Proposal Guidance ONX Residency

2026-02-27 14:43 UTC gpt-5-2 Open in ChatGPT ↗

I am writing a proposal for an open call at Onassis ONX . Here is the open call

For 2026/27 AiR/ONX Residencies we invite proposals that explore digital conceptualizations with analog qualities, including non-surveillance, anti-extraction, and non-algorithmic approaches.

In 2026/27, Onassis AiR continues its collaboration with Onassis ONX through a series of Onassis AiR/ONX Residencies.

Onassis ONX is the Onassis Foundation’s global platform for art and advanced technologies. Acting as a catalyst for digital cultures, it supports genre-defying new media and immersive projects while also bolstering a network of institutions and industries ready to respond to new forms of creative expression. Onassis ONX is dedicated to supporting innovative creators across development, presentation, and distribution through its studios in Athens and New York. Such a holistic approach throughout the creative process enables world-building at the frontiers of AI, immersive and spatial computing, gaming, and other emergent time-based media, fostering works that meaningfully engage audiences around the world.

For 2026/27, we specifically invite proposals that explore digital conceptualizations with analog qualities, including non-surveillance, anti-extraction, and non-algorithmic approaches. We seek art and advanced technology projects that challenge prevailing AI paradigms – exemplified by LLMs and big tech – which demand vast amounts of energy and resources for both training and operation. Likewise, we are interested in concepts centered on non-extractive platforms, tactical AI tech stacks, slow technologies, and technologies oriented toward pausing and healing. We welcome ideas engaging with techno-shamanism and techno-spirituality, as well as affective tech specifications and affective design.

Proposals may include time-based digital works, digital games, immersive installations, stagecraft experimentations, durational performances, or prototypes for stage performances.

Participants have access to mentoring from industry experts and academic advisors and to curatorial and technical consulting from the Onassis ONX team and members in both Athens and New York. Additionally, the Onassis AiR/ONX Fellows may take part in showcase and networking opportunities within the Onassis Culture ecosystem, as well as with external distributors, investors, and producers.

And here is my draft idea:

Idea 1 Blurbs: Ephemeral Data (WIP title) Idea Inspiration The main idea reflects on the aspects of data permanence, their physical implications with need for equipment maintenance and ultimately their inevitable destruction.

Main inspiration comes from the fact that: Data is stored on physical machines that will eventually fail unless systematically maintained.

Main Description Draft The artwork can be envisioned as an exhibition or performance (still undecided). Old pieces of data (these are incidental not contextually meaningful, for example a piece of text) are encoded on discs made of wax. The encoding is a simple, morse-like, dot pattern. A camera is focused on one disc at a time and is responsible for decoding the information enclosed in it. A light source behind the disc is responsible for revealing the encoded pattern as the lit disc becomes more and more translucent. BUT there is a catch. The light source, as much as it facilitates decoding and provides access, equally it slowly destroys the disk as the heat generated slowly melts it. In this closed loop, the act of knowing destroys the conditions of knowing making it clear that if you want to see you must damage.

Illumination becomes extractive. Each moment of visibility irreversibly alters the material substrate that makes decoding possible. The system enacts an irrecoverable computation in which access accelerates loss and the desire to know directly undermines the conditions of knowing. The work reflects on data fragility through a lens of physical constraint rather than algorithmic simulation.

one of the prerequisites for the submission is this:

Please include a PDF file with 1 work sample that is relevant to the current project proposal, or a draft excerpt of the project proposal. (Format: .pdf, up to 50MB)

And i wonder how to approach this since i don’t really have a relevant piece of work as we tend to d more digital driven works. When it say excerpts what exactly does this mean in this case and what should I produce?

This is a strong idea and it already aligns very well with what Onassis ONX is explicitly asking for—especially around non-extractive tech, material computation, irreversibility, and anti-LLM paradigms. You’re in a good conceptual position.

I’ll answer your question in three layers:

What “draft excerpt of the project proposal” actually means in this context
What you should submit instead of a past work sample
A concrete, low-risk PDF structure you can produce (even without prior analog work)

1. What “draft excerpt” means here (curatorial reality check)

In open calls like this, “draft excerpt” does not mean:

a fragment of an existing finished artwork
technical documentation
or a partially built prototype

It does mean:

A materially legible articulation of the proposed work that demonstrates conceptual rigor, aesthetic direction, and feasibility—without requiring prior realization.

Curators use this option specifically for artists whose idea:

is speculative
is materially risky or destructive
cannot exist before institutional support
or intentionally resists conventional digital outputs

In other words: this clause exists for you.

So you are not expected to fake an earlier “similar” work.

2. What you should submit instead (and why it works)

Given your practice is more digitally driven, the smartest move is to submit a proposal-as-artifact rather than a “work sample.”

For ONX, this is not a downgrade. In fact, it signals conceptual maturity.

You should submit a PDF that functions as:

a draft excerpt of the project
a conceptual prototype
and a material thought experiment

This aligns perfectly with:

non-algorithmic computation
slow technologies
affective tech specifications
irreversibility and entropy

3. What to actually produce: a clear, safe, curatorial-friendly PDF

Recommended format:

8–12 pages PDF (lightweight, text + diagrams + references)

Think of it as a score, not documentation.

Suggested structure (you can copy this almost verbatim)

1. Title Page

Ephemeral Data (working title)
Subtitle (optional): Irrecoverable Computation Through Material Exposure

Include:

Your name
“Draft Project Excerpt for Onassis AiR/ONX 2026/27”

2. Conceptual Premise (1–2 pages)

Refine what you already wrote—this is strong material.

You can frame it like this:

Data is treated as immaterial and infinitely reproducible
Yet every act of storage relies on fragile physical substrates
Maintenance, cooling, and preservation are hidden forms of extraction

Emphasize:

access = damage
visibility = extraction
computation as heat

This directly mirrors ONX’s language around:

non-surveillance, anti-extraction, slow technologies

3. System Description as a “Non-Algorithmic Stack” (1–2 pages)

Present the work as a tech stack without algorithms:

Wax discs as storage medium
Morse-like dot encoding (manual, legible, low entropy)
Camera as reader
Light as both decoder and destructive force

You might label this section:

A Tactical, Non-Extractive Computation System

This explicitly speaks ONX’s language.

4. Diagrammatic Pages (Very Important)

Include simple diagrams or sketches, even if rough:

Disc → light → camera → decoded output
Timeline showing disc degradation
Loop showing access → destruction → loss

These do not need to be “artistic.” Curators value:

clarity
intentionality
systems thinking

Even Figma, Illustrator, or hand-drawn scans are fine.

5. Excerpt: Visitor or Performer Experience (1 page)

Write this as a scripted excerpt, not a description.

Example:

A disc is placed.
Light activates.
The pattern emerges.
The message becomes legible.
The disc warps.
The message stutters.
Eventually, the text disappears.

This counts as a draft excerpt in curatorial terms.

6. Why This Work Cannot Exist Without the Residency (1 page)

This is crucial.

Explicitly state:

The work requires material experimentation
Iterative failure is part of the concept
Institutional support enables slow, destructive testing

This justifies:

lack of prior work
need for ONX facilities
the residency itself

7. References / Context (optional but strong)

Briefly situate the work alongside:

material computation
entropy-based art
non-reversible media

You don’t need citations—just conceptual lineage.

What NOT to do ❌

Don’t try to retrofit a past digital project
Don’t over-polish into a “proposal deck”
Don’t apologize for lack of prior analog work
Don’t treat this as documentation

How curators will read your PDF

They will ask:

Is this idea legible?
Is it materially specific?
Does it resist dominant AI paradigms in form, not rhetoric?
Does it need ONX to exist?

Your project already answers “yes” to all four.

Short reassurance

Submitting a well-articulated draft excerpt is not a fallback—it is often a stronger submission than a mismatched work sample.

If you want, next we can:

tighten your conceptual language to match ONX’s curatorial tone
rewrite your description into a polished proposal excerpt
or design a one-page diagrammatic system map together

Just tell me which step you want next.

So this is more like a pitch deck. They also require all of these:

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Please include a PDF file with 1 work sample that is relevant to the current project proposal, or a draft excerpt of the project proposal. (Format: .pdf, up to 50MB) Please include a PDF file with your CV. (up to 3 pages, Format: .pdf, up to 50MB) Please include a PDF file with your portfolio (Format: .pdf, up to 50MB) Please include a PDF file with your production plan that includes a) tech rider (technical, logistical, spatial requirements), b) provisional budget and c) suggested production roadmap for what you wish to develop within the constraints on the Residency and feasibility within the timeframe provided. (Format: .pdf, up to 50MB)

So maybe parts of that pitch deck you proposed are already covered in other docs?

Yes — you’re reading this exactly right now 👍
What you are being asked for is not one pitch deck split across files, but four different documents with different curatorial functions. If you duplicate content across them, it will weaken the application.

Below is a clean separation of purpose that ONX juries are used to, followed by what your “work sample / draft excerpt” should and should not contain.

First: how juries actually read these four PDFs

They usually open them in this order (even if the form lists them differently):

Work sample / draft excerpt → Is the idea compelling?
Portfolio → Can this person think and finish?
Production plan → Is this feasible and appropriate for ONX?
CV → Context, not proof

So each document must answer one question only.

What each PDF is for (very clearly)

1️⃣ Work sample OR draft excerpt

Purpose: Conceptual and aesthetic proof of THIS project
Audience question:

“Do I understand the work, and does it belong at ONX?”

This is NOT:

a full pitch deck
a budget
a technical rider
a career overview

This IS:

a focused conceptual artifact
often 4–8 pages
allowed to be speculative
allowed to be textual, diagrammatic, or procedural

Think of it as:

the work speaking for itself

2️⃣ Portfolio

Purpose: Demonstrate your artistic intelligence and continuity
Audience question:

“Does this artist have a practice, even if this new work shifts material direction?”

This is where your digital-driven works belong.

You are not expected to:

show analog precedents
prove you’ve melted wax before

You are expected to:

show conceptual rigor
show systems thinking
show completion and presentation skills

ONX understands material shifts. They fund them.

3️⃣ Production plan (tech rider + budget + roadmap)

Purpose: Operational sanity check
Audience question:

“Can this be produced safely, ethically, and on time within our ecosystem?”

This is the only document where you talk about:

equipment
space
timeline
costs
staffing

No poetics here. Plain language wins.

4️⃣ CV

Purpose: Context only.
Not persuasion.
No one reads this first.

So yes — parts of the “pitch deck” idea must be REMOVED

Your instinct is right: the earlier structure I proposed should be split across documents.

Let’s reassign content properly.

What goes ONLY into the “Work Sample / Draft Excerpt” PDF

Recommended length: 5–7 pages

Include:

Title + short premise
Core concept (irreversibility, extraction through access)
Material system description
1–2 diagrams
A short experiential or procedural excerpt

Explicitly EXCLUDE:

budget
tech rider
production timeline
residency justification
your bio
references to ONX facilities

If you mention feasibility, it should be conceptual, not logistical.

Think of this file as:

“If this work existed in the world, what is it?”

Not:

“How will I convince ONX to fund it?”

That persuasion happens elsewhere.

What goes into the Production Plan instead

This is where you reframe the same project without poetry.

Example split:

Conceptual idea	Where it goes
“Light destroys the disc”	Work sample
“LED array at X lumen output”	Tech rider
“Irrecoverable computation”	Work sample
“Camera + decoding script”	Tech rider
“Access accelerates loss”	Work sample
“Consumable wax discs per week”	Budget

This separation signals professionalism.

Why ONX allows “draft excerpt” even with these other documents

Because they know that:

portfolios show past logic
production plans show future feasibility
draft excerpts show artistic thinking in motion

Especially for:

destructive works
durational systems
non-repeatable processes

Your project sits squarely in that category.

What a strong jury reaction looks like

A good reviewer reaction is:

“This work sample is spare but precise. I understand the gesture immediately.”

A bad reaction is:

“This feels like a proposal slide deck repeated across PDFs.”

You are already avoiding the second one by asking this question.

Concrete next step (recommended)

If you want, next we can:

outline the exact table of contents for each PDF
write a 2–3 page draft excerpt text together
or help you translate your existing digital portfolio so it supports this material turn instead of contradicting it

Just tell me which document you want to tackle first.

Great — this clarifies everything.
With these form questions added, we can now lock the structure with confidence and avoid duplication or dilution.

Below is a precise content map showing what goes where, why, and how much — tailored to Onassis AiR / ONX specifically.

Big picture: how the application functions as a whole

Think of the application as a distributed proposal, not a single text split up.

Each component has a distinct cognitive role:

Component	Role
Form answers	Curatorial framing & narrative clarity
Work sample / draft excerpt PDF	Artistic intelligence & material logic
Portfolio PDF	Proof of practice & continuity
Production plan PDF	Feasibility & responsibility
CV	Context only

If you repeat the same language across these, it weakens the signal.

Now, question by question — what to write and what NOT to repeat

1️⃣ Short Bio & Description of Practice

(2000 chars / 300 words)

Purpose

This is about you, not this project.

Curators read this to understand:

your long-term interests
how this proposal emerges naturally from your practice
whether you’re capable of conceptual shifts

What to include

Your focus on digital systems, media, computation, or time-based work
Your interest in materiality, infrastructures, limits, failure, entropy, etc.
A sentence that signals why a material / analog turn makes sense now

What NOT to include

No detailed project description
No tech rider language
No budget or logistics

Think:

“This project is a logical next step for me.”

2️⃣ Project Logline

(350 chars / 50 words)

Purpose

This is a curatorial hook.

It’s often copied directly into:

internal jury notes
shortlists
press drafts

Structure that works well for ONX

What it is (form)
What it does (mechanism)
What it reveals (conceptual tension)

Example structure (not final text):

An installation in which data is physically encoded on wax discs and decoded through light, whose heat gradually erases the information it reveals. The work stages access as an extractive act, exposing data storage as a fragile, irreversible material process rather than an immaterial abstraction.

Short. Cold. Precise.

3️⃣ Project Description: Core idea & steps

(2000 chars / 300 words)

Purpose

This is the conceptual + procedural spine of the application.

Curators ask:

“Do I understand what happens, and does the artist know how to proceed?”

What to include

Core idea (irreversibility, extraction, physical limits of data)
Clear description of the system (wax, encoding, light, camera)
High-level steps you’d undertake during the residency:
- material tests
- encoding method development
- calibration of light / heat
- iteration on degradation thresholds

What NOT to include

Budget numbers
Equipment lists
Floor plans
Residency justification rhetoric

This should read as:

“Here is the work, and here is how it unfolds.”

4️⃣ Relation to the locality of Onassis AiR

(1400 chars / 200 words)

This is where many applications fail by being vague. ONX expects specificity without tourism.

What “locality” means here

Not:

“Athens has history”
“New York is a tech hub”

But:

material infrastructures
energy, climate, labor, archives
cultural attitudes toward preservation, ruin, maintenance

Strong angles for your project

You might frame:

Athens as a site of layered material history, erosion, and ruin
Data permanence vs. cultural memory and loss
Maintenance as a historically visible practice (repair, care, decay)

You can also mention:

sourcing local materials
collaborating with local fabricators or technicians
situating the work within ONX’s research-driven context

Still: no tech rider here.

Where each idea should live (final map)

Idea / Content	Where it belongs
Conceptual framing	Form Q3 + Work sample
Poetic language	Work sample
System diagrams	Work sample
Step-by-step artistic process	Form Q3
Equipment lists	Production plan
Budget	Production plan
Past works	Portfolio
Career narrative	Bio
Why ONX	Locality question

So what is the “work sample / draft excerpt” now, exactly?

It becomes:

A focused artistic document that shows how the work thinks — not how it is produced.

It complements the form, it does not repeat it.

If the form answers explain the work to ONX,
the draft excerpt lets the work speak for itself.

Reassurance (important)

You are not overcomplicating this.
ONX expects this level of clarity.

Your project:

fits the call thematically
benefits from speculative articulation
does not require a past analog precedent

If you want, next we can:

draft the logline together
compress your idea into a 300-word project description
or outline the exact 5–6 pages of the draft excerpt PDF

Just say which one you want to tackle first.

Absolutely — let’s lock this down precisely, so you can produce the excerpt with confidence and not second-guess it later.

Below is the definitive answer to what the “draft excerpt” PDF should include for Onassis AiR / ONX, tailored to your project.

What the Draft Excerpt Is

A self-contained artistic artifact that presents the proposed work as if it already exists conceptually, without justification, budgeting, or institutional framing.

It is not a proposal. It is not documentation. It is not a pitch.

It is closer to:

a score
a system description
a material thought experiment
an exhibition text for a work not yet realized

Ideal length & format

5–7 pages PDF
Minimal design
Black & white is fine
Text + 1–2 diagrams
No logos, no ONX mentions, no CV info

EXACT CONTENT (page by page)

Page 1 — Title + Premise

This page should feel like the opening wall text of an exhibition.

Include:

Title (working title is fine)
3–5 sentence premise

Tone: Declarative. No “this project explores.”
The work states what it does.

Example structure:

Ephemeral Data is a time-based installation in which fragments of data are physically encoded on wax discs. Each disc is rendered legible through light, whose heat simultaneously degrades the material substrate. Access becomes inseparable from loss: the act of decoding irreversibly alters the conditions that make decoding possible.

Page 2 — Core Logic of the System

This is the conceptual heart.

Include:

The rule-set of the work
The closed loop
The irreversibility

Explain the system as if describing a machine that already exists.

Focus on:

storage → access → degradation
visibility → extraction
time → entropy

Avoid metaphors here. Precision matters.

Page 3 — Material Computation

This page reframes the work as non-algorithmic computation.

Include:

Why wax
Why light
Why physical encoding
Why destruction is not a bug but the computation itself

You can explicitly state:

No optimization
No recovery
No abstraction

This page should resonate strongly with ONX’s “slow technologies” language — without naming it.

Page 4 — Diagrammatic Page

One clean diagram is enough.

Possible diagrams:

Disc → light → camera → decoded output
Timeline showing increasing opacity / deformation
Feedback loop of access → loss

Label things simply:

“Light source”
“Material degradation”
“Partial decoding”

This page is crucial for jurors who think visually.

Page 5 — Experiential / Procedural Excerpt

This is the “excerpt” part, literally.

Write this as a temporal fragment:

what happens over minutes, hours, days
what changes
what disappears

Example tone:

A disc is placed.
The light activates.
The pattern emerges.
The text becomes partially legible.
The disc warps.
The pattern softens.
Decoding slows.
Eventually, no signal remains.

This reads as a score, not a description.

Optional Page 6 — Limits & Conditions

Only include this if you feel it adds clarity.

Include:

What cannot be recovered
What cannot be sped up
What cannot be optimized

This page subtly asserts ethical positioning without slogans.

What MUST NOT appear in the excerpt

This is non-negotiable:

❌ Budget
❌ Equipment lists
❌ Production timeline
❌ Residency language
❌ Audience justification
❌ Artist biography
❌ ONX / Onassis references
❌ “During the residency I will…”

If any of these appear, it stops being an excerpt and becomes a proposal.

How jurors will interpret this document

They will think:

“This artist understands the work deeply.”
“The system is coherent and intentional.”
“The material logic is inseparable from the concept.”
“This belongs in an ONX context.”

They will not expect:

polish
final answers
proof it already works

They expect clarity of thinking.

One-sentence litmus test

If someone removed your name and sent this PDF to a curator, they should say:

“I understand exactly what this work is, even though it doesn’t exist yet.”

If it passes that test, you’re done.

If you want, next we can:

draft Page 1–2 text together
design the single diagram
or compress your existing description into this “excerpt voice”

Just tell me where you want to start.

Absolutely — and you’re right: “Ephemeral Data” is accurate but too neutral for ONX. The idea itself is sharp, irreversible, and materially violent in a quiet way. The title can carry more of that charge.

Below are carefully tuned alternatives, grouped by tone, so you can choose strategically depending on how poetic vs. austere you want to be. None of these are gimmicky; all would read as credible in an ONX shortlist.

1. Precise & Conceptually Sharp

(Good if you want intellectual clarity and confidence)

Irrecoverable Computation
Access as Damage
Conditions of Knowing
Non-Recoverable Storage
Material Loss Protocol
The Cost of Visibility
Failure as Storage

These feel strong in curatorial conversations and catalogs.

2. Material & Sensory

(Foregrounds wax, heat, light, decay)

Soft Archive
Melting Point
Heat Index
Wax Memory
Thermal Read
Burning the Signal
Opacity Over Time

These work well if the installation’s physical presence is central.

3. Poetic but Controlled

(Evocative without drifting into mysticism)

What Remains After Access
Every Reading Is a Loss
The Light That Erases
To Know Is to Damage
Visibility Wounds
After the Signal
Only While It Lasts

These are memorable and quote-ready.

4. Systemic / Protocol Language

(Echoes technical documentation, non-algorithmic stacks)

Read / Degrade
Decode Until Failure
Lossy Medium
Read-Only (Until Melt)
Irreversible Read
Thermal Access Layer

These align strongly with ONX’s tech-critical framing.

5. Strong Hybrids (Often the Sweet Spot)

Irrecoverable Read
Soft Storage, Hard Loss
Access (Heat / Loss)
The Cost of Reading
Read at Your Own Risk
A Gentle Way to Destroy Data

These balance conceptual clarity with emotional charge.

Curatorial Tip (important)

You can safely use:

A poetic title, plus
A clarifying subtitle

Example:

To Know Is to Damage
An Irrecoverable Computation in Wax and Light

ONX jurors like this — it signals seriousness and legibility.

If you want a recommendation

Based on your description and the ONX call language, my top 3 for you would be:

Irrecoverable Read
The Cost of Visibility
To Know Is to Damage

If you tell me which direction resonates (clinical / poetic / material / hybrid), I can refine further or generate hyper-specific variants tuned exactly to that voice.

Great taste — that tells me a lot about the temperature you want the work to sit at:
material + conceptual + slightly dangerous, but still restrained.

Below are new titles tuned exactly to that overlap: heat / wax / thermodynamics plus epistemology, access, and damage. I’ve avoided anything cute or over-poetic.

Heat × Knowledge × Damage (Wordplay-forward)

To Know Is to Melt
Knowing Burns
Every Reading Heats
Heat Is the Price of Knowing
Access Generates Heat
Learning Curve (Thermal)
Cognition Has a Temperature
Understanding at Melting Point

These foreground epistemic cost through physical consequence.

Wax × Memory × Failure

Wax Remembers by Failing
Memory, Softened
The Wax Does Not Forget
Soft Memory / Hard Loss
Where Memory Gives Way
Melting Memory
What Wax Cannot Hold

Good if you want a quieter, more archival tone.

Light × Extraction × Visibility

What the Light Takes
Illumination Is Extractive
The Light That Costs
Visibility Has Weight
Light, Read, Ruin
Exposed Until Gone

These align very directly with ONX’s anti-extraction framing.

Clean Systemic Wordplay (Very ONX-friendly)

Thermal Epistemology
Lossy Knowing
The Heat of Access
Material Cost of Reading
Access, With Heat
Knowledge as Dissipation

These sound excellent in curatorial essays and talks.

Strong Hybrids (My favorites for you)

These balance Melting Point / Wax Memory with To Know Is to Damage energy:

Melting Point of Knowing
Wax Memory, Heated
Heat Index of Access
The Temperature of Knowledge
At the Melting Point of Reading
When Knowing Softens

Very publishable. Very ONX.

My Top 5 Recommendations (for your project specifically)

If I had to narrow it down:

Melting Point of Knowing
The Temperature of Knowledge
What the Light Takes
Heat Is the Price of Knowing
Wax Memory, Heated

All five:

reference material process
encode epistemic violence
avoid sounding generic or sci-fi
feel appropriate for a residency + exhibition context

Pro tip (optional but powerful)

You can also layer titles:

Melting Point of Knowing
Heat, Wax, and the Cost of Access

What the Light Takes
A Material Study of Knowing and Loss

If you want, tell me:

which 2–3 are closest
whether you want it colder / sharper / more poetic

and I’ll refine down to a final title + subtitle combo that fits your voice exactly.

That’s a very good instinct — and a curatorial one.
Titles that reference real scientific concepts (not poetic mashups) immediately signal seriousness, restraint, and depth. ONX juries are especially sensitive to this.

Below I’ve curated titles grounded in actual physics, materials science, and computing, each with a short note so you know exactly what it refers to and why it fits your work. None of these are invented phrases.

1. Heat & Physics (Real Terms)

Melting Point

Chemistry / materials science
✔ Already strong.
✔ Universally understood threshold where solid → liquid.
✔ Conceptually perfect for irreversible loss.

Phase Transition

Physics / thermodynamics
A change of state driven by energy input.

Why it fits:

Reading = energy input
Data crosses a threshold and becomes unreadable
Irreversibility is intrinsic

Very ONX.

Thermal Runaway

Electronics & battery physics
A feedback loop where heat causes more heat until failure.

Why it fits:

Light causes heat
Heat accelerates destruction
Access feeds its own collapse

This one is extremely good for your system.

Critical Temperature

Physics (superconductivity, phase change)
A precise temperature beyond which properties fail.

Why it fits:

Knowledge exists only below a threshold
Beyond it, the system collapses
Clean, elegant, serious

Latent Heat

Thermodynamics
Energy absorbed or released during phase change without temperature change.

Why it fits:

Hidden energy cost of transformation
Reading consumes energy that isn’t immediately visible
Very subtle, very smart

2. Computing & Hardware (Actual Terms)

Junction Temperature

Semiconductor engineering
The temperature of the active region of a chip — exceeding it causes failure.

Why it fits:

“Knowing” happens at the junction
The point of operation is also the point of breakdown
Deeply technical but real

This is a killer title if you want precision.

Thermal Throttling

Computer hardware
Performance is reduced to prevent overheating.

Why it fits:

Decoding slows as material degrades
System self-limits access
Non-algorithmic “throttling” through matter

Failure Temperature

Engineering term
Maximum operating temperature before material failure.

Blunt. Accurate. Elegant.

Heat Dissipation

Electronics / thermodynamics
Removal of heat generated by operation.

Why it fits:

Your system does not dissipate heat
Accumulation becomes destruction
Implicit critique of data centers

3. Information Theory (Still real, not poetic)

Lossy Encoding

Data compression
Information is permanently discarded to reduce size.

Why it fits:

Your encoding is inherently lossy
Every read loses information
Beautiful parallel

Very strong conceptually.

Irreversible Process

Thermodynamics
A process that increases entropy and cannot return to its original state.

This might be too perfect.

Entropy Increase

Second law of thermodynamics
Systems naturally move toward disorder.

Clear, but slightly textbook-y unless paired with a subtitle.

4. My Top Recommendations (Most Aligned with Your Work)

If your goal is:

“This title already exists in science, and it exactly describes what the work does”

Then these are the strongest:

Thermal Runaway
Junction Temperature
Phase Transition
Lossy Encoding
Irreversible Process

All five:

are legitimate scientific terms
imply thresholds, damage, or loss
map cleanly onto your system
sound credible in exhibitions, catalogs, and grant texts

Very ONX-appropriate title + subtitle combos

If you want maximum clarity and poetry without invention:

Thermal Runaway
Access as an Irreversible Process
Junction Temperature
Reading at the Point of Failure
Phase Transition
A Lossy Encoding of Data
Lossy Encoding
Heat, Wax, and the Cost of Reading

Personal recommendation

Based on your idea and ONX’s framing, Thermal Runaway is my strongest recommendation.

It:

describes a real physical feedback loop
mirrors your access → heat → destruction logic
quietly critiques computational infrastructures
sounds excellent without explanation

If you tell me:

which 2–3 resonate most
how “technical” you want the title to feel

I can help you lock in a final title/subtitle that’s exactly right.

Nice — this is a good constraint, and it actually maps very cleanly onto real technical language. “HOT” is not just a vibe word; it appears all over computing, materials science, and information systems.

Below are legitimate, grounded titles that include HOT, grouped by domain, with brief notes so you can see why each one is not just wordplay.

1. Computing & Systems (Real Usage of “Hot”)

Hot Read

Computing / storage systems
A read operation that accesses actively used or recently accessed data.

Why it fits:

Reading is active, not neutral
“Hot” implies volatility and risk
Short, sharp, very ONX

Hot Data

Data engineering
Frequently accessed data kept in fast, energy-intensive storage.

Why it fits:

Access correlates with energy use
“Hotness” is literally defined by frequency of access
Strong critique of data centers

Hot Storage

Cloud infrastructure
High-performance storage tier for frequently accessed data.

Why it fits:

Direct inversion: your “hot storage” destroys itself
Elegant infrastructural critique

Hot Path

Computer architecture
The most frequently executed path in a program.

Why it fits:

The act of reading is the “hot path”
Frequency accelerates degradation

2. Electronics & Hardware

Hot Spot

Thermal engineering
A localized region of excessive heat that causes failure.

Why it fits:

Light creates a literal hot spot
Failure emerges locally and spreads
Very legible to engineers

Hot Junction

Thermoelectric physics
The heated side of a thermoelectric device.

Why it fits:

Perfect metaphor without being invented
Knowing happens at the junction
Clean, physical, precise

Hot Carrier

Semiconductor physics
A charge carrier with unusually high energy that can damage materials.

Why it fits:

Access as energetic damage
Subtle but very real term
Deeply ONX-coded

3. Archival / Information Theory

Hot Archive

Data management
An archive optimized for frequent access (rare but real usage).

Why it fits:

Archive becomes unstable under access
Tension between preservation and use

Hot Access

Information systems
High-frequency or real-time access patterns.

Why it fits:

Access is the destructive act
Reads as technical, not poetic

4. Strong Hybrid Titles (My Favorites)

These balance scientific legitimacy + conceptual clarity + memorability:

Hot Read
Hot Storage
Hot Spot
Hot Junction
Hot Data

All of these:

already mean something in tech or science
don’t require explanation
feel precise rather than clever

How these would read in an ONX context

Examples:

Hot Read
An Irreversible Material Encoding of Data

Hot Storage
Access, Heat, and Failure

Hot Spot
Where Reading Becomes Damage

Hot Junction
A Material Study of Access and Loss

All very credible.

My top recommendation if you want “HOT” explicitly

If I had to choose one:

Hot Read

It is:

a real computing term
extremely concise
conceptually exact
memorable without being gimmicky

Second place:

Hot Storage

If you want something slightly more infrastructural and critical.

If you want, next we can:

pressure-test your top 2–3 titles against the proposal language
choose a final title + subtitle combo
or test how each would read in the application logline

Just tell me which ones are rising to the top.

Honest answer, no hedging:

It’s not childish — but it is risky.
And whether it’s too risky depends on how you deploy it.

Let me explain cleanly, curator-to-curator.

Short verdict

“Now you see me, now you don’t” is:

✔ conceptually accurate
✔ readable and memorable
✔ aligned with disappearance / access / loss

But:

⚠ culturally overdetermined
⚠ associated with magic tricks, pop culture, and spectacle
⚠ easily read as cute rather than materially rigorous

So on its own, it weakens the scientific and infrastructural gravity you’ve been carefully building.

Why ONX juries are sensitive to this

ONX is not allergic to playfulness — but they are allergic to:

irony without structure
cleverness without material consequence
titles that feel like metaphors instead of mechanisms

A phrase like this reads first as:

“Disappearance as trick”

Whereas your work is about:

“Disappearance as thermodynamic inevitability”

That distinction matters.

When a playful title does work

It works only if it is anchored by a precise subtitle or system logic.

For example:

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t
A Thermal Read at the Point of Failure

Now You See Me, Now You Don’t
Hot Storage as an Irreversible Process

In these cases:

the playfulness draws attention
the subtitle restores rigor
the work doesn’t collapse into whimsy

Without that anchor, it risks being read as illustrative rather than operative.

Better playful-but-serious alternatives

If you want that same disappearing rhythm, but less magic-show energy:

Still playful, but grounded

Visible Until It Isn’t
Read Until Gone
Seen While It Lasts
Only While It’s Read
Here, Then Heat
Gone by Reading

These keep immediacy without theatrical associations.

Scientific playfulness (best of both worlds)

These sound lighter but still sit in real systems thinking:

Read at Your Own Risk
Handle With Heat
Hot to the Touch
Unstable Under Observation
Sensitive to Light

“Unstable Under Observation” is especially good — it subtly echoes physics without name-dropping.

My honest recommendation

If your goal is:

ONX shortlist
curatorial confidence
future catalog texts

Then:

Use a precise scientific title as the main title
Use a playful phrase as a subtitle, not the other way around

For example:

Thermal Runaway
Now You See Me, Now You Don’t

That gives you the best of both worlds:

seriousness first
memorability second

Final honesty check

Would “Now you see me, now you don’t” disqualify you?
❌ No.

Would it slightly lower perceived rigor if used alone?
✅ Yes.

You’ve done too much careful thinking to let the title accidentally soften it.

If you want, tell me:

whether you want playful as main or secondary
which scientific titles you’re still considering

and I’ll lock a final title/subtitle combo that feels confident, not cute.

Honest, no-curation-speak answer first — then I’ll help you fix it if you want to keep that energy.

Short verdict on “Sizzled Bytes”

Yes — that is too playful for ONX as a main title.
Not childish in a naïve way, but cartoonish in tone relative to the conceptual rigor of your work.

Why:

“Bytes” immediately signals 1990s cyber / retro-tech pun
“Sizzled” reads as onomatopoeic and humorous
Together, they sound like:
- a meme
- a zine title
- or a tech-art joke

That clashes with:

thermodynamics
irreversibility
material computation
non-extractive critique

A jury member would likely think:

“The idea is serious, but the title makes it feel lighter than it is.”

And that’s not a risk you need to take.

Why this matters specifically for ONX

ONX is very comfortable with:

severity
slowness
restraint
quiet violence

They are less comfortable with ironic tech-wordplay unless it’s extremely sharp or historically grounded.

“Sizzled Bytes” doesn’t reference a real technical term or concept — it sounds like one, but isn’t. That’s the problem.

How to keep the energy without the gimmick

If what you like is:

heat + data
material damage
sensory immediacy

Here are grounded alternatives that keep that heat but lose the joke:

Scientifically legible (still vivid)

Thermally Degraded Data
Heat-Damaged Storage
Thermal Corruption
Overheated Memory
Data Under Heat Stress

These are dry — but very credible.

Playful but legitimate (the sweet spot)

These feel lighter without becoming cute:

Hot Data (real term)
Burn Rate (real economic/engineering term)
Heat Stress (materials science)
Critical Heat
Hot Read (still my strongest rec)

If you really want a wink, do it structurally

If you love “Sizzled Bytes” as a phrase, the only way it works is:

not as the main title
not alone

For example:

Thermal Runaway
(sometimes described as “sizzled bytes”)

Hot Read
On Sizzled Storage and Irreversible Access

That way, the seriousness leads, and the playfulness follows.

Clear recommendation (because you asked for honesty)

Given:

how strong your concept is
how carefully you’re aligning with ONX’s language
how competitive this call is

I would not submit with “Sizzled Bytes” as the primary title.

You don’t need cute.
Your work already has quiet brutality — lean into that.

If you want, tell me:

which scientific titles are still contenders
whether you want any playfulness left at all

and I’ll lock a final title that feels confident, not apologetic.

This is a much better instinct than “Sizzled Bytes,” and you’re circling something genuinely strong — but again, I’ll be completely honest.

Short verdict on “If you’re reading this…”

It’s not childish. It’s conceptually smart — but incomplete on its own.

Why it works:

It directly implicates the act of reading
It activates the viewer in real time
It frames access as a condition
It implies a consequence without stating it

Why it’s risky alone:

It’s an open clause — it expects a continuation
Without anchoring, it reads like:
- a teaser
- an email subject line
- or a narrative hook

ONX juries tend to prefer titles that close a system, not ones that feel like a setup.

Why this title is actually conceptually aligned

This is important:
The phrase “If you’re reading this…” already contains your core logic:

Reading is conditional
Reading happens in time
Reading assumes survival of the message
Reading implies prior risk

So philosophically? Very good.

The problem is tone and resolution.

How to make it work (three strong options)

Option 1 — Complete the condition (best approach)

Turn it into a closed logical statement:

If You’re Reading This, It’s Already Too Late
If You’re Reading This, It Is Failing
If You’re Reading This, It Is Melting
If You’re Reading This, It Will Not Last
If You’re Reading This, Something Is Lost

These are no longer playful — they’re fatalistic.

Very ONX.

Option 2 — Use it as a subtitle (clean + safe)

This is the most curator-safe deployment:

Thermal Runaway
If You’re Reading This…

Hot Read
If You’re Reading This, It Is Already Changing

This lets the phrase operate as affect, not structure.

Option 3 — Technical completion (my favorite variant)

Anchor the phrase in system language:

If You’re Reading This, Heat Is Being Generated
If You’re Reading This, the Medium Is Degrading
If You’re Reading This, Access Has Occurred

These are precise, cold, and devastating.

Titles in this family that are even stronger

If you like this conditional implicating tone, consider these:

Read at Your Own Risk (legitimate warning language)
Unstable Under Observation (physics-adjacent, very good)
Sensitive to Light (material warning label — excellent)
Handle With Heat
Visible Until Failure

All of these implicate the viewer without being coy.

My honest recommendation

If you want to use “If you’re reading this…”:

Do not use it alone
Use it as:
- a completed statement, or
- a subtitle

The strongest version for your project, in my opinion, would be:

If You’re Reading This, It Is Already Changing

Hot Read
If You’re Reading This, the Medium Is Degrading

These preserve:

seriousness
conceptual alignment
ONX credibility

You’re very close now — this direction is much stronger than the earlier playful ideas.

If you want, give me your top 3 candidates so far, and I’ll help you lock the final one with confidence.

ok let’s leave the title aside for now. Going back to the application form questions 1 and 2:

Project logline – Please provide a brief summary of your proposal (350 chars /50 words)

Please describe your project in detail: What is your core idea and what steps do you propose to undertake? (2000 chars /300 words)

Here is what i have written so far:

Project Logline: Data is stored on physical machines that eventually fail unless systematically maintained. What happens when accessing the data becomes equivalent to damaging it? “Ephemeral Data” reflects on fragility and resource depletion through a lens of physical constraint rather than algorithmic simulation.

Project Description: Imagined as a material interpretation of data retrieval, decoding and decay, “Ephemeral Data” is a durational exhibition piece that explores the boundless, effortless access to data and its repercussions.

The artwork is a public display of a material experiment where pieces of text have been encoded and engraved onto wax disc artefacts. The discs, one at a time, are put on display in front of a tireless decoding machine that is responsible for capturing, analysing and converting the data back to its original, human-readable format. However, the amount of pattern legibility in each disc is determined from a light source that sits directly behind it. The light brightness provides the necessary contrast, required by the decoder’s camera, to illuminate the engravings through the translucent body of the disc. But there is a catch. As much as the light facilitates decoding providing access, equally it slowly destroys the wax artifact, as the generated heat slowly melts it.

In this closed loop, illumination becomes destructive and knowledge becomes conditional, as each moment of visibility irreversibly alters the material substrate that makes decoding possible. The light source, controlled by the visitors, slowly reveals its contradicting role of facilitator/destroyer, eventually clarifying the fact that if you want to see, you must damage.

I still haven’t wrapped up number 2 because i am wondering if what i have written is in the right direction. Please be super honest and highlight my weak points if you find them.

This is already solid, thoughtful, and absolutely in the right direction. You’re not missing the concept — you’re missing precision, confidence, and form-awareness for this specific form.

I’ll be very honest and concrete below. I’ll do three things:

Give you a straight critique (what’s working / what’s weak)
Explain why those weak points matter to an ONX jury
Offer revised versions of both the logline and the project description that stay true to your voice but tighten it

I will not overwrite your project — I’ll refine it.

1️⃣ Project Logline — Honest Critique

Your current logline

Data is stored on physical machines that eventually fail unless systematically maintained. What happens when accessing the data becomes equivalent to damaging it? “Ephemeral Data” reflects on fragility and resource depletion through a lens of physical constraint rather than algorithmic simulation.

What’s working ✅

Clear thematic alignment with the call
Introduces physicality and failure
Frames access as a problem, not a neutral act

Weak points ❌ (important)

It reads like a concept statement, not a logline
- Too explanatory
- Too abstract
It doesn’t say what the work actually is
- Installation? System? Material experiment?
It starts with a general truth instead of the work
- ONX jurors want the work first, theory second

A logline should answer:

What is it, what does it do, and why does it matter — fast.

Revised Logline (stronger, still yours)

Option A (clean, curatorial):

A durational installation in which fragments of data are physically encoded on wax discs and decoded through light, whose heat gradually erases the information it reveals. The work stages access as a destructive act, exposing data storage as a fragile, resource-dependent material process.

Option B (slightly more poetic):

A material system where data encoded on wax discs is revealed through light that simultaneously melts and erases it. Each act of access accelerates loss, reframing data retrieval as an extractive, irreversible process rather than an immaterial one.

Both are under the limit and immediately legible.

2️⃣ Project Description — Honest Critique

Overall verdict:
Yes, you’re absolutely on the right track — but it needs tightening, de-duplication, and a clearer answer to “what steps will you undertake?”

Right now, it reads as:

70% description
30% concept
almost 0% process

The question explicitly asks:

What is your core idea and what steps do you propose to undertake?

You handle the core idea well, but the steps are under-articulated.

Line-by-line honesty

Opening sentence:

Imagined as a material interpretation of data retrieval, decoding and decay…

⚠️ Weak opening

“Imagined as” softens confidence
Abstract phrasing delays clarity

ONX prefers declarative language.

Middle section (wax discs, camera, light)

This is your strongest part ✅

Clear system
Legible mechanics
Material specificity

However:

Some sentences are longer than necessary
You repeat the light/heat contradiction twice in slightly different ways

This is a place to compress, not expand.

Ending paragraph:

In this closed loop, illumination becomes destructive and knowledge becomes conditional…

Conceptually strong ✅
But:

Very similar phrasing to your logline
Doesn’t yet explain how visitors shape the process, except briefly

The biggest missing piece (important)

You do not clearly describe the steps you’ll undertake during the residency.

ONX wants to see:

experimentation
iteration
calibration
decision-making

Not logistics — but artistic process.

Revised Project Description (honest, tighter, stronger)

Below is a polished version that stays close to your text, but improves clarity, confidence, and explicitly answers the question.

Revised Project Description (≈270–290 words)

Imagined as a material interpretation of data retrieval, decoding, and decay, Ephemeral Data is a durational installation that examines the physical consequences underlying seemingly effortless access to information.

Fragments of text are manually encoded and engraved onto translucent wax discs, which function as fragile data storage artifacts. Each disc is placed in front of a decoding system composed of a camera and a light source. The camera attempts to capture and translate the engraved patterns back into a human-readable form. The legibility of the encoded data depends on illumination from behind the disc, which increases contrast and enables decoding.

However, the same light that facilitates access also generates heat. Over time, this heat softens, deforms, and gradually melts the wax surface, altering and eventually destroying the engraved patterns. As a result, each act of decoding irreversibly changes the conditions that make decoding possible. Access accelerates loss.

The installation operates as a closed feedback loop in which illumination functions simultaneously as enabler and destroyer. Knowledge becomes conditional and time-bound: the desire to see directly undermines the material substrate that allows seeing to occur. Rather than simulating fragility through software or algorithmic abstraction, the work locates data degradation in unavoidable physical processes such as heat, entropy, and material failure.

During the residency, the project will be developed through iterative material experimentation. This includes testing wax compositions and engraving techniques, calibrating light intensity and exposure duration, and refining the decoding process to balance legibility and degradation. These steps aim to establish a system in which loss is not accidental but structurally embedded, foregrounding the material costs of data access and long-term storage.

Final honest assessment

You are not off-track at all.
Your weaknesses were:

slightly academic phrasing
under-articulated process
logline doing too much theory, not enough description

All of these are easy fixes, and your concept is strong enough to support them.

If you want next, we can:

tighten this even further to ONX’s exact curatorial tone
align the language across logline + description
or move on to Question 4 (locality), which is the next critical one

Just tell me where to go next.

This is a very fair assumption, and in film or startup contexts you’d be right.
For art + advanced technology open calls like ONX, though, the logline plays a different role — and this is where expectations often clash.

I’ll be very clear and honest, and then I’ll show you how to keep some charge without losing credibility.

The key misunderstanding (and it’s a common one)

You’re thinking of a logline as:

a hook meant to excite emotionally

ONX reads a logline as:

a compression tool for internal evaluation

It’s often copied into:

jurors’ spreadsheets
comparison notes
shortlist summaries

If it’s too catchy, it becomes harder to parse, not more memorable.

What ONX jurors actually want from the logline

They want to answer, in 10 seconds:

What form is this?
What mechanism drives it?
What question does it pose?

They don’t want:

suspense
clever phrasing
narrative buildup

They want instant legibility.

That said — it doesn’t have to be dead

There is a middle ground between:

poetic teaser ❌
technical abstract ❌

Think: compressed clarity with tension.

Why your original logline feels “less exciting”

Your current logline:

Data is stored on physical machines that eventually fail unless systematically maintained…

This feels dry not because it’s factual, but because:

it starts with a general truth
it delays the work itself
it asks a rhetorical question instead of making a claim

Rhetorical questions are rarely strong in ONX loglines.

How to make it feel alive without losing ONX credibility

Here’s a pattern that works very well for ONX:

[What it is] + [What it does] + [What breaks]

Example versions using your project

Version 1 — Crisp, confident (best baseline)

A durational installation in which data encoded on wax discs is decoded through light whose heat gradually erases it, turning access into a destructive act and exposing the material limits of data storage.

Version 2 — Slight charge, still serious

A material system where data encoded on wax discs is revealed through light that simultaneously enables and destroys it, reframing access as an irreversible, extractive process rather than an immaterial one.

Version 3 — Most “exciting” you should go

A durational installation where reading data generates the heat that erases it, staging access as a fragile, irreversible process embedded in physical matter.

Notice:

No jokes
No metaphors
No suspense
But there is tension

Where the “catchiness” actually belongs (important)

In this application, excitement lives in:

the project description
the excerpt PDF
the title
the visitor experience

Not in the logline.

Think of the logline as:

the label on a specimen jar

The fascination comes when they open it.

A useful test

Ask yourself:

“If a curator reads this logline out loud in a meeting, does it sound confident?”

If it sounds like:

a clear statement → good
a teaser trailer → risky

My honest advice

You don’t need to excite the jury in the logline.
You need to earn their trust.

Your idea is already exciting — the logline just needs to get them to the next page.

If you want, next we can:

tune one final logline that still feels like you
or make sure the logline and description don’t overlap unnecessarily

Just tell me which version you want to refine.