 Mi je Louis Gerberto Cipini, in sem rekačno in emergento, arhitekče studio, basite in Milan, nijam Armatur Gruballa. In to je vsega, več vsega, generačne in introdukcije do potretu v janku planetu. Vsega izgleda, je vsega, vsega, vsega in arhitekče vsega, vsega in strakče tudi je zelo na aktyvno, kritiklje, izgledenem izgledenih, da je začeljene. In Portatova Jan planeta tega, inspiracije z in originalnej izgledenju, izgledenj iz Por Rudolfov, in uzvokovana pred Edward Stajken, danes v 1955-bu v Momma, v Modernji Marjord, je to jedno vsi propagandistika izgledenja, in kaj je tudi v USA, beto reizanje kaj je zelo zelo, kaj je zelo, in tudi zelo in tudi in ne v Steljenju Europecja. In tudi, da je to reizanje, kot tudi zelo, je naredil jo vse, kaj je protaganda in ko je protaganda in tačno vsezal in tudi vzvolj taktici. Vsih nekaj kajno je vsev, in tega vsega izvečnega, je to zato, da je figurato, da je bolj Roodolfer, in tudi amerika modernista. I tako vsega genetika algorytma, ki je to, da je amerikana, in to izvečnega je, da je tudi vsega izvečnega in da je zato, in pa se vseh izgleda in generaja pravda europejska zemi izgleda kajga uvoljč gloves na vseh zanima, zač save in spetedi, in začne pjinje in zelo, in po ponjuču bi nekaj všeč jazila vstale預備 struktur, standardizovana systema, v kjer amerika prefabrikata vzela je vzela. Vzela je pravda izgleda generacija vzela izgleda z Francesco Buonami, Edaman Willem Athanis, vzela je izgleda vzela vzela vzela kratilizacija hvalovoj spesji, zato V imelje modem, zovu kratilizacijo in zvonje, vsakaj glasbohti. To začnega praktaja genusijda, da prišli spesice, da prišli tudi skupijnah, In, v medjeli vsoj, da je tudi izgleda pravda, da je točnja, da je svoja početka, da je zvukovana občastnja, zeločno izgleda in lahko vštječne pravje, da je točnja in nečo, da je početka. To je zelo, da je tudi izgleda izgleda, in tako ko se izgleda, da je to zelo, da je bilo zelo, da je jezda, in nekaj jezda, da je zelo, da je ta začelna, da je tega, ta začelna tega, z knjum in država. Kaj jezda, da je v gelu, in nekaj, da je to zelo, da je to zelo, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, da je to, v njene z vsev, that doesn't provide any visual shock, nor curatorial trauma. The main name of what the exhibition was meant to be was to provide that, to drastically go against the grain of conservation standards, lightning practices, and basically curatorial routines. Mežo o Evropiji Kultuvali dasy, da je začal, da je zelo podbili začal technologične odvore. Badeti ne različne prake, neko se oče, da schojevali pra hospissnje konek In to je zelo zelo izgleda, da ne je nekaj neštah, nekaj neštah, nekaj neštah trauma v tem, ko je vse zelo vsega izgleda, je vsega vsega vsega, nekaj biografija, in je izgleda historija. Zato vsega muzijumja je zelo vsega vsega algoritma, that can change the perception of an art piece, is even for a relative short amount of time. And this is why we still have to work on exhibitions such as the Family Of A Man, because just after the war there were incredible possibility and in away incredible adventures in what you could do with art pieces, with copies and with freedom in itself, Protožitovi, ki so napravili se na to, in tako tako nekaj počke čas je vzvozila, ker je vzvozila generalna svoj njeljavna neskala, skupenja, galerijsna zhrednja, zvojljena. Vse z njeljavnji, Frankesco Bonami, je zelo sečen tudi generacija z mjeločnih kreatorov, dar je poznala, da je mnogo, ko muzijumje da je. Vse nekaj bili, da bo vse, ko je jih zelo skupniti tartiščnosti. Kratiljno, kratiljstvo svetlj, zelo zelo, nekaj je začel je bolj. Zelo je prič zelo, nekaj je izvune, nekaj je vse, And the fifth well in C.V.s. And the main probability to see today, is that it is used as a proxy for the actual work of architecture As a proxy of someone embellished ideal of whatever art environment of interior cultural space should be. Zelo, da je tukaj tukaj, ki se zelo v studiju, je to na vse izgledanje, na vse institucije, nekaj, če je artist, nekaj, če je budem, nekaj, če je brif. Zelo, da je inaktiv, kratične izgledanje, nekaj, če je tukaj, če je kratične izgledanje, v kontemplej Evropija muzijom. In so we always sort of instead of providing exhibiting services, we provide exhibition display brutalization. Because in a way museums we always go about their life, but there are moments somehow with different times in different nations, in different countries with different artists, where for some short amount of time you can have a sort of freedom that merges design with advanced curatorial techniques and you can sort of test with this attitude what museum should be. And this is what we tried to do in this exhibition, which is probably the worst exhibition we ever designed, but at least it works, because one of the things that is missing today is actually the possibility of action. There is a sort of false history that predates past exhibitions in sort of believing that exhibition design and exhibition architecture made in the past were a sort of in a way beautiful dimension. And one of the reason this exhibition is sadly done like that is that the exhibition that actually changed the perception of art during and after the war where the Generator exhibition and the family of the men. And there were two exhibitions where on one side in Germany there weren't architects actively designing an exhibition, but congregation of artisans actively using wood. And on the other side in the United States you had architects that were working on massive bureaucratic urban projects sort of designing with the same materials, but with an advanced set of skills. And these has become a sort of standard in the recuperation of the history of art exhibition where whatever belongs to the past is correct or whatever belongs to the past can still work today. And what we tried to test was to actually try to use the same materials, the same colors and the same anti-architecture attitude in the making of this exhibition, trying to merge the same material used by Paul Rudolf and the same in a way non-architecture attitude used in Germany. And it was a test on whether exhibition worlds or exhibition environment can actively still sustain, design or intelligence because exhibition display and exhibition architecture is not yet configured as an autonomous critical discipline but is only understood as a service provided by architect for museums. And in a way it can substitute or alter or augment curatorial tactics or strategies and we tried that. It seems that we can only do worlds, it seems that we can only design with certain measurements in museums for exhibition design and this is not due to museums. This is due to the fact that the techniques and the construction technology that are available today for contemporary museums are in a way not designed by cultural institution or cultural practitioners, but they are produced for another market. The general reason why exhibition designs today is generally only made by walls, only made by a certain set of materials is the fact that the drive for the creation of these construction technologies doesn't belong to the art world, but it belongs to big and huge fairs in European capitals, such as car fairs or technology fairs. And these set the standards in terms of amount and volume of materials for the recuperation of all these standard technologies for all other exhibitions. So we can say that exhibition design today is not a thing made by architect, but is a design technology created by commercial institutions. And it seems that the only role left to architects is dismantling of design ownership for gestional routines or procedural routines in the accommodation of set of intuition for design technologies not made by art. And this exhibition and the former exhibition that was not built was a critical understanding and a critical reading of that. So how could you design exhibition using standard generated by industrial economical structures and vision away was our dedication to what was happening in 1955 where material were steel and developed and the design by Paul Rudol for any other architect in the US was meant to be done with the cheapest material possible. One of the main, in a way, curiosity asset that the brief generated in us was still the possibility to do photographic exhibition and in the former exhibition to do an exhibition using 1950s technologies to display video art or new media and for us it was a sort of correct gap in time and in a way they set up and the environment given the fact that at the end the result was a photographic and mixed media exhibition is truly interesting because it is another instance of what I believe is the failure of museums and of cultural institutions to actually filter what are the emergent process in image making. At the moment exhibiting photography is a futile effort given the fact that monitors and algorithmic possibility of distributing images is wider than gallery spaces and in a way this exhibition is another stage of a longer search of what are the failures of art environment and how architect can actively produce a critical assessment of that. I see this exhibition as a failed infrastructure but in a way a good remark on what exhibition architecture should in a way become or what are the protocols that should apply to the exhibition of this discipline as a critical field. Stop.