RESEARCH | CASE 02: WAIT...

 

Art-Historical Precedent Research and Structural Context

The following research was conducted after the development and conception of CASE 02: WAIT.... The historical and contemporary works examined were therefore not starting points or references for the development of the CASE. They were investigated retrospectively as comparative material in order to place its individual artistic procedures within an art-historical context and to critically test the structural independence of the CASE. The investigation was conducted in five successive research rounds. With each round, the initial thesis was narrowed further and deliberately tested against historical and contemporary counterexamples. The fourth and fifth rounds followed the identification of additional semantic and material mechanisms within the completed works and examined these new layers independently. The research covered Conceptual and Language Art, Light Art, code and cryptographic art, mirror and participatory art, Systems Art, Visual Cryptography, pronoun-based artistic practices, linguistic deixis, photoluminescence, phosphorescence and physical-digital artistic practices. The aim was not to search for superficial similarities. The central question was: Which individual procedures of WAIT... have historical precedents, and is there a documented precedent for the specific structure in which these procedures are connected within the CASE?

  

ROUND 1 | THE INDIVIDUAL PROCEDURES

The first research round examined the art-historical history of the individual mechanisms of WAIT.... The result was clear. Almost every individual procedure has historical or contemporary precedents.

Code and Encrypted Language

Guy de Cointet developed works in which language is transformed into visual or algorithmic codes. Some of his works require active participation by the viewer. Texts must be rotated, read with the help of a mirror, or mentally completed. Active decoding, physical alteration of the perceptual situation and mental reconstruction are therefore established artistic procedures. Jim Sanborn's Kryptos from 1990 further demonstrates that genuine encryption and the deliberate delay or concealment of a coded solution are also established within art. WAIT... therefore makes no claim to historical priority for code, encryption or the act of decoding.

Morse Code, Light and Mirrors

Brigitte Kowanz became particularly relevant to the research. Kowanz combined language, Morse code, light, mirrors and space in numerous works. In Morse, Codes from 1998, words are translated into Morse code through luminous structures. In ESCAPE from 2015, Morse signs made of light appear within a mirrored structure and together form the word ESCAPE. Relations from 2021 comes particularly close to one mechanism within WAIT.... Nine luminous rings represent the letters of the word RELATIONS in Morse code. Cerith Wyn Evans also translated texts into Morse code and transferred them into space through light. Eduardo Kac transformed language in Genesis first into Morse code and subsequently into genetic code. Morse code as artistic material, as well as its connection with light, reflection and spatial perception, therefore has clear historical precedents.

Meaning Through Mental Reconstruction

Christopher Wool deliberately complicates immediate readability through spacing, line breaks and the absence of conventional punctuation. The viewer must actively reconstruct language. Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Chairs from 1965 places an object, its photographic representation and its linguistic definition in relation to one another. Meaning emerges substantially through the mental relationship between different systems of representation. Glenn Ligon works with transitions between legibility and illegibility, while Lawrence Weiner established language itself as artistic material. The active mental participation of the viewer is therefore also an established artistic procedure.

Light, Time and Changing Information

In works by Bruce Nauman, the temporal activation of different neon words changes their linguistic perception. Jenny Holzer combines language with LED light, movement, time and architecture. Brigitte Kowanz and Cerith Wyn Evans use light itself as a carrier of coded information. The principle of information that changes, emerges or becomes dominant only under particular perceptual conditions therefore also has extensive art-historical precedents.

  

ROUND 2 | THE COUNTEREXAMPLE SEARCH

The second research round changed the method. The search now focused specifically on works that combine several mechanisms of WAIT... simultaneously and could therefore constitute a direct precedent. Three cases became particularly important.

Brigitte Kowanz | Relations

Relations comes close to one part of the structure. Multiple coded elements collectively generate a specific word. The decisive difference lies in the status of these elements. The individual luminous rings are components of one artwork. In WAIT..., the communicating units are themselves autonomous artworks. Each has its own material, aesthetic and semantic existence.

Nari Ward | REPARATIONS

Works by Nari Ward also demonstrate that multiple panels or letter-like elements can collectively generate a word. The principle of several visual elements producing linguistic information together is therefore documented within art history. In these examples, however, the elements remain parts of a unified installation or work structure. The additional meaning does not arise through the mental recombination of determinate information distributed across autonomous artworks.

Rafael Lozano-Hemmer | Recurrent Waiting

A particularly important counterexample is Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's Recurrent Waiting from 2025. In this digital mirror work, the viewer's image is technologically manipulated and communicates Morse code through eye movements. A documented connection between viewer, mirror image, Morse code and bodily presence therefore already exists. The mechanism of WAIT... differs from this. In WAIT..., the mirror object itself is the Morse sign. Its form carries the code. The code remains complete regardless of whether a viewer is reflected in it. The mirrored surface, however, incorporates the surrounding reality. Position, viewing angle, environment and movement determine what appears within the sign. The viewer can therefore appear inside the code while simultaneously decoding it.

  

ROUND 3 | THE FALSIFICATION TEST

Following the first two research rounds, the initial thesis was narrowed further. The third round searched specifically for precedents for the remaining structural core. Autonomous groups of works, distributed meaning systems, Systems Art, cryptography, Visual Cryptography, artwork ontology, mirror and viewer participation, and hybrid physical-digital art forms were examined.

Distributed Meaning Systems

The research showed that meaning systems extending across multiple works also have historical and contemporary precedents. In the work of Timur Si-Qin, individual works can function within a larger ecosystem of signs and distributed meanings. The general concept of a distributed meaning system is therefore not new. The relevant difference lies in the nature of the distributed information. Such systems frequently generate open, narrative, associative or relational fields of meaning. WAIT..., by contrast, works with determinate and reconstructable information fragments that are deliberately distributed across autonomous artworks and can generate additional coded information through their mental connection.

Visual Cryptography

A structurally important comparison was found outside immediate art history. In Visual Cryptography, information is technically distributed across multiple so-called shares. Only their combination or superimposition makes the hidden information visible. The basic structure of distributed information, recombination and additional readable information is therefore technically established. The individual shares, however, possess no autonomous aesthetic and semantic existence. Their function is precisely to serve as components of the information system. In WAIT..., the additional information structure operates between artworks that are already complete in themselves.

   

THE DECISIVE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCE

After the first three research rounds, the decisive question shifted away from the materials and techniques used. Morse code has precedents. Light has precedents. Mirrors have precedents. Coded language has precedents. Active decoding has precedents. Multiple elements collectively generating a word have precedents. The relevant difference lies in the status of the connected works and in the architecture of the information. MOVE I is an autonomous artwork. MOVE II is an autonomous artwork. MOVE III is an autonomous artwork. Each work has its own material form, proportions, composition and semantic existence. Each can be perceived independently. At the same time, selected information within these works performs a second function. In MOVE I, EX appears in Morse code while IT is present on a second perceptual layer. In MOVE III, this structure is reversed: IT appears in Morse code while EX is present on a second perceptual layer. EXIT can therefore be constructed within each of these individual works. At the same time, EX from MOVE I and IT from MOVE III can be connected across the autonomous works to reconstruct EXIT once again. The information architecture therefore operates both within individual works and relationally between them. Intrinsic meaning exists within the autonomous artwork. Relational meaning emerges through memory, connection and recombination across several autonomous artworks. The same determinate information can therefore be reached through different perceptual and relational routes.

   

THE VIEWER WITHIN THE CODE

The mirror structure adds another layer to this system. The mirror does not complete the Morse code. The mirror is the Morse sign. The viewer can therefore appear within an already complete sign. While observing and decoding the code, the viewer sees themselves within the very signs from which the additional information emerges. This information subsequently refers semantically back to the viewer. EXIT. OPPORTUNITIES. The viewer searches for the connection, recognizes a possibility and constructs an exit. A semantic feedback loop emerges: viewer, reflection within the code, decoding, EXIT or OPPORTUNITIES, viewer. The person searching for meaning appears within the signs whose meaning ultimately refers back to that same person. The reflection therefore makes the self-referential structure of the cognitive process visible.

    

ROUND 4 | THE I WITHIN OPPORTUNITIES

The fourth research round examined an additional semantic mechanism within MOVE II. The word OPPORTUNITIES is complete, yet the work contains an additional I within its field of letters. The research therefore asked whether a single sign can function simultaneously as a visual element and as the first-person pronoun I, position the self within a semantic field, and subsequently alter the meaning of another piece of information reconstructed across autonomous artworks.

I as Pronoun and Self-Reference

The use of I as a personal pronoun and conceptual figure of the self has clear art-historical precedents. Barbara Kruger has used I, YOU, ME and WE to construct and shift relations between speaker, addressee and viewer. Ketty La Rocca and Mirella Bentivoglio worked directly with personal pronouns and their semantic instability. Ann Noël's artist's book You from 1982 consists of hundreds of graphic variations of the lowercase i and is particularly relevant to the oscillation between the visual form of a letter and personal meaning. Takahiko Iimura's I = You = He/She from 1979 connects grammatical person, perspective and viewer position. The double role of I as visual sign and possible self-designation is therefore historically established and is not claimed as an independent innovation of WAIT....

I as a Deictic Position

Linguistically, I is a deictic sign, or shifter. Its reference changes according to who occupies the speaking position. This provides a more precise description of the mechanism within MOVE II. The additional I is situated within the semantic field of OPPORTUNITIES. It can therefore be read not merely as another letter, but as a position that can be occupied by a self: I am inside the opportunities. The semantic field itself functions as a location. The viewer is no longer positioned only visually within the mirrored code. A second form of self-positioning becomes possible through language.

Self-Positioning, Reconstruction and Semantic Feedback

The research found extensive precedents for pronoun-based art, I and YOU relations, linguistic self-positioning and EXIT as an orienting or existential sign. No direct precedent was identified, however, for the complete mechanism examined here: autonomous artworks contain distributed coded information; one element simultaneously functions as a letter and as the first-person deictic position I; this I positions the self within another semantic field, OPPORTUNITIES; EXIT is constructed and reconstructed through different perceptual layers and across autonomous works; and the previously established I-position subsequently changes the semantic address of EXIT. EXIT is no longer only information to be decoded. It acquires a subject. The remaining structural mechanism can therefore be described as self-positioning, reconstruction and semantic feedback.

   

ROUND 5 | PHOTOLUMINESCENCE AND INFORMATION HIERARCHY

The fifth research round examined whether the material light mechanism of WAIT... constitutes an additional structural distinction. The investigation focused specifically on photoluminescence and phosphorescent afterglow. Physically, the works do not generate energy independently. The material absorbs light beforehand and subsequently releases part of that stored energy as visible light. The relevant distinction is therefore stored-light photoluminescence, or phosphorescent afterglow without an active light source during viewing.

Historical Precedents for Phosphorescent Transformation

The broad claim that phosphorescent or photoluminescent art can create a second appearance or meaning in darkness is historically preoccupied. Daniel Spoerri's Palette Fischer-Lueg from 1968 already used phosphorescent material to produce a substantially different image in darkness. Stephen Hannock experimented with large phosphorescent paintings in the 1970s. Koo Jeong A, Daan Roosegaarde and other artists have also used phosphorescent materials to produce changing states between light and darkness. Nina Childress explicitly works with a day image and a night scene, while Jugnet + Clairet have described phosphorescent pigment as a memory of light. Photoluminescent day and night transformation therefore has clear precedents.

Phosphorescent Language and Semantic Revelation

The use of phosphorescence to reveal linguistic or semantic information in darkness is also historically established. In Chris Ofili's No Woman, No Cry from 1998, phosphorescent writing becomes substantially more visible in darkness. Laboratorio de Luz's Proyectante de sombra from 1993 combines stored light, darkness, language and delayed semantic revelation. SpY's I’M NOT A REAL ARTIST from 2014 uses phosphorescent letters that are charged by light and subsequently remain visible in darkness without an active light source. Alice Teichert has combined phosphorescent pigments with glyph-like and text-related structures. WAIT... therefore makes no claim to historical priority for phosphorescent language, hidden night information or a second informational hierarchy produced by afterglow.

Negative and Positive Photoluminescent Information

Brigitte Kowanz provides a particularly close counterexample for MOVE I and MOVE III. In her Morse works, luminous tubes and dark interruptions work together to generate Morse information. The broad principle of light field plus dark interruption producing code is therefore historically established. The technical mechanism is different, however. Kowanz's relevant Morse works use actively powered light sources. In WAIT..., MOVE I and MOVE III use a previously charged photoluminescent field that continues to glow after the active light source has been removed, while the Morse signs themselves remain dark. The code becomes readable through negative contrast within the afterglow. MOVE II operates according to the opposite logic. There, the linguistic information itself becomes photoluminescent and visually dominant in darkness. The CASE therefore combines two opposing operations: negative coded information through dark signs against a luminous field, and positive linguistic information through luminous signs themselves.

Photoluminescence as an Information System

The research found precedents for multiple autonomous phosphorescent artworks, for changing day and night states, for phosphorescent language, for semantic revelation through darkness and for negative contrasts within luminous structures. No direct documented precedent was identified, however, for a system of autonomous artworks in which two opposing photoluminescent information logics are coordinated so that darkness reorganizes the informational hierarchy of the entire system. In MOVE I and MOVE III, dark coded signs become dominant through a luminous afterglow field. In MOVE II, linguistic information itself becomes luminous. These different material operations make precisely those elements dominant that participate in the shared mental reconstruction. The material therefore does not merely alter the appearance of the works. It organizes access to information and contributes directly to the cognitive structure of the CASE.

   

DAY AND NIGHT

The physical realization of WAIT... extends the structure through two different perceptual states. By day, the three autonomous artworks emerge distinctly through their different proportions, surfaces and spatial positions. Their connection is not visually prescribed. The viewer must establish it. In darkness, the hierarchy of information changes. Material properties recede while coded and linguistic information becomes dominant through two different photoluminescent operations. In MOVE I and MOVE III, the afterglowing field reveals the dark Morse signs through contrast. In MOVE II, the linguistic information itself becomes luminous. The three works remain spatially separate while the information relevant to their connection becomes more prominent. The transition between day and night therefore changes more than the visual appearance of the works. It reorganizes the weighting of information within the CASE.

   

THE SPACE BETWEEN THE WORKS

The spatial separation of the three works also performs a functional role within the CASE. The works do not form a closed triptych. Their different formats, heights and distances assert their individual autonomy. The viewer must overcome the physical distance with their gaze and subsequently bridge it mentally. A central mechanism of WAIT... thereby becomes physically perceptible. The relational meaning does not exist on a shared pictorial surface. It must be constructed across space. The empty space between the artworks becomes the site of an invisible connection.

   

THE DIGITAL LAYER

The connection of physical art with websites and digital systems also has numerous historical precedents, particularly within Net Art and interactive media art. The digital layer of WAIT... therefore makes no claim to independence through its mere existence. Its function lies in the possibility of continuing the cognitive dramaturgy initiated by the physical CASE: perception, irritation, search, decoding, connection, recognition, disclosure. The digital presentation can therefore become more than documentation. It can reorganize and extend the cognitive process initiated by the physical works.

   

RESULT

After five successive research rounds, a clear overall picture emerges. Historical, contemporary or technical precedents were identified for almost every individual procedure of WAIT.... These include code and encryption, Morse code, light as a carrier of information, reflection, viewer participation, mental reconstruction, delayed recognition, multiple elements collectively generating language, distributed meaning systems, Visual Cryptography, physical-digital art systems, personal pronouns as artistic material, deictic self-positioning, photoluminescent day and night transformation, phosphorescent language, semantic revelation through afterglow and negative contrasts within luminous structures. WAIT... claims historical priority for none of these individual procedures. No direct precedent was identified, however, for the specific overall structure in which semantically and aesthetically complete autonomous artworks organize determinate coded information across multiple perceptual and relational levels; in which a sign within this system also functions as the first-person deictic position I and locates the self within the semantic field of OPPORTUNITIES; in which this self-position subsequently alters the meaning of the constructed and reconstructed information EXIT; and in which two opposing photoluminescent information logics reorganize the informational hierarchy in darkness so that precisely the coded and linguistic elements required for the shared mental reconstruction become dominant. This finding remained intact after the targeted counterexample searches and the additional falsification tests.

    

RESEARCH FINDING

Within the scope of the research conducted, no direct precedent was identified for a system in which complete, autonomous artworks organize determinate coded information across multiple perceptual, relational and photoluminescent levels, while a sign within that system simultaneously operates as a first-person deictic position, locates the self within a semantic field and thereby alters the meaning of another determinately constructed and reconstructed message. Within the same system, stored photoluminescent afterglow creates a second informational hierarchy through two opposing operations: some works reveal coded information through dark signs against a luminous field, while another presents linguistic information as the luminous element itself. These material operations make the information required for the shared mental reconstruction dominant in darkness. This statement makes no claim to absolute historical uniqueness. It documents the result of a systematic precedent and falsification research process. WAIT... stands within an art-historical history of language, code, light, reflection, perception, participation, pronoun-based artistic practices and phosphorescent art. Its distinguishable structure lies in the way these established procedures are organized across autonomous artworks. EXIT can be constructed within individual works and reconstructed relationally between them. The viewer can encounter their own reflection within the code while simultaneously occupying the linguistic position of I within OPPORTUNITIES. The previously positioned self changes the semantic address of EXIT, while the material light system reorganizes access to the information from which that recognition emerges. The remaining structural core lies in the combination of self-positioning, reconstruction, semantic feedback and photoluminescent information hierarchy.