Participation is a quality of organization, social process and cultural life that is increasingly emphasized. It is also articulated and understood differently in multiple contexts. By tracing discourses and practices of participation map what it may mean.
Essay structure:
1. Introduction
2. Historical Acknowledgement
3. Freedom, Instruction, Reaction
4. Results
5. Interactive approach & technologies
6. Conclusion
1.Introduction
The etymology of participation comes from the Latin participare (to participate), derived from pars (part) and the root of capere (to take) – verb. Yet participation as a noun is given as your – participation is INVOLVEMENT, part, contribution, association.
I keep asking myself: why should I take part, why should I participate in this? And many thoughts come to mind like why not just appreciate what the others have made? By accessing and taking part I constantly become an active person in situations that I did not create. Who is the author of the creation/event/social form? Where is the freedom – is there a sense of change or challenge? There are as many motivations to engage in participatory “live” as there are reasons to refuse. I am standing here and I am asked to participate? In world of *“Leave me alone” the individual world of loneliness self rounded manufactured personalities and I am asking Why do I want to participate, whether Why? I AM asking YOU? Why should I become WE?
At the same time, we have no choice whether or not to participate in the larger context of society. We are already members of families, communities, associations, schools, and possibly museums. We actively become part of a larger whole without necessarily knowing what this might constitute. We trust that we will find out by participating, a risking game of players.
Expanding the context of the idea of participation historically, politically, and technologically focusing on Art performances, events and approaches this essay explores the different shapes of participatory Art trying to define the possibilities and failures of it. The technological approach is more relevant nowadays and the emphasis that is given to participatory events and reasons behind it.
*Communism is a form of participation but we live in capitalism form of structure is that a choice? Wherever the individuality sustained and over collapse the substaqeunces of “leave me alone” and guide “a whole small world”.
2. Historical Acknowledgement
Various Russian avant-garde groups during the second and third decades of the twentieth century also tried to investigate the demise of the solitary creative artist in order to include the broader masses in artistic practice-and thus transform an entire nation still vibrant from the victory of communism into a gesamtkunstwerk in which all thinks individual were absorbed into and by the collective. Also Futurists strategy aimed less at creating individual art objects and more toward event and collective experiences.
The emergence of Happening in New York in the late 1950s was in part a response to the expressionism of Jackson Pollock’s paintings. Allan Kaprow sought from the Happening a heightened experience of the everyday, in which viewers were formally fused with the space-time of the performance and losing their identity as ‘audience’. The Happenings were presented to small intimate gatherings of people in typical spaces as lofts, classrooms, gymnasiums and some of the offbeat galleries. The watchers sat very close to what took place, with the artists and their friends acting along with assembled environmental constructions. The audience occasionally changed seats as in game of musical chairs, turned around to see something behind it, or stood without seats in tight but informal clusters. Sometimes, too, the event moved in and amongst the crowd, which produced some movement on the latter’s part. But, however flexible these techniques were in practice, there was always an audience in one (usually static) space and a show given in another. It follows that audiences should be eliminated entirely. All the elements people, space, the particular materials and character of the environment, time can in this way be integrated. And the last shred of theatrical convention disappears. For anyone once involved in the painter’s problem of unifying a field of divergent phenomena, a group of inactive people in the space of a Happening is just dead space. A Happening with only an empathic response on the part of a seated audience is not a happening but a stage theatre.
The theory behind Situationist International in 1957 described by Guy Debord was to ‘construct situations’-participatory events using experimental behavior and to break the spectacular bind of capitalism. Constructed situations, in which the audience is an active participant, have been an ongoing point of reference for contemporary with live events.
“Our central purpose is the construction of situations, that is, the concrete construction of temporary settings of life and their transformation into a higher, passionate nature. –Guy Debord
The collapse of traditional mediums of art and the explosion of new technologies in the 1960s provided multitude opportunities for physically engaging the viewer in work of art. as Andrian Piper/ Marina Ambramovic/ Martha Rosler in the 1960s appropriate social forms as a way of bringing art closer to everyday life.
Fluxus, Guy Debord’s Situationist International, Andy Warhol Factory aimed in the collaboration of different and the synthesis of artistic media. However, central to these activities of was to forego their isolated, elevated, privileged position in relation to the audience. For example Fluxus practitioners played the role of entertainers and event managers.
“Dance in My Experience” by Helio Oiticica in 1965-66 described in Diary Entries was a Collective production and reception in art. By the mid-1960s, Oiticica was collaborating with participants from samba schools of the Rio favelas to produce disruptive events based around dancing in parangole capes. The emphasis was on a Dionysian loss of self in social fusion; a connection between the collective and individual expression.
The old position with regards to the work of art has stagnated-even in those works that today do not demand spectator participation, what they propose is not a transcendental contemplation but ‘being’ in the world. An act itself not characterized by any partiality but by its totality as such-a total expression of the self.
Until now I have focused on the audience and how it interacts with the artists’ works. But if the roles are switched, on a social level we can see clearly that the Artist takes the role of participant within the society. She/he is interested in communal processes of society and now they have stepped out of Artist’s role and they have moved into educational, activist, or commercial fields. Lygia Clark, Martha Minujin and Charlotte Posenenske are artists who invest in art with no mart social or political intent. Richard Wagner, The Art-work of the Future, trans. W. Ashton Ellis(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 78. Richard states that the typical artist of his time is an egoist who is completely isolated from the life of the people and practices his art for the luxury of the rich; in so doing he exclusively follows the dictates of fashion. By contrast, the artwork of the future must realize the need for “the passing over of Egoism into Communism.”
Why is participation so emphasized, frequently used and repeated?
Many did not consider the modern division of labor, which had brought new social levels on art to be particularly advantageous. The art of participation was called my museum such as MySpace and Facebook online social platforms. As a result it became an exploration of the various ways in which museum can address the public, interact with the audiences, and invite the active involvement of its visitors. This shift in priorities reinvented design as more of an event-based installation concept creating a different approach that is best visitor attractions, museums and galleries are striving to open up to more participatory ways of engaging their publics. What has become a relatively common practice at alternative spaces, in public spaces, or at community centers in now the focus of a museum exhibition? Is this a contradiction that compromises the anti-institutional stance of many? Is there an inherent conflict between the museum as an institution and a truly participatory practice? The Experimental Art Cycle was a series of actions in Rosario, many of which worked on the audience as a privileged artistic material. Graciela Carnevale’s project represents the most extreme example of this approach. Empty walls, one of them is made by glass, had to be covered in order to achieve a suitably neutral space for the work to take place. In this room the participant audience, which has come together by chance for the opening, has been locked in. The door has been hermetically closed without the audience being aware of it. “I have taken prisoners”. The point was to allow people to enter and to prevent them from leaving. Here the work comes into being and these people are the actors. There is no possibility of escape, in fact the spectators have no choice; they are obliged; violently, to participate. Their positive or negative reaction is always a form of participation.
One of the inherent and unsolvable problems of participatory art is that an exhibition addressing the genre can never fully achieve its promise. On the one hand, truly participatory art-that which goes beyond symbolic gestures-is a utopian ideal rather than an artistic or political reality. In environmental art the eternally mobile, the transformable is structured by both the action of the spectator and that which is static. The latter is also transformable in its own way, depending on the environment in which it is participation as a structure. It will be necessary to create ‘environments’ for these works-the actual concept of ‘exhibition’ in its traditional sense, is changed, since to ‘exhibit’ such work does not make sense-structural spaces that are free both to the participation and to the creative inventions of spectators.
In projects which address the limitation of the audience engagement critique is a necessary tool of arguing. Although it is a beautiful and sometimes irritating moment when we come to understand that a participatory event cannot “fail” in the traditional sense. Participatory art is an open invitation: the viewers’ refusal to participate, or the participation of only a small number of people, counts as much as total physical engagement. Watching others participate-what is called “lurking” in the online context- is an inherent part of the experience.
By focusing on performance and other forms of art and architecture and social events I separated my research in three parts; I named them freedom, instruction and reaction in order to map the discourses and practices, the negative and positive arrangements in this multiple skilled and used form of participation, and then the technology approach into arts interactive media
3. Freedom, Instruction, Reaction.
I was intent on making something that didn’t tell people what to do. – John Cage for 4’33’’
4’33’’ is a composition of silence lasting four minutes and thirty-three seconds composed by John Cage in 1952. Without instrumentation, the score highlights ambient sounds surrounding the performance: noises in the environment and those produced by the audience. It was composed for any instrument (or combination of instruments), and the score instructs the performer not to play the instrument during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements (the first being thirty seconds, the second being two minutes and twenty-three seconds, and the third being one minute and forty seconds). Although commonly perceived as "four minutes thirty-three seconds of silence", the piece actually consists of the sounds of the environment that the listeners hear while it is performed.
The performance should make clear to the listener that the hearing of the piece is his own action – that the music, so to speak, is his, rather than the composer’s. – John Cage
Premiere and reception
The premiere of the three-movement 4'33″ was given by David Tudor on August 29, 1952, at Woodstock, New York as part of a recital of contemporary piano music. The audience saw him sit at the piano and, to mark the beginning of the piece, close the keyboard lid. Some time later he opened it briefly, to mark the end of the first movement. This process was repeated for the second and third movements. The piece had passed without a note being played—in fact without Tudor (or anyone else) having made any deliberate sound as part of the piece. Tudor timed the three movements with a stopwatch while turning the pages of the score.
Richard Kostelanetz suggests that the very fact that Tudor, a man known for championing experimental music, was the performer, and that Cage, a man known for introducing unexpected non-musical noise into his work, was the composer, would have led the audience to expect unexpected sounds. Anybody listening intently would have heard them: while the performer produces no deliberately musical sound, there will nonetheless be sounds in the concert hall. It is these sounds, unpredictable and unintentional, that are to be regarded as constituting the music in this piece. The piece remains controversial to this day, and is seen as challenging the very definition of music.
They missed the point. There’s no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn’t know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began patterning the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.
John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″.
“Cut Piece”, Yoko Ono
Performer sits on stage with pair of scissors placed in front of him. It is announced that members of the audience my come on stage-one at a time-to cut a small piece of the performer’s clothing to take with them. Performer remains motionless throughout the piece. Piece ends at the performer’s option. -Yoko Ono, instructions for Cut Piece (1964)
Premiere and Reception
Ono premiered "Cut Piece" (this instance of performance art is also known as a happening) in 1964 at Yamaichi Concert Hall in Kyoto and performed it again in 1965 at Carnegie Hall in New York. In both versions Ono sat onstage wearing suit. Audience members cut off pieces of her clothes and undergarments until she was left nearly nude. The event was inspired by a Buddhist allegory in which Buddha sacrifices himself and enters a state of supreme awareness. Ono considered allowing the audience to cut off her clothes to be a Buddha-like gift. In the act of cutting, volunteers entered an exchange with the artist as the vulnerable “object”. Other members of the audience participated in this exchange as voyers, witnessing the atmosphere of discomfort. Tensions arose during the performances, and there were moments of potential aggression, but Ono also recalls that “there were quiet and beautiful silences-quiet and beautiful movements.”
Cut Piece had one destructive verb as its instruction: “Cut.” Ono executed the performance in Tokyo by walking on stage and casually kneeling on the floor in a draped garment. Audience members were requested to come on stage and begin cutting until she was naked.
Ono enlisted her viewers to complete her works of art in order to complete her identity as well. Besides a commentary on identity, Cut Piece was a commentary on the need for social unity and love. It was also a piece that touched on issues of gender and sexism as well as the greater, universal affliction of human suffering and loneliness. Ono performed this piece again in London and other venues, garnering drastically different attention depending on the audience. In Japan, the audience was shy and cautious. In London, the audience participators became zealous to get a piece of her clothing and became violent to the point where she had to be protected by security.
In 2003 Ono reprised the piece at Theatre le Ranelagh in Paris. This time, however, her printed statement asked the audience to “Come and cut a piece of my clothing whenever you like, the size of less than a postcard, and send it to the one you love”. In the decades since its inception, the work had evolved from an exploration of violence to an expression of kindness and piece.
Marina Abramovic/ Ulay
We are standing naked in the main entrance of the museum, facing each other. The public entering the museum has to pass sideways through the small space between us. Each person passing has to choose which one of us to face. –Abramovic/Ulay
Imponderabilia
At the opening of an exhibition in June 1977 at the Museum of the Galleria d’Arte Moderna Bologna, Abramovic/Ulay stood naked at the entrance opposite each other in such a way that the people streaming in had to squeeze singly through the gap between the two, unable to avoid physical contact. The crucial factor was that everybody had to decide whom to look at as they passed. The video focuses on both the complete view and the half-length portrait in order to capture the different reactions of the audience. Most people were looking straight ahead to avoid a direct gaze, squeezed through with a lot of physical contact or tried bumping into the bare skin of the two as little as possible. Some, also held on to the artist’ shoulders. Abramovic/Ulay kept looking at each other motionless like statues flanking an entrance. In this Performance, they are forming a physical frame, confronting the involuntary participants passing through the "birth canal" with the experience of touch, the decision which side to face, and exposing them all to an unfamiliar bodily sensation between shame and an awareness of their own bodies, and to close physical contact with another human being which is generally considered disturbing between strangers. The gap between the two protagonists constitutes the actual Performance space in which the viewer plays an active part. It is fitting that this action is placed in a museum where people go as spectators, learning at the very entrance that they are involved them selves. A text on the exhibition wall stated: "Imponderable. Such imponderable human factors, as one’s aesthetic sensitivity/the overriding importance of imponderables in determining human conduct." The text refers directly to the viewer as a protagonist of the Performance who – as is so often the case with Abramovic/Ulay – is denied the opportunity of direct observation. The resulting video entitled Imponderabilia, centers on the visitor’s reactions and reflects the artists’ longstanding interest on the body, gender, and interpersonal relationships.
Abramovic’s solo performances pushed the boundaries of performer-audience interaction and physical vulnerability. In the infamous endurance work Rhythm 0(1974), a sign on the wall invited the audience to do whatever they wanted to the artist’s body using any of the seventy-two items (a fountain pen, a rose, a knife, scissors) she had provided on a table. The performance offered a fascinating study of social behavior; the audience became aggressive as a result Abramovic’s clothes were cut off, her body sliced with razors, and a loaded gun held to her head until another audience member wrested it away.
4. Results
“Every reception of a work of art is both an interpretation and performance of it, because in every reception the work takes on a fresh perspective for itself.” Umberto Eco, is concerned with the evolution and values of open works, where openness is in the sense of freedom of interpretation and meaning of making. Openness is upon the freedom for an observer to interpret or explore meaning within a work. Openness is an interpretive freedom, the next question that arises is: why does the artist need to include this openness? Maybe the creator suggests platonic forms and argues for “closure”. Changing the medieval interpretation, automatically you change the aesthetical way of approaching. Where “the bible” was held only from “God” according to moral (or allegorical or analogical) dimensions now the interpretation is applied to a new meaning. This is not indefinite or open, but rather constrains the interpretation. This reflects the order of society, which is imperial and theocratic. Although Andy Warhol, the “author” of the do-it-yourself the beginner of the “Factory” and workshop ideas as artworks are still considered to be his work. Maybe the creator suggests a sense of democracy? Since voting and other forms of gaining our rights is behind us and too past-season? Or maybe artists figured out that communicating with each other is not understandable so they were trying to put it in a cultural form. Discussion boards are absolutely necessary nowadays.
"To give a text an Author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text."
The second argument is concerned with authorship, as Ronald Barthes pointed out in the death of the author in 1968. A work’s meaning is not dependent on authorial intention but on the individual point of active reception. Barthes was concerned primarily with literature but his insight is analogous to much contemporary art of this period, particularly works that emphasize the viewer’s role in their completion. In his essay, Barthes criticizes the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — his or her political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, this method of reading may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed. Readers must separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate it from interpretive tyranny (a notion similar to Erich Auerbach's discussion of narrative tyranny in Biblical parables). Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations," drawn from "innumerable centers of culture," rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins," or its creator, "but in its destination," or its audience.
Peter Burger, Informed by the Frankfurt School critical theory, Peter Burger’s theory of the Avant-garde(1974) decries a bourgeois model of art that is produced and consumed by individuals. His influential reading of the historic avant-garde (Dada, Constructivism and Surrealism) as an attempt to fuse art with social praxis, together with the chart reproduced below, provide a poignant contextualization for contemporary collaborative art. In his essay “The Negation of the Anatomy of Art by the Avant-garde” written in 2002 he describes the autonomy in art its purpose or function, production and reception. If art is no longer distinct from the praxis of life but wholly absorbed in it will lose the capacity to criticize it, along with its distance. During the time of the historical avant-garde movements, the attempt to do away with the distance between art and life still had all the pathos of historical progressiveness on its side. But in the meantime, the culture industry has brought about the false elimination of the distance between art and life, and this also allows one to recognize the contradictoriness of the avant-gardes undertaking. Art and the praxis of life come to a conclusion of social life. The separation of the artist from his or her audience was a result of the secularization of art-its liberation from clerical paternalism and censorship
Boris Groys in “A genealogy of participation art” points out that Participatory practice is one of the main characteristics of contemporary art. What we are concerned with here are events, projects, political interventions, social analyses, or independent educational institutions that are initiated, in many cases, by individual artists, but that can ultimately be realized only by the involvement of many. Collaborative practices of that type are geared toward the goal of motivating the public to join in, to activate the social milieu in which these practices unfold. In short we are dealing with numerous attempts to question and transform the fundamental condition of how modern art functions-namely, the radical separation of the artists and their public. When the viewer is involved in artistic practice from the outset, every piece of criticism he utters is self-criticism. The decision on the part of the artist to relinquish his exclusive authorship would seem primarily empower the viewer. The sacrifice ultimately benefits the artist, however, for it frees him from the power that the cold eye of the uninvolved viewer exerts over the resulting artwork.
But is Art only art? Its methods are recapitulated out and become feral in combination with other forms of life. Art methodologies convey art’s capacities to enact a live process in the world, launching sensorial particles and other conjunctions in ways and combinations that renew their powers of disturbance and vision. Art methodologies are a range of ways of sensing, doing and knowing generated in art that are now circulating more haphazardly, perhaps less systematically, and requiring of a renewed form of understanding in order to trace and develop them. Art methodologies are cultural entities, embodied in speech, texts, sounds, behaviors and the modes of connection between things that share and develop, and work on art’s capacity of disturbance and the multi-scalar engorgement of perception
A pavilion, one of those used these days for industrial exhibitions (how more interesting they are than anemic little art shows!)- it would be an opportunity for a truly efficient experience with the people, throwing them into the creative participatory notion, away from ‘elite exhibitions’ so fashionable today.
Total participatory creation- to which would be added works created through the anonymous participation of the spectators, who actually would be better described as ‘participants’.
Another contributing current is the context of art as popular culture. One aspect would be the more systematic celebritisation of art, but another, more interesting instance would be the TV series Jackass, mixing the precisely traumatic end of art with bodies (i.e. that of Chris Burden), with skate culture, and the time-rhythm of TV comedy. A simpler example, the migration of art methodologies into pop music is reasonably well charted, and more interestingly remains a serious zone of contention, but to account for the phenomena it is necessary to do more than recognize the mapping of ideas and means from one relatively stable cultural domain into another. What are described here as possible contextualizing dynamics, are perhaps more adequately also understood as symptoms.
5. Interactive approach & technological mediums
The emergence of new technologies, like the Internet and multimedia systems, points to a collective desire to create new areas of conviviality and introduce new types of transaction with regard to the cultural object. What, then, of the virtual spaces and interactions that increasingly determine cultural practice, particularly in our own time? One is often inclined to think of contemporary digital media as interactive or participatory per se.
The relationship between “actual” bodily participation and virtual participation seems particularly relevant to discussions of net art exhibitions and other practices that try to usher into exhibition spaces, making the act of using computers a public event. The socialization and display of computer usage may at first appear to be superfluous if one presupposes that it was already public, interactive, and participatory (albeit virtual). In the case of virtual communication and participation, however, the body of the person using the computer is of no consequence-apart from physical. The experience of bodily presence, for which modern art has continually striven, is absent in virtual communication.
The purpose served by an exhibition that offers visitors an opportunity to use computers and the internet publicity now becomes apparent-namely the cooling down of the internet medium. Such an exhibition extends the attention and focus of the viewer. One no longer concentrates upon a solitary screen but wanders from one screen to the next, from one computer installation to another.
In museums, they allow the visitor to enter into a totally different relationship with works of art. Whereas conventionally the visitor is asked back to view in awe a cordoned-off venerated object, with an interactive artwork touch the noise are generally encouraged on the visitor’s part.
The aspirations of interactive art focusing largely on the experience of individuals or a small section of the public partaking in a particular project may seem modest. Its widest purpose is in an educational capacity. As Lucy Bullivant outlines in her article ‘Playing with Art’, digital projects that have been undertaken by London’s museums and galleries have been successful in bringing wider public both into galleries and online. It is, however, the encouragement of sociability where the interactive is at its most potent, where it has the ability to transcend the everyday-causing the individual to pause a minute in a street corner or a gallery foyer to have fun to be playful!
At their most supernatural, interactive design environments can have a transformative effect. They take the visitor somewhere else. By actively involving the public they are both ‘porous’ and ‘responsive’, beckoning us like the rabbit in Alice in Wonderland to enter and participate in another world.
Interactive design environments like Dune 4.0 promote the personalization and customization of not just architecture, but also of their wider physical public contexts. They assert an architecture of social relations that invites the visitor to spontaneously perform and thereby to construct alternative physical, architectural, urban and social meanings. This is facilitated by the multidisciplinary ability and teamwork architects, and designers increasingly apply to program spaces, turning the traditional concept of ephemerality as a nature –based phenomenon into something supernatural. Through the activation of embedded, custom-designed software and responses to its effects, the identity of public space itself goes beyond its constitution through generic formal givens, and becomes porous and responsive to specific information and communication conveyed to it.
Apart from the more convincing fake nature associations possible, one of the appealing features of many interactive environments is their anthropomorphic qualities. It is the behavioral aspects-the unpredictable, ‘live’ quality of installations- that is compelling and with the active involvement of visitors ‘completes’ the identity of the work.
The growing appetite of museums and galleries to focus on interactive installations created by , architects , designers and other practitioners enables a range of responsive technological applications-for instance, proximity sensing-to be involved through public use, and even tested out in what is an ideal, controlled setting with a variety of visitors.
Each installation is a prosthetic device for human creativity, whether or not one agrees that this also opens it up to the interpretation of playing “God”. By involving visitors and passers-by so intimately in an installation’s responsive ‘operating system’, they too become part of a prosthetic impact, and the public space occupies becomes, for a limited time, prosthetic, too.
In media art the term interactive has often been criticized for being simply euphemistic: no true interaction is possible when one must select from a predefined set of options.
Is there a true interactivity?
6. Conclusion
Richard Serra in “Verb List”, 1962-1968 listed a typology of actions for his hand-manipulated pieces. Today Serra continues his work by a choreography of people acting upon materials to create pieces with their own space, make their own situation and declare their own area. Also the last verb of his piece is “to continue”. Summing up, I would like to participate to his piece and contributing by giving my contribution to it;
Richard Serra’s Verb List
to roll/to crease/to fold/to store/to bend/to shorten/to twist/to dapple/to crumple/to shave/to tear/to chip/to split/to cut/to sever/to drop/to remove/to simplify/to differ/to disarrange/to open/to mix/to splash/to knot/to spill/to droop/to flow/to curve/to lift/to inlay/to impress/to fire/to flood/to smear/to rotate/to swirl/to support/to hook/to suspend/to spread/to hang/to collect/of tension/of gravity/of entropy/of nature/of grouping/of layering/of felting/to grasp/to tighten/to bundle/to heap/to gather/to scatter/to arrange/to repair/to discard/to pair/to distribute/to surfeit/to compliment/to enclose/to surround/ to encircle/to hole/to cover/to wrap/to dig/to tie/to bind/to weave/to join/to match/to laminate/to bond/to hinge/to mark/to expand/to dilute/to light/to modulate/to distill/of waves/of electromagnetic/of inertia/of ionization/of polarization/of refraction/of tides/of reflection/of equilibrium/of symmetry/of friction/to stretch/to bounce/to erase/to spray/to systematize/to refer/to force/of mapping/of location/of context/of time/of cabonization/ to continue
my contribution is
“to change”, believing that is the most pure example of contributing to the society.
To be continued by the reader.