Explain the violence thing to me. I don't get it. Because you're taking things out of context or what? Because you're making them accessible? You're introducing them into the "discourse"? You're placing them in the grid? And yet, the discourse is totally banal. A hobby for specialists. Who really cares about it? Even after all these years and what this has led to. Your definition of the grid. What this term means and its relation to the objects. Or, is it about a higher society context, your interest in logistics or the phenomenological aspects thereof? As in: “Oh God, look at us humans living in late capitalism?” The power doesn't come from you telling us something new about artistic gestures or whatever—it's about the relations, right? You've got all these moves and it seems obvious anyway—you've been saying it yourself the whole time. Sorry, I'm just piecing this together—or making it up somehow. I guess I feel like all this time we've known each other I've developed a feel for your obsession. For all these crises: Strictly formal! Strictly conceptual! Or should I become a teacher? All these processes you've gone through and this may or may not be a show that actually wants to confront it differently. Exactly by saying: ok, with the photos in the corridor there is this reference to reality and the objects in the front are banalized as circulating goods in their endless loop but the conclusion, however, isn't: "Wow, your works show me the cold narrative of the evil, neoliberal world.” No, I mostly see you and your permanent conflict: That certain "discourses" work as gated communities; that the city you live in works exactly the same; that our language is totally corrupted; and that the whole fucking meaning is just a produced illusion. That's what I mean. That's what I understand when you speak of violence.