* the list is neither contractual nor exhaustive

The concept of the installation Itineracy emerged from a series of reflections concerning the historical relationship between the railway systems and the notions of simultaneity and universality as well as the implications of these notions nowadays.
The concept of “Universal Time” is a recent one. Before the nineteenth century, when a trip from one country to another took days, and from one continent to another, months, there was little need to coordinate the time between different places. The introduction of standard time, in the early nineteenth century, was closely related to the development of the railway system. Just as the standardisation of time begets the idea of synchronisation, the establishment of a universal time begets that of simultaneity.
Two hundred years later, we assume blindly that the entire globe is permanently living a singular moment, a universal present. What is more, we know that in economical as much as in ecological terms we are tied to people situated in distant everyday realities and landscapes. This condition is visually addressed by Itineracy.
Since our link to distant people is far from a simple given, particular attention is conferred in the filming process to the subject of borders, in terms of human, physical and political geography. Subsequently, even if those borders remain present in the captured landscapes, they are metaphorically abolished by the installation structure, where new continuities and contiguities emerge constantly.
The screens being designed to suggest windows might affect the interpretation of Itineracy, given the paradoxical nature of windows themselves as closed openings. Following this logic, this installation can be seen as a transparent opening which protects viewers from the outside world as much as it projects them into it.
This piece is deliberately set to be multi-layered. Open to the public, it intends to raise questions rather than to give answers. Hopefully it will encourage unexpected interpretations. Ideally it shall be captivating enough that viewers will ‘loose their train of thought’ or even be tempted to miss their actual train.

This installation is related to western and eastern landscape traditions: panoramas and rolled screens. Panoramic monumental imagery reached its peak during the nineteenth century, when commercial panoramas were a popular entertainment industry in several European and North American cities. Special buildings were constructed to hold enormous circular paintings that, with their heightened illusion, attracted the crowds. Less static, traditional Chinese rolled screens entail both a manual and visual act of unrolling. Amongst other subjects, descriptive and narrative landscapes where remarkably executed for centuries in that type of scroll.
Itineracy can be partially understood as an unrolled panorama in motion. Comparably to panorama, it proposes a partial immersion. Comparably to a scroll, it constitutes a device to record space. Composition in Itineracy acquires an additional aspect, that of time, which becomes as a result intrinsically tied to the editing process. Analogously, the editing happens to be in every moment transversal, aware of the spatial dimension.
The challenge of representing a new type of landscape, a ‘universal and simultaneous’ one, confronts us to supplementary questions. Where to and where from? or even, Why moving from here to there?-when one is already everywhere. As a limited answer, Itineracy, unlike standard films, does not have a beginning or an end. The final editing is generative, explicitly a video data base permanently accessed and displaying the film according to an underlying program. In order to control the result to some extent but still give a chance to the unattended, this program combines the pre-recorded sequences in a partially ordered and partially random manner. This configuration confers to Itineracy the possibility of permanent mutation and change.