In the abstract, I posed two questions: what happens when a spatial constellation is presented on a medially formatted time-line? And how to focus one’s attention in an associatively saturated literary space? Now, in this concluding section, it is time to reflect on whether and how these questions were answered in this exposition. Both of the questions imply a subject of experience; they are not addressing states of things that could be pinpointed objectively. Whatever happens in the aesthetic weighings that the exposition stages and offers for the reader-experiencer, does not take place in a discursive space that could be discerned by a third party. Since this exposition is not about the author’s subjective experiences either, all relevant answers to these two questions cannot but remain structurally open. Some afterthoughts, however, might be appropriate here:
1. If one would continue conceptualising the methodical entanglement of the two installations, one might find a relevant point of reference in the notion of zethesis highlighted for example by Henke et al. in Manifesto of Artistic Research. This would, however, easily lead to a meta-discussion on artistic research, which this exposition wanted to avoid.
2. It would be counterproductive for the endeavour undertaken in this exposition to provide the last word to a written argument or conclusion. Therefore, I strongly suggest playing it again – encore!