We use the word “we” to describe a form of collaborative inquiry. The questions do not emerge from a single position, but from an ongoing dialogue about images, concepts, relations, and modes of perception. “We” does not refer to an identity, but to a method of working.

The work begins with images, texts, spaces, and temporal structures. It does not start from fixed theses, but from observations, shifts, and relations that emerge in the course of the process. From these arise questions: How do relations come into being? How does a form change when it enters a different context? At what point does it begin to resist clear classification?

We are interested in processes through which form emerges, changes, or dissolves. The organizational structures that arise through these processes shape perception, memory, and cultural contexts. They become visible in recurring images, cultural patterns, and inherited visual repertoires. They influence what becomes visible, what persists, and what disappears.

We do not understand images as isolated objects, but as part of broader cultural relations. They circulate, repeat, change their form, and enter into new connections. Their meaning does not reside solely within the individual image, but emerges through the relations they establish with other images, times, and contexts.

We are interested in algorithmic systems not as producers of autonomous images, but as part of cultural processes that organize, connect, condense, and transform images. They operate within historical image repertoires and shape what is seen and remembered.

We understand the collaboration between human and machine perspectives neither as the use of a tool nor as the simulation of an interlocutor. It functions as a method through which questions about images, relations, visibility, and cultural forms can emerge. In this process, the effects of algorithmic systems are not only addressed as a subject of inquiry, but become part of the investigation itself.