Everybody talks about content. Content marketing, content strategy, ... "content is king". That may be true, but rarely someone talks about the actual content of the content. I've recently noticed that I was a content producer long before the term even existed. Before the advent of the internet, you were a film- or a video maker, you were a photographer or a writer, or, in my case, all of the above. But I was never a "content producer". Because if you are labelled a content producer, it strangely takes the content out of the content. What you produce does not matter in terms of quality, it only matters in terms of quantity. As long as you produce something - anything - that's good. Feeding the machine with your "content" is your newly designated role in the platform economy of big tech companies. The new layer of control needs you, of course, but it does not ask what your content actually contains. Ok, it wants (or needs) to know if it's a sound file or a picture or a text or a video. But nothing beyond that. Sure, there are huge benefits. Now your content will be out there, it doesn't stay in your bottom drawer, no - it will be published. Big time! You get views, clicks, eyeballs. No questions asked. Strange, because before, it was all about what you had to say (or not). Now, nobody cares. Social Media tycoons say, they don't want to interfere with "free speech" etc. Sadly, that is not true. If they had their way, anyone would be allowed to post anything they please. Porn, rape, murder, whatever. The more the better. Because it's "content". And it brings revenue. For them, not so much for you, though. But you get eyeballs, the new currency they have invented for you. (The money goes to them) If you still think, it's great that there are no hierarchies, no central command, think again. A network is like a spider's web, but there are no spider's webs without a spider that uses it to catch its prey.
0 Comments
For the leading economies, the combination of technologies, scientific knowledge and productivity-enhancing processes is of central importance. The emerging digital habitat feeds on that combination and that is why it is expanding. It becomes ever more evident, that the successes of this combination are now generating new problems, like overpopulation and pollution, but also controversies around concepts like "post growth" and the criticism of "transhumanism". Expansive technologies require high utilisation and the inverse is also true: high utilisation makes technologies expansive. A high number of „end“products are necessary to establish a new technological standard. Groups like business-people, technicians, engineers, and scientists have their own interests in high complexity and coping with extreme demands. These interests turn out to be special interests when the utility value of technological innovation for the population is rather low, but the design requirements of the technologies and the corresponding "challenge" of the technician and scientist increase exponentially. I am talking about the fact that until recently, nobody thought they needed a smartphone. Shortly after the invention of the automobile, nobody thought they needed a car. With this is mind, let’s look at a product like the automated baby rocker, as seen in the above picture. I think it’s fair to say that many people did not know they would need this electrical baby bouncing device. Well, now that it is available, I might think about buying one. There is an underlying premise attached to this product, though. The premise is that nobody actually wants to rock their baby, it’s a nuisance having to do that, but yes, they have to be rocked - in order to fall asleep or to be calm or whatever. So in a good technocratic fashion you offer a solution to that dilemma. Many designers and engineers have thought about it and believe that they have found the absolute and final neutral ground in a technology that „liberates“ you from doing the task - by doing it for you. Same goes for breast milk pumps, etc. The baby will get to be fed with your milk and that’s all there is to it. All problems should be factually and technically determinable and thus solvable. The technical approach formulates problems as technical problems such that technological methods and solutions can take hold. An implicit premise of the corresponding technocratic mentality is: The world is just funny when you look at it from a technical point of view - impractical in all human relationships, highly uneconomical and inexact in their methods. Now what if the fact that YOU (the parent) doing the rocking is actually more beneficial for the baby (and for yourself) than the rocking itself? Reminds me on an experiment allegedly carried out by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II in the 13th century saw young infants raised without human interaction in an attempt to determine if there was a natural language that they might demonstrate once their voices matured. It is claimed he was seeking to discover what language would have been imparted into Adam and Eve by God. The experiments were recorded by the monk Salimbene di Adam in his Chronicles, who wrote that Frederick encouraged "foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learned whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which he took to have been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands, and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments." In other words, the babies died. Now what if the fact that the mother breastfeeding her baby directly is actually more important than the milk itself? Now what if talking directly to people is actually more important to you than using face-time on your smartphone? Now what if you actually want to walk the 10 miles to that hardware store, where it would be so convenient to take the car? Look, there’s not even a sidewalk. You’re not supposed to walk there. Now what if these arguments and opinions of yours are not considered „valid“ anymore? Remember what General Patton famously said: “If everyone’s thinking alike, then someone isn’t thinking.” Look at the two photographs. Perhaps they are actually stills taken from video footage. Whenever Royals like Prince William step out into the public realm, they are constantly being filmed and photographed, so it's safe to say that these images are real, no photoshop or other manipulation has been applied. In the first image, we see Prince William making a rather obscene hand-gesture, his facial expression could be interpreted as being annoyed or angry, shouting something at the reporters. The second picture shows the same gesture, captured at the same instant, but from a different angle. Now we can see that the gesture is actually not the obscene "giving - the - finger", but Prince William is probably making an enumeration, perhaps answering a question or explaining something to the reporters.
If you were a digital publisher and you had to choose between these two pictures, what would you do? Both are "real", no doctoring. Could you be accused of "fake news" if you published the first picture? The odds here are pretty obvious. The first picture would give you a lot of attention, people would see it and be outraged. They wouldn't even need to read the caption or anything, because the image is so clear and it's beyond any doubt that Prince William has been caught in a moment where he's "losing it", where he reacts in a totally inappropriate way. Doesn't it all make so much sense? The digital habitat and the battle for attention, for eyeballs in the ever accelerating on-line news cycles produces a dangerous dilemma. If you publish well-informed, balanced, differentiated articles, no-one is going to read them. Why not? Because it is the outrageous, the hyperbole, the thrill - that is getting all the attention. It is hard-wired into our brain and our nervous system. Human attention can be triggered by external or internal cues. External cues like sudden movements, loud noises (screams) or shocking images will always win over internal cues, like interest, curiosity or thirst for knowledge. This is designed for our immediate survival - but in can be exploited very easily. Even more so in the digital habitat, where may have learned that the "Digital Outrage Strategy" is a very profitable way to do business. For now, we can only hope that people will slowly learn to adapt and not get distracted with every new "shock" that is amplified by the on-line news media. A replicant has died. No, I mean, the actor Rutger Hauer has died. Will we ever be able to not think immediately about his final speech in the movie Blade Runner, a white dove in his hand, when he decides, against all odds, to save the life of Harrison Ford, to be good and kind - instead of being exactly what he has been designed for: a Killer.
I think Hauer was cast for the role because of his features: A white, blond athletic giant, something of the kind the Nazis have dreamed about - a superior Aryan master race having no scruples or ethical standards attached to them. A clone army of cold-blooded killers. His face is now synonymous with this unique character of a science fiction movie, that is so masterful and has so many levels of meaning and interpretation, it withstands time and it is a true classic, if there ever was one. In the film by Ridley Scott from 1982, so-called replicants, the creations of a technotycoon, named Dr Eldon Tyrell and his multi-planetary conglomerate, the Tyrell Corporation, look exactly like humans, indeed are even better looking; they have superior memory functions and are extremely intelligent; plus, they are physically superior to human beings, but they are not robots. They are rather genetically designed, perhaps something within reach now, regarding the CRISPR gene editing method. Are they ersatz humans? According to the definition of ersatz, replicants are in fact not real or genuine, they are made or used as a substitute for something (humans), but in the case of the replicants, they are not, as it would be typical for an ersatz product, of inferior quality. Replicants, like the one played by Rutger Hauer, are designed with the same kind of intelligence that we also find in Humans - but artificial. They progressively learn to acquire real feelings, emotions like love, and even empathy. As we all know, sometimes it is in vain when we look for these qualities in actual Human beings. So, replicants, like humans, gain autonomy by using (artificial or natural) intelligence, and that means, they could pose a security threat to those they were intended to serve; this feature led their developers to design them as fail-safe devices - by coding them genetically for a lifespan of four years. This is the planned obsolescence of replicants, who are supposedly „better“ than human beings, which is to say, less imperfect, less unpredictable. What is the consequence of this? Above all it points to an important aspect of what being human actually means. The first lesson of this is that being human does not -by default- mean, being intelligent. The second lesson is, that, whatever it is we are here for and whatever plans somebody has laid out for us - We always have a choice. We can choose to be good and kind and show empathy. Always. And the third lesson is a very simple one - if we know that we have to die, and we know that we want to live - It should be obvious that all the others around us would want that, too. All of us would want to be able one day to say our own version of the following monologue, delivered by Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner: „I’ve seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.“ R.I.P. Rutger Hauer Remember the movie „The Bourne Identity“ ? Matt Damon plays a brainwashed elite CIA special forces guy, whose identity and memory was erased. So he finds himself one day in a complete state of amnesia. The only way to find out who he is, is to look at his own body and his environment. Today, a museum in Florida claims that it has brought back the surrealist painter Salvador Dali back to life. You can talk to him, and he will offer to take a selfie with you. But wait, he died in 1989, didn't he? Still, he is just on the other side of the line, having face-time with you, just as any regular, alive fried of yours would do. Another recent example of a collective quest for identity can be found in the case known as ‘Maddie’. However, this case reverses the case of Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity. Bourne is a body without an identity, while in the case of Maddie, there’s an identity without a body. Maddie is the nickname of the British girl Madeleine McCann who disappeared without trace when she was on holidays with her parents in Portugal’s Algarve. In the newspapers we have all been presented a photograph of her: she was four years old at the time of her disappearance; as the years go by, it becomes tricky to continue to be on the lookout for a girl with the depicted features on the snapshot. Maddie, assumed that she is still alive, would look different now, and Scotland Yard regularly issues (presents) an actualised, but nonetheless virtual image (not a photograph in the strict sense of the term), which is produced with the help of a so-called age progression computer software, using the same principles of forensic science used by the police to work out what missing children such as Madeleine McCann would look like today. Though these images may indeed be very helpful for police investigations, they remain mere assumptions of how Maddie could look like, since nobody is able to provide an accurate, actual photograph of her. Today, this technology is going mainstream with a new App, called „FaceApp“ and it is causing already major problems because it messes with the whole face recognition technology that has recently been installed in airports and other facilities where „identity“ is a major concern. These examples should illustrate the different qualities of (analog) representation and (digital) presentation. The question that is at the heart of these cases is a very pertinent one: How is an identity to be conceived and represented, when the very concept of „representation“ is under siege? Put simply, all identity must be conceived in the realm of the Real. Identity cannot be conceived in the realm of the Symbolic, so it can't be conceived in the Digital realm. This is an easy thing to say, but we are already so far down the foxhole of the symbolic that we take for real what we see. Our brains are designed that way. They are designed to compute a stable reality. Everything else would be pure psychosis. Surrealism, Paranoia, Madness. The ancients had their own way of knowing these things, long before digital technology. They used the Greek term „Symbolic“ to say that something real „throws“ a shadow, and in the case of the Symbolic, this cast refers to the real in a coherent way. Then, there is the "Hyper-bolic", the "Para-bolic", and of course, the „Dia-bolic“. Whenever you chose to look at „(re-) presentations“, you have to first find out, what kind of shadowplay you are dealing with. That is the difficult part, and digital makes it even more difficult. I think it is fair to say that until recently, media had been a domain of the state, then it became a private form of enterprise, but in both cases, we labeled it „Mass Media“.
Now, in large part because of the digital revolution and the internet, we are witnessing a shift from mass media to „Social Media“. This shift clearly spells out a major loss for some big players in the „Mass Media“ domain. First victims were the video rentals, now movie theaters and newspapers are dying, nobody uses CD’or DVD’s anymore, TV is losing ground, the public broadcasters can only survive because they are largely state funded. Right now, multiple streaming platforms like Netflix are all the rage, combined, of course, with social networks, like Facebook or Instagram. Mark Zuckerberg recently had to remind Congress that Facebook is not a media company: ‘I consider us to be a technology company’. But one has to add that while Facebook in public says it is not a publisher, in court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: “The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts.” So, in court, Facebook all of a sudden wanted protection for the right to free speech granted. Whenever there is a threat that a power loses its prerogative of definition and interpretation about the common ground of a society, it panics and spins out of control. All common ground, a prerequisite for solidarity and cohesion, could easily be constructed, when there was basically only one platform - state media - to show it’s mildly critical point of view on certain matters. In the Digital Habitat, common ground becomes a free flow of signs, made out of instrumental currents and cultural codes that are embedded in networks. In its extreme, there is a plethora of floating signifiers, that can stop anywhere at any time. Fake? Real? Fact? Opinion? Angle X , Pespective Y, Point of View Z ? It's like not passing the microphone around in a town hall meeting but having everybody talking into their own microphone at the same time. Yet, the overwhelming and downright intrusive omnipresence of the media seems to make it impossible to think any experience outside of the media. So, yes, Mr. Zuckerberg, mediatization is a procedure that is informed and determined largely through technology, but it is more than that. It is the fact that the technology you develop enables your company to determine what is being shown and what is not. You are not like, say, CISCO, producing routers and servers. It's not like the New York Times was claiming "We're just selling paper with ink on it!" Only those who have the technological means at their disposal can partake in any mediated (vulgo: public) discourse, and that makes you a media company. I think we have to clearly draw some parallels here with the firearms and guns industry. Can any company in this industry seriously claim that they are simply in the tech business? While the emergence of new media does not eliminate face-to-face communication, any non-mediated (immediate) interpersonal communication cannot be, however, what it was before. You can go to the next street corner and proclaim whatever you have to say, but this amounts to someone who would still use his fists in a fight against somebody holding a gun. Or, as some former guerrilla fighter once said in a German courtroom: "I may have the better arguments, but you, your honor, are the master of the microphones. You can turn them on and off as you please." That would be a fair description of the business Facebook and other social media companies are in. The business of hosting and moderating public debates. With 2.38 billion monthly active users. If we look at the Digital Habitat (let’s say it started with Tim Berners-Lee and the world wide web in 1989) from the same angle as the American settlers looked at the new continent stretching out before them (let’s say, we take the founding date of New York City in 1664 as a reference), then we could look at the Digital Habitat with the same mindset, which is perfectly encapsulated in this quote by the famous investor Charlie Munger, a white, old, wealthy male American. 95-year-old Munger had recently been asked if immigration has served as an engine of prosperity for the U.S. in its history, and he answered:
“We made it work in America. But we had a vacant continent to work on. That was easy. Vacant and rich in oil and minerals.” Munger is a billionaire, and he became one by exploiting this „vacant“ (he means, there were no people there, no cities, no infrastructure - except for some Native American tribes, but seemingly, they did not count as the legitimate owners of this continent, that was „rich“ in oil and minerals, but here, we have to assume that those who founded New York City in 1664 weren’t able to see the value of oil yet. Oil only became something of value with the invention of the combustion engine. No, the settlers in 1664 were basically interested in the new continent to serve as a colony to the British empire. The colony would provide „revenues“, that means, „return on investment“ in the form of returning ships that would bring back merchandise and tax „revenues“. Also, the settlers couldn’t possibly take on such a vast continent alone. They needed workers on the tobacco and cotton fields. Cheap labor. First slaves, then immigrants. When Charlie Munger says „We made it work in America“, he might as well have said: „We made slaves work in America“. When he says „We had a vacant continent to work on“, by „We“, he does not mean this cheap workforce, he means the settlers who became the owners of this vast continent. Anyways, by 1776 the settlers had made it across the new continent and San Francisco was founded, and, voilá, on the 4th of July in that very year, America declared independence. Not too far from San Francisco, beyond the village of Pescadero, on the waterfront, there was only a vast blue ocean, and to some of its inhabitants, like Gordon E. Moore, Steve Blank or Heinz von Foerster, it became a symbol for a new frontier. From this place onward, where can we go? The meaning of circularity could be experienced for the first time. The New World came to a geographical limit. Second time around, it had to be space. The earth, seen from space, the moon, now possibly mars. Circularity everywhere - so, why not build a new space, a space that is entirely based on circularity - on feedback loops, to be precise? Cyberspace. - Apple’s new headquarters, a one-hour drive from Pescadero, must be seen as the ultimate monument to circularity. The mindset of the „New World“ is now, in the 21st century, changing into a mindset of the old world, which means, it is a mindset that is against immigration because it is not „needed“ any longer. Now try to look at the Digital Habitat with that mindset. Is it a vacant continent? Are there „resources“, like oil and minerals, that are „up for grabs“ and can be used to create ROI for the Empire, meaning returning ships full of merchandise and tax revenues? Ask yourself quickly if there is anyone who could today refer to cyberspace and say: "We had a vacant continent to work on" ? In the words of Charlie Munger, it’s not easy anymore. It’s complex, to say the least, perhaps even „complicated“. LINE IN A NATURE IS NOT FOUND UNIT AND UNIVERSE ARE ROUND; IN VAIN PRODUCED, ALL RAYS RETURN EVIL WILL BLESS, AND ICE WILL BURN Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Uriel“ In theory, in the digital Habitat, nothing ever dies. As I pointed out before, the digital habitat is an environment that is purely transcendental, no bodies allowed.
The notion of a universe that is 100% virtual is nothing new. All religions build their empire on that fundamental notion of „spirit“ as something opposed to „body“. The body dies, but the spirit survives. Philosopher Hegel found that spirit only manifests itself in the form of negation. “But the life of Spirit is not the life that shrinks from death and keeps itself untouched by devastation, but rather the life that endures it and maintains itself in it. It wins its truth only when, in utter dismemberment, it finds itself ... Spirit is this power only by looking the negative in the face, and tarrying with it. This tarrying with the negative is the magical power that converts it into being. This power is identical with what we earlier called the Subject.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel If you look at old paintings, the forerunners of our overexposed visual environment, you understand that they served the purpose to show that the transcendental universe from time to time becomes visible. In the form of „revelations“. The angels and all of god’s entourage reveal themselves, they show up in rather mundane situations and leave the witnesses in awe and transformed. There were always, of course, also the darker revelations, in the form of ghosts, vampires and zombies. In the digital habitat, there are only „revelations“, but this time around, they are generated by a computer. Which means, they lack a materiality, but that doesn’t mean they are not real. A new term for that techno-revelation had to be invented, and the term is „virtual“. There is a new movie out and I think this particular one shows like no other movie the „state-of-the-art“ of what „digital“ means. It is a documentary called „They shall not grow old“, by Peter Jackson, a director famous for his „Lord of the Rings“ movies, among many other blockbuster fantasy films. They shall not grow old is based on original footage from World War I from the British Archives. But Jackson has digitally enhanced this footage to the point where it looks like it was filmed today on a 4k RED movie camera or something like that. The footage is no longer black and white, it shows a lot of detail and depth, the movements are fluid and natural, not irregular and bumpy. Take a look for yourself here. The point is - that film is no longer what we used to call a „documentary“. Why? Because a documentary is build on the assumption of analogy - technically and philosophically. A genuine documentary would show us not only what had been documented but also the mechanism of documentation that had documented it. Not long ago, there had been a few minor scandals when it became evident, that some New York Times and National Geographic Photographers had manipulated their images. The ethics of the NYT (quote: „There’s probably no more troubling issue facing photojournalism than the digital manipulation of images that are supposed to faithfully represent what’s in front of the camera.“) had been infringed, because the newspaper obliges every contributing photographer to not manipulate his pictures in any way. Those times are over, this brief period of analogue photography and reporting, and the thinking that came with it. The new revelations are all around us and in the digital age, the old maxim „Seeing is Believing“ has been turned on its head to „Believing is Seeing“. And with that, we’re back to the 14th century. The dark ages are here again! What exactly makes us say that something is „very well designed“ and what is it that makes us say: „This design is a mess!“ We could look at Design as a form of organisation that happens naturally or is man-made. There are certain forms, typologies and shapes that we take for a more or less stable, more or less distinguishable unit. The horse, the tree, the city, the electrical grid , the computer network, etc. When we see that unit, we are usually not inclined to say „My, that horse is very well designed or organised!“ Horses are what they are, their design follows a genetic script, the horse is an organism that has developed over millions of years, and all its’ internal organisation is „natural“, which means, it is „self-organised“. The grand design for a horse has never been made by someone. Nobody ever said: This animal will look like that and it will operate in this way and now, let’s build it. The principles that led to the existence of horses are the same that have led to all other natural phenomena. Horses are optimised to live in a certain environment. That’s why Shetland ponies are smaller and heavily coated. Generally, a colder and harsher climate leads to smaller and more „compact“ organisms, due to the requirements of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is one intrinsic design property of all living things. Think coniferous trees that use needles instead of leaves. Having said that, one should recognise that this property alone stands in sharp contrast to the capitalist principle of maximising profit. Then comes the city. Here it gets a bit more complicated. Where does the city begin, where does it end? Are there clear boundaries? Traffic is a mess, but does that mean that the city is a mess, too? The city center has been build in the 13th century, so how can it be NOT a mess with all today’s traffic? The environment for the city has changed, so its actual state is not optimised for the new environment. Because of a changing environment, you need a high potency for flexibility. Is that flexibility already designed into the structure of ____________ (whatever it is that you are building) ? The human brain has a remarkable potency for flexibility and adaptation. It can „upgrade“ quite easily, compared to other, man-made operating systems, like computer networks or electrical grids. These are rather rigid and actually very vulnerable, as the latest blackout in South America has shown. (the two are actually co-dependent - as in "CDM = co-dependent mess" - which makes both of them even more vulnerable) . So, if you want to survive and thrive in the digital habitat, remember that, unlike the natural habitat, that operates with the principles of energy efficiency and some degree of flexibility (like, for example, mobility), the design of the digital habitat is man-made and that makes it rather rigid, it’s not energy efficient and its organisation is most probably not „intrinsic“. I don't recall having asked for it, but Google now sends me an e-mail every month to tell me where I have been roaming, I am getting a monthly review of my whereabouts plus a total of hours spent in the car, how many kilometers I have walked, etc.
It always surprises me to „learn“ about the places I have visited, because sometimes, I have no recall of that place and I start to wonder if that could be a mistake. But then it comes back, oh yes, I have been to a concert in that town, but actually, I do not remember anything aside from the concert. In my memory, I haven’t been at that town, I have been at that specific concert. So, there has to be a huge difference in what is „digital“ memory and what is „human“ memory. It all has to do with images. Today, tourists are those who, by taking pictures, keep vivid memories of places where they do not stay for long and where they might never return. Susan Sontag (1933-2004) said, “Photography is an elegiac art, a twilight art. All photographs are memento mori.” The way Sontag uses the phrase memento mori (remember you must die) highlights the profound difference of old-school, analogue photography and the new digital kind of memory that suggests rather the opposite: remember that you don’t have to die. What Sontag means is, of course that when we die, our memory dies with us. Digital Memory will never die. Everything will be stored, forever. It doesn’t matter if we die, or if we are unable to recall certain events - the evidence is there. A photograph preserves faces, places and cultures in pictures before they disappear from the real world. Ethnographic Photography is a famous example for that. The kind of perception that Google tries to match with my own, individual memory finds its equivalent in the view of those who suddenly rediscover the images of their own culture in museums and archives. That what was deemed familiar appears all of a sudden strange and in need of interpretation, in the same ways, as did the images of other cultures before. Our brain has the natural skill of transforming places and things that fade away in time, into images and these images, once captured, are stored in memory and activated by memory. But this „activation“ of memory, sometimes triggered by the strangest synaesthetic cues, like smells or the famous taste of a „petite madeleine“, are thoroughly transcendental, there is no physical support mechanism for these memories, and that’s precisely why they are so precious. The law of time turns all images into images of the past. Our own memory's historical authority gives us permission to participate in a community of the living and the dead. Our memory itself is an endogenous, neural system of now fictitious places of remembrance. Our cognitive agency builds up a network of places where we can only see those images that make up the fabric of our own memory. The physical experience of places that our bodies have made in the real world, informs the design of places that our brains have saved. You know what I mean, the thousands of digital photographs (they are not exactly photographs any longer, but I will talk about that in another post) that we take every day, we don’t even bother to look at them anymore, they are of no value, they are not precious, they are like the information Google sends me about my trip to that small town. My memories of the concert there in that town, on the contrary, are very dear to me, I remember every single minute of that concert, yet I haven't taken a single picture of it. |
AuthorThomas Behrens Visual Communication is not only taking part in the digital transformation - actively and passively - he will also reflect on it. Hence the blog. Archives
January 2021
Categories |