incomplete, and partial accounts. There s a lot that they do not catch, but hopefully enough to act as an aide memoire for the event. There is a space for you to add comments on the bottom of the page of notes from the first day (go here) if you wish to provide additional material in relation to today’s discussions.

Henk Slager

The first session began with a conversation between Henk Slager, curator of the 2020 Bucharest Biennale, and Mick Wilson. Asked how he had moved from philosophy into the field of contemporary art and curating, Slager began by talking about his dissatisfaction with the remoteness of university discourses of aesthetics from contemporary art. Indicating that the examples being referenced in the most current aesthetics of the 1980s were Duchamp and Warhol, Slager talked about the interest of moving into an “experimental aesthetics” that linked to actual art practices, as opposed to the “theoretical aesthetics” that was restricted to the university and unable to really access contemporary art. Already in the early 1990s Slager was working in gallery contexts as a “second career” that later developed into a practice of exhibition-making.

This move into experimental aesthetics was then connected to the emerging conversation on artistic research, an alternative formulation to the ‘practice-based research’ framework that was being elaborated in the British context and within the wider sphere of post-British empire territories (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada). Slager talked about the journal series Lier en Boog that he edited and how in 2003 he co-organized a conference on artistic research that generated Volume 18 of the series Artistic Research, co-edited by Slager with Annette W. Balkema in 2004. (Available on SCRIBD.)

The discussion then turned to some of the exhibitions that Slager had been working on over the last twelve years, and that marked our a trajectory of concerns around research and education. Beginning with the 7th Shanghai Biennale: Translocalmotion (2008) Slager discussed the way in which research was a central agenda for his curatorial approach. Taking the People’s Square in Shanghai as a microcosm of the dynamics manifest in the changing terms of mobility and connectivity, questions as to the location transfer, connection, meeting, and exchange of knowledge were key to the collaborative curatorial approach of that iteration of the biennale. One key outcome was the publication of the Shanghai Papers: On research-based practices, that gathered participant artists’ responses to a series of questions that foregrounded the different rhetorical strategies for positioning art practices. It is interesting to consider how the preface of the book begins:

The Shanghai Papers is a collection of texts written by the artists participating in Translocalmotion, the Shanghai Biennale 2008. Why would one ask artists to produce their own texts? Hasn’t that been for decades the domain of specialists such as art historians, art critics, and other theorists in the field of visual culture? True. However, in the 21st century, artists started contextualizing their own work; they started participating in (artistic) research programs and discussions; they started to become artists – and professors of a novel generation of artists – accompanied by blogs and websites filled with all kinds of data and information on their own work and ideas. As a consequence, artists have created a particular, theoretical audience interested in …

The conversation then moved to two smaller shows, that had the character of the group show in the white cube, or at least that is how they appeared at first glance. Nameless Science at Apex Art New York 2009 and Critique of Archival Reason at the RHA Gallery Dublin 2010. The Nameless Science show presented work from seven different doctoral research projects drawn from various Western European institutions. The CoAR show involved six artists (again a preponderance of them engaged in doctoral level studies) and explored the “epistemology of archival order” and gave consideration to the modes of deconstruction and of dissemination within artistic research practices.

The discussion turned to the 1st Tbilisi Triennial for Art, Research and Education (2012) and the way questions of research became increasingly twinned with questions education and of counter-pedagogies in Slager’s work.  Examples from the Tbilisi project referenced included Annette Krauss’s Site for Unlearning, the Visual Culture Research Center, Kiev’s Application Form, Inci Eviner’s Acting in the Library and ISA–Havanna’s Pedagogic Pragmatism. (See http://www.mahku.nl/download/13Tbilisi.pdf)

Taking as its initial framing “Offside Effect: Academy as temporary autonomous sanctuary  vs  Bologna Regulations (managerial turn)” the exhibition sought to map and present a variety of practices in the form of activities, economies, methodologies, and strategies all connected with the experimental field of artistic thinking and further elaborated the proposition of “academy as exhibition.” Tara McDowell has written about this project here in an interesting way in her “Display Space as Support: On Curating, Education, and Architecture” in Volume 12 of the Australian journal Material Thinking.

The discussion then turned to the 5th Guangzhou Triennial (2015) which announced its concerns with references to “a world dominated by a global ‘World Time’” and sought to focus on a counter-understanding of ‘Asia Time.’ Slager discussed his “curatorial chapter” within this framework which he described as “Timely Meditations” drawing upon the thinking of Byung-Chul Han and his thesis on exhaustion arising from an excess of positivity,  a condition of internalised radical overproduction in the global networks of advanced capitalism. It might be worth considering something of the texture of Han’s thought, who explicitly rejects the viral /immunological diagnoses of societal illnesses:

Viral violence cannot account for neuronal illnesses such as depression, ADHD, or burnout syndrome, for it follows the immunological scheme of inside and outside, Own and Other; it presumes the existence of singularity or alterity which is hostile to the system. Neuronal violence does not proceed from system-foreign negativity. Instead, it is systemic—that is, system-immanent—violence. Depression, ADHD, and burnout syndrome point to excess positivity. Burnout syndrome occurs when the ego overheats, which follows from too much of the Same. The hyper in hyperactivity is not an immunological category. It represents the massification of the positive

One work that were identified as manifesting these concerns most explicitly were Sarah Sze’s Calendar Series showing ninety-two front pages of the New York Times where the news images have been replaced with images of the “natural” world (snowscapes, seascapes and rockscapes). The work seems to propose multiple other temporalities, ranging from that of the geological aeon to the ephemeral fugitivity of repeating but always ending season-worlds.

This led on then to the final curatorial project for discussion, which was the series of shows at the ‘Research Pavilion’ in Venice Experimentality (2015), Utopia of Access (2017), and Research Ecologies (2019). This prompted discussion of the different production values in exhibition-making manifest across the different exhibitionary formats within the trajectory of Slager’s exhibition-making practice and the different scales, dynamics and sense of contrast between a high-value spectacle in some instances and of a low-key and prosaic disclosure of process in others. This prompted a reference to Martha Rosler’s DIA Foundation project If you lived here… (1989) and the informal grammars of exhibition as study site, meeting point, workspace, reading room, notice board and activist hub.

In the discussion, specific questions about the temporal dynamics of the biennale form itself were raised, and the question was asked: how would you respond to its material and financial aftermath, with respect to the Guangzhou biennale? There was also a question posed by one of the Bucharest Biennale founders “JARVIS, the AI curator” announced as the curator of the next iteration of the Bucharest Biennale, and the promise that Slager will get to meet JARVIS since all prior curators of BB have typically met the next iteration’s curator. Other questions focused on the geopolitics of the globally mobile curator and the question of the relationship with the political tensions of any given site: Shanghai, Guangzhou, Tbilisi, New York etc.

Georgina Jackson

In the second presentation of the day we moved from the history of an individual exhibition-maker’ practice, to an exhibition-maker’s perspective on the recent history of a key problematic, namely the valency and tendency of the recent history of exhibitionary practices that explicitly invoke the terms of ‘politics.’ Georgina Jackson mapped the changing ways in which the terms of contemporary politics, the public sphere, and the political were mobilized with respect to exhibition. Jackson noted that the entanglement of public-ness, the public sphere, critique, the political and the exhibition in the framing her research emerged and was shaped by her own curatorial practice.  Jackson prefaced her treatment of the subject by giving a comprehensive mapping of the way the exhibition had been linked to questions of the public sphere and the political, but also by indicating the way that this has been radically contested also. She made use of a series of citations to frame this contestation:

If an exhibition articulates and situates political subjects in a certain way, and gives them access to specific kinds of knowledge, the exhibition necessarily produces political agency exactly through exhibition making itself. Simon Sheikh, “The Potential of the Curatorial Articulation,” in On Curating (Sheikh 2010, 4)

Making art, politics, and the philosophy of politics, are all entwined by artistic imagination into the knot of fantasy and action. But the goal is pragmatic—the creation of social and political facts; taking and bearing responsibility for views publicly expressed and decisions taken; real action in the real world and a final farewell to the illusion of artistic immunity. Artur Zmijewski, “Forget Fear—a foreword,” in Forget Fear 7th Berlin Biennale of Contemporary Art (Zmijewski 2012, 17/8)

Maybe I just have problems with the idea of curating a ‘political show’—how is it possible to make a political exhibition, how can political potential arise from the display of work?  Maria Muhle, “11th Istanbul Biennial,” Afterall online (Lafuente et al., 2009)

Jackson proceeded to outline her claim that there was a substantial rise and proliferation of large-scale international group exhibitions which have cited, referenced or engaged with politics, public-ness, the public sphere and the political between 1997 (e. g. Documenta X) and 2012 (the period when her study finished). It argued that the exhibition progressively shifted from a broadly implicit relationship to politics, to the explicit citation of politics, and was then unambiguously mobilized as a space for the political.

Jackson indicated her use of these terms as follows: Politics is understood broadly; the social and political context of art production, politics, political issues, even revolution, explored under the umbrella term of politics and taking into account the differentiation between “politics” and “the political.” Citing Habermas vis-a-vis the public sphere, she suggested that this historical instance (Habermas’s ‘Bourgeois’ ‘public sphere’) establishes its role as the functional space between citizen and state, where rational and critical discourse unfolds, and provides a condition of possibility for democracy as a system, and the potential of effecting socio-political change. Later in the discussion – responding to a question about the transfer of these European enlightenment categories into other political, economic, cultural and geographical frames (the question seemed to specifically North African and Middle Eastern contexts for example) it became clear that Jackson was not advocating the classic discursive model of public sphere, although she did seem to hold out for a variant or hybridizing model that saw the assembly of people outside the apparatuses of the state as fundamental to the formation of a democracy outside the terms of neoliberal management of opinion and electoral disengagement.

Moving to the term political, Jackson referenced Mouffe and Laclau, and pointed to the ways that Mouffe announces the difference between “politics” and “the political:

[B]y ‘the political’ I mean the dimension of antagonism which I take to be constitutive of human societies, while by ‘politics’ I mean the set of practices and institutions through which order is created, organizing human coexistence in the contact of conflictuality provided by the political. (Mouffe 2005, 9)

She noted that the importance of the difference between “politics” and “the political” was especially important given the generally perceived lack of an alternative to the hegemony of neoliberalism after 1989. This “TINA” doctrine (There Is No Alternative) was operating  within many parts of the world whether those parts coerced by restructuring at the bloddied hands of the IMF and the World Bank, or those parts subject to turbo-capitalism in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet empire, or those parts subject to the dismantling of the welfare state and the privatization of infrastructure and the collapse of the post-WWII social contract.

Having laid out these terminologies, Jackson proceeded to discuss specific platforms and exhibitionary projects. Giving detailed discussion of the emergence of Documenta post WWII and the specific significance of Catherine David’s Documenta X and Okwui Enzewor’s Documenta 11 and the platforms outside Kassel. Two citations used here again may help to summarize the shifting terms in play in both instances:

Documenta can’t ignore the state of the world. We are no longer living in a cold-war period, where the world is divided into two blocs. We are living under a more “triadic” system, characterized by a revitalized hegemony of states and the increasing power of European as well as Asian countries. We are also living at a time of global economics and neo-nationalist policies. It’s true that international now means world, but at what cost? At the moment, you have to be a little naïve to think you will represent the world. So with this Documenta we have emphasized debate, political questions. (David cited in Storr 1997)

Documenta11’s proposition to open up new spaces for critical reflection on contemporary artistic and cultural situations, creates for us- in dialectical interaction with heterogeneous, transnational audiences- a public sphere through which to think and analyze seriously the complex network of global knowledge circuits on which interpretations of all cultural processes and research today depend. (Enwezor 2002)

When it turned to the discussion, Jackson was asked to diagnose what had happened in the intervening eight years since concluding her study in 2012. This opened up a discussion about the prior emergence of a new cultural politics of ethnonationalist rightwings, and the co-option of ‘leftish’-appearing political themes by a ‘progressive’ strand of neoliberalism decades previously (rainbow flags in social policy, and the business-as-usual in dismantling the social in the name of privatized economy), as well as the changing terms of contemporary cultural politics.

The discussion also turned to the ways in which a ‘performative’ politics of virtuous thematics “out front of house” (in the sense of a staged utterance, a calculated projection of a public ‘good’ appearance) and the operation of a less ‘respectable’ logic of power and managerial process “in the backroom” (in the sense of a less visible process of calculated private interests) were increasingly problematized. This might be described as a turn to an applied critique of infrastructure rather than a staged auto-critique of institution. (It might help to note that this was part of the criticism that was being directed at the workshop itself by one of the founders of the biennale. It was claimed that in not leaving the mics ‘open’ during the speakers’ presentations, and in regulating the turn-taking, according more time to presenters than participants, that the structure was undemocratic while masquerading as a democratic process. These issues came up again in the next session)

Qayyem: Noura Al Khasawneh, Berit Schuck, Noura Salem

The Qayyem pilot programme (2019) was introduced. This is a collaboration between Alexandria Egypt, Amman Jordan and Tangier Morocco and was initiated originally by MASS Alexandria, MMAG Foundation, Amman, and and Atelier Kissaria, Tangier. The presentation addressed how the platform emerged from the attempt to work across the different perspectives and situatedness of these three sites, and the move from an initial idea of a platform for discursive co-learning programme to a curatorial research platform.

The idea to initiate and organise the platform came about because of the perciieved need in the different sites

Berit Schuck indicated that in 2015 when she began her role at MASS, Alexandria. Schuck described the establishment of the studio programme of MASS in 2010, and of the need for a relaunch in 2015 after the revolution of 2011. She went on to describe the conservative hierarchical structure of Egyptian art education, based on a colonial imposition of the 19th Century French salon model, and a clear division between disciplines. MASS in contrast was based ion an educational model of interdisciplinarity, a greater degree of horizontality, and co-production. The educational practices developed each year in the studio programme (combining seminars, artist-curator talks, crits and other conversation formats). Each year the programme would conclude with an exhibition. The established model of this exhibition in the other educations available was the salon.

A summer school was created as an opportunity to talk about the student expectation and understanding of what an exhibition can be. The idea of using something other than the white cube studio space as the exhibition venue, MASS explored the city and other possible spaces. There were other platforms t learn from, including Townhouse to learn from, however, there was still a need to open access to curatorial knowledge within the region. The idea was then to start a curatorial studies programme that would reflect upon the specificities of the region but also draw on wider international networks.

Noura Salem then described the context of emergence in Amman. In 2017 Noura Salem and Noura Al Khasawneh set up the arts foundation MMAG. She noted that there are no MFA programmes in Jordan, and the closest thing available is a Masters in Art History. So the ambition was to address this gap. A key part of the operational principles of the MMAG is that its exhibitionary programme is accompanied by a very extensive and rigorous public programme. There was an important task in engaging a very sceptical public that is wary of art and art spaces.

The MMAG works with visiting curators, hosted for a long time. For example, the exhibition “Stars Are Closer and Clouds Are Nutritious Under Golden Trees” curated by Övül Ö. Durmusoglu and the public program co-curated by Nadine Fattaleh, was based on eight months of residency in the centre by Övül Ö. Durmusoglu.

This project, a two-part exhibition and public program, takes Jean Genet’s final book, the poetic and self-reflexive Prisoner of Love (1986), as its point of departure. Love for landless revolutions inspired Genet to narrate another kind of story about his time with the Palestinian fedayeen and the Black Panthers during the 1970s.

Reconsidering the vocabularies and incomplete histories of 20th-century political subjectivity, Stars Are Closer and Clouds Are Nutritious Under Golden Trees inhabits different times and spaces, thinking in the languages of the region, including Arabic, English, French, Kurdish and Turkish. The program connects figures of the political left from Turkey who fought in Palestine in the 1970s with Palestinian feminist movements of the British Mandate period. It follows the story of the Portapak camera that recorded Jean Genet in Jordan and then travelled to North America and Africa, feeding into the eroticism of revolutionary desire and power while highlighting the contemporary dilemma of the Kurdish autonomous women’s movement in northern Syria. (source)

The foundation occupies a campus of six old buildings that are being renovated over time and seven connecting gardens, a very large space. A key first initiative is the library, which operates as a connecting space, and currently hosts four writers in residence working with Sarah Rifky. (more shortly)

In setting up Qayyem, as well as a discussion of the languages of the programme Arabic and English, sometimes French (and the challenges of different Arabics, Egyptian and Jordanian, and then the very different language ecology of Morocco) there was also a discussion of the name. Qayyem was adapted as a word that both signals the act of according value, of recognizing, establishing or allocating value (evaluation), the word also has the function of calling attention to the colonial aspects of curating historically within museological practices and in the construction of narratives of legitimation.

The first iteration of Qayyem was based on the following decisions. This programme would focus on the curatorial; focus on methodologies; would focus on education and collectivity; would focus on locality. The programme was a roaming programme, with equal responsibility for organising and hosting. A four-day sessions in each of three cities. A focus on radical pedagogy, so that while using lectures and presentations, there would be increasing role for self-programming and for social processes of eating together, being together in horizontal and informal and semi-formal encounters. This was not a “taught” programme in curatorial studies, but a collaborative process of curatorial research. There would be (nine) co-investigators but not “teachers” as such. Also, the relationships were conceived as extending potentially beyond the formal time frame of the programme as such. That is to say the curatorial research would have an afterlife beyond the programme schedule ending. Collaboration was a key founding idea.

The initial call attracted forty two applications from fourteen countries, all over the Arab regions and some from Europe. An emphasis for the programme was people applying from or residing in an Arab country. This call in itself was a kind of mapping exercise.

One theme noted in the first meeting in Amman was the question of the hegemony of the exhibition form. Lara Khaldi and Yazan Khalili addressed “How t curate the non-exhibition.” (This is perhaps a point that we might want to revisit again in the discussion.)

For the next iteration of Qayyem it is intended to focus on one specific topic and theme. MMAG is looking at the poetics of the garden as a possible framing theme for 2021, specifically the history, politics and resonance of the garden as a space within North Africa and the Middle East. The garden provides an open frame but also allows key metaphorical elements into play including the question of creating as space of hospitality in what may have been seen as hostile landscape; the temporality of the garden, its seasonality; its address to all the senses. The metaphor of the temporality of the garden as applied to the image of institution building within the region. Other themes enabled by this: from the colonial history of the botanical garden to the role of seed banks in Palestine and Syria as measures against violent displacement from the land. The theme of garden was also linked to the term Qayyem as something that brought the question of time and care in leaving the possibility for something to grow. In the subsequent the discussion there was a request to revisit the term Qayyem and map more of its meaning and resonance.

One of the responding questions included:

I think an interesting difference has just been explicitly drawn while implicitly underpinning this entire presentation: curatorial studies programme vs curatorial research programme. While this distinction would strike me as somehow equivocal (as someone who took a curatorial studies MA programme, my second year was fully devoted to research), I think the distinction is nevertheless fruitful: Would it be possible to expand later on your thoughts about the difference between ‘to study’ and ‘to research’ and what happens to both verbs when you add the suffix ‘curatorial’? Is ‘curatorially studying’ something any different from “just” studying it? I wonder the same about research: to research vs to curatorially research.

Pablo

It was signalled that some of the participants in Qayyem would present during the workshop, and that this might give another insight into how the programme operated from a participant perspective.

Anselm Franke

Franke’s presentation was a dual stream of text and image. The image stream was a series of almost 200 images taken from various exhibition projects including Animism (2009-14) and a range of artworks, printed matter and diverse visual cultural sources. The paper Franke read was a development of an earlier presentation presented in the EARN Conference at Leeds (2019). He began from a statement of the museum’s function as space of collection, research, and classification but also as spaces of receptivity and even of mediumistic qualities. It is obvious that the museum is a space of memory and preservation: an externalized memory-scape, formalized as an image of history. Visitors are supposed to learn to self-situate themselves within this memory-scape, a kind of self-civilizing and disciplinary technique. The museum belongs to the history of media and storage techniques that seek to hold things against the dynamic of living encounters and world relations, against the temporality that cultures of orality inhabit and transact differently. This contrast with orality in terms of a particular mode of temporality is not presented in absolute terms. Museums create a stabilized time horizon.

Franke signalled an interest in the museum’s modern imperial operations of constraining the knowable with the visible and its ‘mortification’ of the worldly. However, for this talk he was interested in the museum’s (various) pre-modern, non-modern, a-modern, even anti-modern functions. Marking his concern to avoid the classic temporal mapping of the “modern.” The “pre-modern” is not the past. He spoke of a matrix of anthropological terms that was proposed with the modern as having already extracted itself from, but which Franke disavowed. He proposed that a non-modern anthropological matrix was crucial to decolonization.

Franke then proposed that what was non-modern about the museum was that it proposed a cosmological order, it manifested a cosmological order. While recognizing the unmistakable trace of imperial hubris within this museum cosmology, Franke proposed a question as to what might be in excess of this: “what else can they do?” Invoking the thinking of Mary J. Helms, Franke proposed that the museum might be understood on the analogy with the shaman’s medicine pouch, holding a collection of material objects that both had powers and constituted a world-making technology:

The emperor’s zoo and botanical gardens, like the shaman’s pouch, contained bits and pieces of the animate cosmos, power-filled natural wonders, examples of the rare, the curious, the strange, and the precious-all expressions of the unusual and the different attesting to the forces of the dynamic universe that by definition lies outside the (again by definition) controlled, socialized, civilized heartland.

Helms, Mary W. 1988 Ulysses Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge and Geographical Distance, Princeton University Press

In this sense the museum as a powerful medicine pouch is positioned by Franke in a genealogy to the early city states and the use of the proto-museum in terms of the cosmogenic legitimation of sovereign power. This cosmic function of the “royal collections” is transformed when these becomes the “property” of the Bourgeois public – the imperial / national public within the frame of the public museum. Franke introduces this analogy of the museum-as-medicine pouch without obscuring the disciplinary apparatus of the museum.

However, the cosmogenic museum transferred into a public ownership makes of the cosmos a disputed and contested matter – specifically a matter of matter, material objects. Interestingly Franke suggests that theology is in some way displaced in this re-activation of the cosmogenic function of the museum/royal-collections/medicine pouch.

A second dimension of the non-modern aspect of the museum that Franke foregrounds, is the way the embalming function of the museum, its holding the thing unliving against the flow of time, makes of the museum a doorway to the world of the dead. In this analysis the museum operates in a transaction with chaotic un-worlded forces and powers in order to legitimate a stabilizing of “the” world, stabilizing a given order. The radical democratic potential within the museum that Franke seems to propose is precisely that this transaction with the formless stuff of the un-worlded/ the nether-world of the dead / might allow another worlding to be conjured, a worlding other than that of imperial dominations and capitalist extractions. (This is to use terms that were not the precise terms used, so treat this as a very rough approximation.) This leads to the proposition of the museum as a liminal field, a space where the ritual organisation of liminality is used to anchor a particular social order. In terms of the legitimation of an imperial order, the museum is a frontier institution, a kind of fort producing the boundary of colonized territory and the great strangeness that lies there at the frontier.

Having identified the museum as a site where the viewer is choreographed towards the brink of sensing that which disrupts sense-making, only to have the museum’s ritual operations re-secure meaning: the anchoring text, the taxonomic positioning, the narrative anchorage in time and space, Franke moved onto the question of the contemporary or modern art exhibition. In this context the operations of liminality seemed to anchor in the work of art. He spoke of a division of labour whereby the artist provides that which creates the boundary-stressing disconnect of matter and meaning, while the curator provides a re-ordering framework that manages the liminal instabilities to re-frame a newly stabilised order. “What is called aesthetic experience is really just another name for cognitive and bodily disorientation” for a moment of indeterminacy when meaning and matter do not cohere in their everyday manner of making sense.

In turning to the question of art and a certain operation of a radically limited liminality (i.e., ‘art’ as the repository of a liminality divested of its power, because always already accommodated within the operation of a re-stabilizing order.) Art that holds “us” in place “among the undead remains of liberalism.” As a counter operation to this, Franke pointed to way in which Animism (2019-14) as a multi-chapter exhibition produces a radical uncertainty as to what its “object” is right at the start: “Animism cannot be seen, cannot be objectified…”

In the discussion that followed several issues raised pertained to the question of what Franke meant when he proposed to apply the problematisation that has been made of the ethnographic and the anthropological museum to the art museum. Rather than the specific imperial function of narrating the legitimation of domination, as was accomplished in the techniques of the ethnographic museum, the art museum appears to be presented by Franke as a space where liminality itself is denatured, because the disconnect of matter and meaning, the unsettling operations of the liminal are consigned to art are there already ordered into “good sense”: this is the well secured place where the boundary-blurring and boundary-stressing of sense-making are made so very sensible.

some references

As soon as we get the references form the speakers we will upload. However, in the meantime we provide one or two key references that might be useful sources to follow up on some of the issues raised.