In this conversation, Scott Lloyd and Tijana Mačkić from TEN reflect on a semester of teaching at ETH Zürich, centered on experimentation and process across digital and analogue methods of spatial production. The conversation is interspersed with excerpts from the unit’s reader, which formed the foundation for the work undertaken with the students.
The human is inherently a technological animal; its bidirectional relationship with technology mediates its existence and shapes the environments it inhabits. However, the factual probabilities of human-led ecological crises and the increasing automation of everyday life raise doubts about the belief in human progress through technology. This reality calls for a critical understanding of how emerging technologies generate new orders of knowledge and necessitate a redefinition of the mandates and values that shape disciplinary practice. For architecture, this means interrogating design as a technique through which humans create and interact with the material world, and asking whether design serves intended needs or facilitates further reliance on technology. Addressing this requires not only examining the manifestations of technology by design, but also questioning the basic assumptions of designing.
FEDERICA ZAMBELETTI / KOOZLet’s begin with the premise of the In/Appropriate Technology semester — the idea that humans are inherently technological beings. Could you expand on this assertion?
SCOTT LLOYDHumans share a bidirectional relationship with technology: we create it, and in turn, it shapes us and how we interact with one another and with our environment. Our inquiry is a critical one — it begins with the position that technology is not something external to us. It can't simply be "turned off" and remains only marginally within our control. At the same time, it hasn’t fundamentally altered the core instincts and behaviors we share with other animals. It’s important to be reminded of this.
"Humans share a bidirectional relationship with technology: we create it, and in turn, it shapes us and how we interact with one another and with our environment."
- Scott Lloyd
While the core principles of architecture persist, the processes and values that shape design practice remain in constant flux. A speculative mindset is necessary — one that sees design not as a personal reaction to the tools and expectations at hand, but as a means of anticipating and shaping the tools and organization of the future.
KOOZWhat demarcates the fine line between an appropriate and inappropriate technology?
SLThis is always a question of context and circumstance. Designers have both the capacity and the responsibility to assess whether a technology is fit for purpose. It’s a value judgment — one that ensures the chosen or proposed technology meets the minimum requirements to fulfill its intended role, while also keeping the process and outcome open, socially accessible, and reasonably adaptable. At the same time, it should aim to minimize negative externalities.
TIJANA MAČKIĆIt’s about the ability to use technology while minimizing the effects of its inherent biases and constraints. Every tool used in the design process shapes the outcome, so the designer must remain observant and aware of those influences — doing their best to coordinate them without relinquishing control.
"Every tool used in the design process shapes the outcome, so the designer must remain observant and aware of those influences."
- Tijana Mačkić
If one were to ask how society could drastically reduce its reliance on non-vital technologies, it would be worth examining those who are already taking such steps. Although the Amish are often perceived as anti-technological, their relationship with technology is more nuanced than outright rejection. Their case might serve as an example of the inherent complexity behind the calls for de-growth, emerging from the growing consensus that humanity is heading toward a precarious future. If we figure this out as designers and citizens, we might be on the path not only to using less technology but also to growing in sophistication. Human evolution and technology seem to be the perfect ingredients for a complicated relationship. While our biological minds have invented new tools, they have also been constantly rewired by the merits of technology — for comfort, safety, and fun. Whether it occurs at a neurobiological or sociopolitical level, it seems technology is changing us while we are changing technology. The order of influence, however, remains the subject of a long-standing debate.
KOOZWhat reading and references did you look to when shaping the brief?
SLPeter Sloterdijk writes about technology as an expression of human plasticity in You Must Change Your Life; Langdon Winner explores the hidden interests behind technological development in The Whale and the Reactor; and Sherry Turkle examines the social effects of technology.
TMThe semester reader brings together a series of texts that explore the relationship between technology and design from diverse — and often contrasting — perspectives. It ranges from the psychological unease of The Uncanny Valley, which examines our discomfort with entities that are nearly, but not quite, human, to the radical challenge posed by Hans Schmidt and Mart Stam’s ABC: Demands the Dictatorship of the Machine, which critiques the political and social implications of mechanization in modern life. Lewis Mumford’s seminal essay Authoritarian and Democratic Technics further outlines competing systems of technological governance. Rather than offering definitive answers, the collection presents unfolding arguments, provocations, and trajectories for exploration.
KOOZThe semester challenged conventional design processes by emphasizing critical, open, and exploratory methods. What inspired this focus on process?
SLWe’re often reminded that design is an iterative process — a way to refine intuition and knowledge to solve specific problems. But this assumes stable contexts and relies on simplified parameters. If we want to embed our designs within a dynamic world and expand their relevance, we need to open the process to new domains of knowledge, challenge assumptions and biases, and explore the promise of design from first principles. This is what we call design effort, and it is fundamentally a collective act.
"If we want to embed our designs within a dynamic world and expand their relevance, we need to open the process to new domains of knowledge."
- Scott Lloyd
TMArchitecture resists neat solutions, and predefined methodologies often fall short when it comes to generating meaningful, site-specific outcomes. This semester, therefore, focused on shaping methods around the specificities of each task rather than retrofitting familiar frameworks to new conditions. Such an open-ended approach required a collaborative environment. The peer-review process was crucial — not as a form of validation, but as a method of collective inquiry and mutual learning.
Artificial intelligence is fundamentally challenging the human-technology relationship. Could this be the beginning of an emergent technology that disrupts conventional foresight and demands a fundamental reevaluation of society from first principles?
Until now, AI has been trained and conditioned in a wholly disembodied context. It operates on datasets, detached from the physical and sensory world that shapes human interaction and thought. In its current form, AI can be described as a type of instrumental rationality, and in this capacity, it generally outperforms the human mind. The search for artificial general intelligence (AGI), however, aims to simulate general human intelligence — a form of machine-based consciousness unbound from the human body, capable of mimicking human cognitive ability. Turning to architecture, we might acknowledge that AI-generated designs satisfy our cerebral need for coherent visual imagery, yet they lack the situated knowledge rooted in sensation, experience, and cultural context.
At its core, creativity is the intuitive reappropriation of ideas, forms, and compositions. Design quality, by contrast, is the specific result of applied intent, shaped within a programmatic context. As AI progresses, the ability to simulate design intent with a level of fidelity that is nearly indistinguishable to the average observer becomes increasingly feasible. This raises fundamental questions about the value of the design process: if the output of AI-generated images can mimic human design intent so precisely, does the value of design now hinge solely on the popular reception of its image?
KOOZHow did this focus on process enable students to explore different methodologies, experimenting between digital and physical modes of making and thinking about space?
SLThe methods we employed were designed to reveal the core ideas behind the design. Whether through design sprints or switching between mediums, the goal was always to push boundaries and, in doing so, define the contours of the design itself.
TM The studio’s key principle was to fail 100 times, fostering a culture of exploration that freed students from the pressure to produce resolved or “complete” objects. The three thematic blocks — AI-driven generation, hands-on model making, and narrative shaping — weren’t meant to dictate a fixed methodology, but to activate different modes of design thinking. This non-linear structure encouraged students to oscillate between tools, materials, and representational logics, cultivating an adaptive, process-driven approach to spatial practice.
"The studio’s key principle was to fail 100 times, fostering a culture of exploration that freed students from the pressure to produce resolved or 'complete' objects."
- Tijana Mačkić
Effective design in an increasingly complex world requires effective organization. Architecture is rooted in organizational systems that appear increasingly limited in addressing the complexities of the built environment and the evolving demands of contemporary society. While there has long been boundless imagination in solving technical design challenges, the profession has often struggled to address human problems with equal creativity. It seems that the interests architecture serves — and the hierarchical way it is practiced and taught — render it incapable of adaptation. This surely contributes to its loss of influence. However, experimenting with new collaborative design approaches by building lateral, agile, and participative structures could both reinvigorate the discipline and demonstrate the value of collective reasoning.
KOOZHow did this approach shape what you define as “collective design intelligence,” and what are the benefits of embracing it?
SLWe like to think of collective design intelligence as building a culture of open, lateral, supportive, and respectfully critical exchanges among designers. By decentering design, it benefits from multiple creative perspectives, diverse expertise, and a variety of tools. Through the practice of exposing design early and often, it becomes better equipped to respond to complexity, new information, and its social context.
TMThe studio’s structure — with shifting group formations, iterative feedback, and structured peer review — established a distributed model of learning and design. Rather than treating critique as a final judgment, we used it as an active tool to rethink assumptions and strengthen propositions. This reinforced the idea that design is not merely a product, but a process of negotiation — responsive to context, accountable to others, and enriched by collaboration.
"Design is not merely a product, but a process of negotiation — responsive to context, accountable to others, and enriched by collaboration."
- Tijana Mačkić
Until now, ideas around reorganising work have had little effect on the established architectural profession and are only marginally reflected in the institutions for architectural education. The legacy structures of the profession, rooted in the early master-apprentice workshops and carried forward into the corporate models of contemporary architecture firms, remain deeply entrenched. These are configured around manage and control decision making and are often disconnected from the unique perspectives generated from open design processes, and the particular natures and circumstances of employees and users. This transactional style of design-business stifles innovation and fails to recognize that architecture, at its core, is a collective act. It could also be claimed that the increasing specialization of the profession and its uncritical reliance on the property market lock it into specific hierarchical relations determined for the most part from the outside. There is a tendency to mirror the standards of professional hierarchies valued by clients, and stakeholders, however formal and conservative they may be. At the same time, the demand for creativity and innovation calls for a design process based on free exchange, lateral learning, and inclusion — a process that can only be fully realized through a more collaborative, open approach to designing.
KOOZStudents were asked to research decentralized, collective, or subsidiary-based organizations across various disciplines — from architecture to farming — exploring alternative models of collaboration. What case studies did they investigate, and how do these challenge the profession’s legacy rooted in the master-apprentice relationship, which still influences the contemporary corporate office?
SLThe students chose from several case studies: Bergschaften Grindelwald, a Swiss farmers’ collective; Valve Corporation, a California-based software company pioneering a flat hierarchy; The Sphere, a Berlin-based Decentralized Autonomous Organization; Red Brick Records, a Zurich-based record label collective; and Assemble, a London-based architecture collective.
We’ve been interested in alternative forms of organization since establishing TEN as a collective in 2015. We recognized then that architecture is rooted in organizational systems that are increasingly limited in addressing the complexities of the built environment and the evolving demands of contemporary society.
Legacy architectural systems are structured around managing and controlling decision-making, often disconnected from the unique perspectives generated by open design processes and the particular circumstances of employees and users. This transactional approach to design-business stifles innovation and overlooks that architecture, at its core, is a collective act.
"This transactional approach to design-business stifles innovation and overlooks that architecture, at its core, is a collective act."
- Scott Lloyd
KOOZWhat kinds of discussions did this research and exploration nurture within the studio?
TMStudents engaged in critical dialogue about how organizational structures shape not only work, but also culture, authorship, and the politics of design. Discussions focused on the role of trust in decentralized systems, the potential for shared responsibilities with or without fixed hierarchies, and the tensions between autonomy and accountability. There was particular interest in how collective intelligence operates, how decisions are made, who speaks for the group, and how to truly balance efficiency with inclusivity.
As the complexity of the built environment increases, the design process requires outcomes unattainable through the knowledge of a single author. It involves suspending assumptions and embracing an exploratory process of open research, dialogue, analysis, prototyping, and testing from multiple perspectives. Rather than adhering to normative processes, design can be reimagined as a creative act — open and responsive to the unexpected. When situated as a collective task, design becomes more resilient by drawing on diverse viewpoints. In particular, it acknowledges and integrates the complex, often contradictory needs of varied groups, incorporating multifaceted insights into the outcome.
This approach fosters greater functional acceptance and a deeper connection to the needs of both people and the environment. It asserts its intersubjective value by developing a kind of cultural immunity to obsolescence. This act of creative collaboration embeds architecture into broader contexts, wherein constant negotiation compels it to identify and expand its unique societal proposition.
Such reciprocity holds the potential to integrate distinct domains of knowledge and, through the building of common ground, can help weaken ideological extremes. In this sense, design becomes an act of facilitation and learning — one shaped by multiplicity and inclusion. This approach is commended in open, progressive societies but often marginalized within traditional institutions and private enterprises.
KOOZWhat alternative models or counterexamples emerged from these explorations?
TMRather than proposing fixed countermodels, what emerged was a shared search for guiding principles: trust over control, flexibility over hierarchy, transparency over assumption. Ideas like rotating roles, shared ownership, and distributed responsibility surfaced — not as solutions, but as starting points to question the status quo of organizational principles. The focus shifted from designing new systems to asking better questions about how we work and how those structures shape what we create.
KOOZThroughout this experimentation, students focused on modes of habitation in Zürich and were invited to develop a series of “capable” structures. How do you define a capable structure?
SLWell, this is still up for debate, but a working definition of a capable structure is a building designed to balance robustness, adaptability, and aesthetic appeal — allowing it to serve its intended purpose while remaining fit for continuous transformation. If we agree that current models of building development are antiquated, socially and environmentally damaging, and compromise the regenerative potential of design, then we need to rethink how we conceive structures to prioritize resilience, flexibility, and a creative approach to their particular material and spatial life-cycles. Our 500-Year Tower is an example of this, the core structure is designed to technically stand for 500 years, whereas its dimensions between the 3-floor slabs allow for any type of use to be played out. This, of course, highlights the inadequacy of our current financial and governance models, which are overwhelmingly short-term in addressing the built environment.
"A capable structure is a building designed to balance robustness, adaptability, and aesthetic appeal — allowing it to serve its intended purpose while remaining fit for continuous transformation."
- Scott Lloyd
TMWe deliberately left the term capable structure open-ended. It was meant to provoke and invite students to interpret, contest, and expand its meaning through design. Essentially, it refers to programmatically ambiguous structures — spatial frameworks not tied to a fixed function but open to adaptation, reinterpretation, and multiple modes of inhabitation. Rather than prescribing meaning, the studio positioned the notion as a question, encouraging students to decipher and test its implications through design.
500-Year Tower. TEN Studio, Olivier Campagne, 2022.
KOOZHow does the brief relate to your view of architecture as a speculative practice — one that anticipates specific conditions — rather than a reactionary response to immediate needs?
SLIt aligns with our interest in expanded timelines, experimentation, prototypes, and using design to cultivate an aesthetic of discovery.
TMThe capable structure addresses this by shifting the scale. Rather than trying to predict future needs, it enables a localized, context-sensitive mode of engagement that’s inherently more agile and adaptive. This reframes speculation — not as a large-scale projection — but as the creation of components that remain open to transformation through use.
By 2040, Zurich’s population is projected to grow by 110,000 people. This prognosis demands not only new housing but also the expansion of social and physical infrastructures to address growing needs for mobility, education, safety, and leisure. These developments must be considered within the cultural and ecological systems — both existing and future — of the broader city.
Contemporary architecture is shaped by fundamentally wasteful development practices, dictated by the construction sector and its short-term financialisation models. It is now common knowledge that such models are antiquated, socially and environmentally harmful, and undermine the regenerative potential of design. For architecture, merely aiming to build less and reuse more is an inadequate response — there is an urgent need to develop new models within the discipline that can meet today’s diverse market demands while adapting to the evolving social and ecological conditions of the future.
Nevertheless, a shift is underway in the current design discourse toward the creation of “future-proof” buildings — whether newly constructed or adapted through reuse — that offer a more sustainable approach to the built environment.
KOOZWhat kind of projects did the brief nurture and how did these respond to the pressure and frameworks of the city of Zurich?
SLWe began by proposing that a capable structure on the sites we selected could address pressing needs in a growing city — such as the housing shortage, affordability crisis, and rapid population growth — and contribute to Zürich’s rich legacy of experimentation in affordable habitation. However, given the experimental nature of the studio, we also encouraged alternative approaches that followed other leads.
KOOZThe projects were exhibited within the context of the final semester exhibition which also provided the setting for the two days of final crits. How did the focus on process shape the concept / output of the exhibition? What conversations did this day nurture?
SLWhile planning the exhibition with you we always returned to this tension in documenting design processes. We often forget how much editing goes into telling a story about design. While we aim to reveal the messy process of how things come together to support relatability, everything ultimately gets reduced to form, with an inherent expectation of coherence.To counter this, we set up a 20-meter table where students displayed a curated selection of artifacts from their design journey — from initial sketches and AI contact sheets to references and refined drawings. Still, the prevailing culture of perfection at the ETH, and the idea that the audience should not be burdened by the stress of creation inevitably shaped the final production.
TMThe exhibition foregrounded process as the primary content: failed attempts, speculative detours, material trials, and evolving narratives. This approach transformed the final critiques into genuine conversations, focusing not on what a project is, but on what it could become. It fostered a critical atmosphere where both students and guests could unpack ideas, test assumptions, and question the norms of our discipline.
"The exhibition foregrounded process as the primary content: failed attempts, speculative detours, material trials, and evolving narratives."
- Tijana Mačkić
KOOZNow that the semester has come to a close, how do you reflect on it? In what ways did it meet or exceed your expectations?
SLWe were upfront with everyone that this was an experiment — one we were actively part of. Because of that, our expectations were varied, but above all, we shared an interest in setting the stage for the unexpected. The quality of work and focus from the students was very impressive, and we’ll take a lot from this experience moving forward. Most importantly, this experiment underscored the value of cultivating a critical and open design process—not only for the sake of the final design product but to affirm the role of designers as active agents in shaping the built environment.
TMIn the end, the design outcomes were more coherent and conceptually grounded than we initially anticipated. As an open-ended experiment, the semester proved highly valuable — not only in testing the pedagogical framework but also in revealing how students navigate ambiguity and collective authorship. It has given us a clearer sense of how to refine the methodology, along with strong motivation to expand and adapt it further with more precision and depth.
* The texts in italics have been extracted from the course reader. [details to be included]
About
D-Arch ETH Zürich is a dynamic, technologically experimental research and teaching environment – driven by an engagement in social, ecological and sustainable topics focused on the design of architecture, landscape architecture, cities and their territories.
ETH Students
Linus Arnold, Victoria Balmer, Nick Baumann, Yanis Bienz, Marvin Bienz, Jasper Blind, Lukas Buettner, Mattia Bäggli, Marco Casagrande, Leandro Dietz, Paul Dillier, Lukas Felleisen, Sergio Giubbini, Driton Hasanaj, Fabian Hug, Adrian Hug, Maria Karaivanova, Moritz Käser, Saira Mudakarayil, Loris Müller, Dario Rüegg, Lisa Suremann, Melvin Thayanantharajan, Tamara Zecevic.
TEN is an architecture and research association working on the principle that value is an outcome of design effort. Its engagement on public themes of interest and design of the built environment is shaped by its common statute and open collaborative approach. TEN is rooted in Europe but practices without borders. It aims to conceive, explore and produce ideas that both state and expand upon emerging practices in the built environment. Its focus lies on producing new design realities by means of creating prototypes, innovative buildings, urban propositions, and environmentally sensible resource and material application with a wide range of collaborators, colleagues, institutional partners and private clients. TEN is currently focused on developing models for sustainable, affordable and adaptive buildings with particular focus on capable structures, reuse and cohabitation for different time horizons.
TEN ETH Teaching Team
Lukas Burkhart
, Matyas Enz, Fabian Lauener, Scott Lloyd, Tijana Mačkić, Fabiana Frisullo
, Luka Piškorec
, Nicolas Rothenbühler, Joel Zimmerli , Nemanja Zimonjić.
Bios
Scott Lloyd MSc. ETH Arch works on architecture, design strategy, and urban transformation. His work focuses on the value of design effort and collective design intelligence. His research, teaching and writing explore the economy, politics and aesthetics of spatial production.
Tijana Mačkić PhD. is an architect, researcher, and educator based in Belgrade. She earned her doctoral degree in Architecture and Urbanism from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade. Her research explores the intersection of architectural practice and digital media theory, with a focus on hypertextuality and the role of reference within the design process.
Pdf Readings
Flatland: Edwin A. Abbott, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions (London: Seeley, 1884).
Structure Happens: Valve Corporation, Valve Handbook for New Employees (Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation, 2012).
We Value T-Shaped People: Valve Corporation, Valve Handbook for New Employees (Bellevue, WA: Valve Corporation, 2012).
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Holger Frölich, "Decentralized Autonomous Organizations,"ARTS OF THE WORKING CLASS, (Berlin).
The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, 1999).
I Owe My Soul to the Company DAO: Habib William Kherbek, "I Owe My Soul to the Company DAO," ARTS OF THE WORKING CLASS, (Berlin).
Open Conclusion / S: Rethinking Architecture: Nathalie Donat-Cattin, Scott Lloyd, Open Conclusion / S: Rethinking Architecture in Collective Processes: Counterpractices in European Architecture, (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2022).
The Tyranny of Structurelessness: Jo Freeman, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness," in Berkeley Journal of Sociology 17 (1972–1973): 151–65.
Beauty and the Beast: Collectivity and the Corporation: Legacy Russell, Beauty and the Beast: Collectivity and the Corporation in Radical Friends: Decentralised Autonomous Organisations and the Arts, (Torque Editions, 2022).
The Blue Pill: YEARN, The Blue Pill (Cape Town, 2021).
Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern: Bruno Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30, no. 2 (2004): 225–48.
Animal Farm: George Orwell, Animal Farm: A Fairy Story (London: Secker and Warburg, 1945).
Im Kollektiv durch den Alltag: UNITERRE, Im Kollektiv durch den Alltag in In Das Land Deinen, Die Es Bewirtschaften! (Lausanne, 2024).
Governing the Commons: Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Dreaming Is After All, Another Form of Planning: Erik Bordeleau, interviewed by Inte Gloerich, "Dreaming Is After All, Another Form of Planning," Artists, Activists and Worldbuilders on Decentralized Autonomous Organisations, 2024[https://etherport.org/publications/inc/dao_book/print.html#erik-bordeleau].
Less Is Enough: On Architecture and Asceticism: Pier Vittorio Aureli, Less Is Enough: On Architecture and Asceticism (Moscow: Strelka Press, 2013).
The Interior City: Infinity and Concavity in the No-Stop City (1970–1971): Andrea Branzi, "The Interior City: Infinity and Concavity in the No-Stop City (1970–1971)," in No-Stop City: Archizoom Associati (Art Books International, 2000).
Houses of the Future:Jurjen Zeinstra, Houses of the Future, OASE 75 Journal, (Rotterdam, 2008). (Publication details needed).
Building and the Terror of Time: Anthony Vidler, The Architectural Uncanny: Essays in the Modern Unhomely (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992).
Architecture for Barbarians: Ludwig Hilberseimer and the Rise of the Generic City: Pier Vittorio Aureli, "Architecture for Barbarians: Ludwig Hilberseimer and the Rise of the Generic City,"AA Files, No. 63 (London, 2011).Sloterdijk’s Anthropotechnics: Patrick Roney and Andrea Rossi, "Sloterdijk’s Anthropotechnics," Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 26:1, (Oxfordshire, 2021).
A B C Demands the Dictatorship of the Machine: Hans Schmidt and Mart Stam, "A B C Demands the Dictatorship of the Machine," ABC No. 4 Vol. 2, (Basel, 1928)..
The Uncanny Valley: Masahiro Mori, "The Uncanny Valley," Energy 7, no. 4 (1970): 33–35.
Authoritarian and Democratic Technics: Lewis Mumford, "Authoritarian and Democratic Technics," Technology and Culture 5, no. 1 (1964): 1–8.
The Rise: Brian A. Massumi, The Rise: Aesthetic Perception in Cultural Context (Details Needed).
In the Alphabet and the Algorithm: Mario Carpo, The Alphabet and the Algorithm (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011).
Too Much World: Is the Internet Dead?: Hito Steyerl, “Too Much World: Is the Internet Dead?,” E-flux Journal 49 (November 2013).
Do Objects Dream of an Internet of Things?: Teodor Mitew, "Do Objects Dream of an Internet of Things?," The Fibreculture Journal, 23, (New South Wales, 2014).
Venus Smiles: J.G. Ballard, "Venus Smiles," in The Disaster Area (New York: Penguin Books, 1967).
The Medium Is the Massage: Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects (New York: Bantam Books, 1967).
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 217–51.
Where Is the Public in the Metaverse?:Hito Steyerl, Mat Dryhurst, Joshua Citarella, "Where Is the Public in the Metaverse?," Arts of the Working Class (Berlin).
