Labour in the Greenhouse: Reaping the Fruits of Automation

Greenhouses are sites of encounter between humans, plants, and machines, as well as socio-economic and geopolitical regimes. Within them, intricate stories of our day-to-day food production are weaved out of both visible and invisible threads.  In this episode, we talk to artists Špela Petrič and Penelope Cain, and doctoral researcher Carolien Lubberhuizen about the intricacies these spaces hold.

Resources:

Seasonal Matters Rural Relations — Seasonal Neighbours
Ways of Being by James Bridle
Living Labour (documentary) by Renzo Sgolacchia
Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States by Seth Holmes
Awkward Intimacies by Agnieszka Anna Wołodźko & Špela Petrič

Host & Producer: Ana-Maria Carabelea
Editing: Ana-Maria Carabelea
Music: Karl Julian Schmidinger

The Digital Deal Podcast is part of European Digital Deal, a project co-funded by Creative Europe and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport. Views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guests only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) can be held responsible for them.

Transcript

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Welcome to The Digital Deal Podcast, the series where we talk about how new technologies reshape our democracies and how artists and critical thinkers can help us make sense of these changes. My name is Ana Carabelea, and today I am joined by artists Špela Petrič and Penelope Cain, and doctoral researcher Carolien Lubberhuizen.

Špela is a Slovenian new media artist with a background in natural sciences. Her artistic practice combines bio-media practices and performativity to enact strange relations between bodies that reveal the underpinnings of our (bio)technological societies and propose alternatives. Špela has received several awards, such as the White Aphroid for outstanding artistic achievement (Slovenia), the Bioart and Design Award (Netherlands), and an Award of Distinction at Prix Ars Electronica (Austria).

Penelope’s practice centres around land, water and air storytellings from the Anthropocene and Post-Carbon. With a science background, her artistic practice is located between scientific knowledge and unearthing connective untold narratives in the world. She works across media and knowledge streams, with scientists, datasets, people, residues and land, drawing on more-than-human entry points. Penelope has exhibited in curated exhibitions in Rome, Seoul, Shanghai, London, Taiwan and Sydney. 
Both Špela and Penelope are artists-in-residence with WAAG in the European Digital Deal project.

Carolien Lubberhuizen is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning at Utrecht University and the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology at KU Leuven. She conducted ethnographic research on arrival infrastructures for and by agricultural migrant workers in the Netherlands (Westland) and Belgium (Haspengouw), looking into the ways agri-food, labour and migration regimes create unequal structures and how migrant workers navigate, reproduce or resist these precarities in search of alternative and more inclusive and just ways of infrastructuring this system.

Welcome to all three of you. Thank you so much for joining me today.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Thanks Ana. 

Penelope Cain: Thanks for inviting us. 

Špela Petrič: Yes, thanks a lot.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: What we'll try to do in this episode is tell the story of the labour behind our food production, a type of labour that is often obscured by the appearance of near-perfect products we consume or the romanticized images of working the land, as we shall see, that we still hold. Yet, a type of labour that becomes overly visible to AI algorithms whose role is to monitor, optimize, and maybe even categorize the workers. All three of you focus on this and will spot a different light on the issue of labour in the greenhouse, its visibility or invisibility in different contexts.
But I want to start with Caroline and ask you to start us off and help us set the social, political and economic context. Both Špela and Penelope currently work on projects that focus on the work in greenhouses in the Netherlands. You've conducted ethnographic research in greenhouses around the Netherlands and Belgium and, to some extent, have experienced the life of the often migrant worker. I'm curious about what your research uncovered and, [I am] particularly interested in those aspects of the work in the greenhouse that are usually obscured at different levels, whether that's within the greenhouse or at the level of the local authorities, or maybe even the national level. In a sense, how this type of work is also instrumentalized and politicized.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Thanks, Ana, for this invitation but also for the question about visibility and invisibility. I think it's actually a super interesting way to think about migrant workers working in greenhouses in the Netherlands. My research is indeed part of a Horizon 2020 project called REROUTE.
As you said, we examine how newcomers arrive, the infrastructure shaping these trajectories, how these infrastructures channel people into certain pathways, and indeed also how newcomers navigate or resist them or make these infrastructures themselves.
I've conducted research in two agricultural regions, Haspengouw in Belgium, which is a fruit cultivation region, but also Westland in the Netherlands, which is known for its advanced greenhouse agriculture. I think that would be most interesting to focus on today because Penelope and Špela also focus on greenhouses. And here most workers are indeed migrants from Central and Eastern Europe, so they hold EU citizenship. Very often they're recruited through recruitment agencies that are active in, let's say, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Moldova, to channel these people into the greenhouses in Westlands. So, to understand these arrival situations, I started working alongside migrant workers in the greenhouses and the packaging factories and from there on, I tried to follow the people that I met and their networks and their experiences to nearby cities, like the Hague and Rotterdam. Because there's not much housing in Westland itself, many people live there, it is nearby Westland.
I think one key finding indeed relates to this visibility and invisibility, but also to temporality or temporariness. What I found is that these formal infrastructures - those that are provided, for example, by local authorities or national authorities, but also these recruitment agencies - revolve around the logic that migrant workers come here only temporarily to work, make some money, and then return home. That logic is used to legitimize housing in very isolated areas, far away from the towns and far away from other residents in Westland, who often resist these migrant housing facilities.
And [this is] also [used] as a legitimation for the fact that they don't need any resources beyond labour and housing, because there's no need for them to integrate, however you want to interpret that word. There was an older report on Westland and informal labour, I think already 20 years old, called Invisible Behind Glass [that] captures this weird position of workers in these localities very well, [saying] that they're so crucial to keep the economy afloat but they're very invisibilized, actually.
However, I think migrant workers are slowly becoming more visible, often for negative reasons, because as you can imagine, they face quite difficult working conditions, limited healthcare, and very unstable housing. Until recently, your housing contract was tied to your work contract, so when you lose your job, you lose your housing. And this really contributed to rising homelessness amongst migrant workers. That, of course, becomes very visible in public spaces in cities like the Hague and Rotterdam. Because of the rising visibility of exploitative practices, there's a lot of political media attention also to improve the situation, but it goes very slowly. There actually was recently a policy document by the VVD who until recently was the largest liberal party in the Netherlands, now they’re in a coalition with the PVV, the populist anti-migration party, as you have now everywhere in Europe. They really focused on what kind of migrants they want and don't want in the future. Besides focusing on high-skilled migrants, they also wanted to focus on robotization to make the need for low-skilled migrant workers no longer necessary. And then, migrant workers also become more and more visible in a less negative way because they have been here for quite a long time now as a group (maybe not as individuals, but as a group). More and more people do stay longer and they also leave traces in communities. You can think about Polish and Bulgarian shops or cafes, but also the social and cultural groups they start and organize. Through these kinds of traces, they become part of the social material fabric of cities as well.

And to your question, [about what happens] inside the greenhouses where workers, from what I experienced there, become hyper-visible. These greenhouses really revolve around the manipulation of these plants, growing cycles and their productivity to make sure that there's year-round productivity and labour becomes a factor that also needs to be controlled to make sure they can play around with the profit that they make. Often for tomatoes, there are tight margins in terms of what they get for the product. So what happens is that migrant workers have to log their labour activities into these computers that are spread around the greenhouse. They put in their employee number, the task that they need to do and maybe the lane that they're working in. Then after they've done it, let's say they've harvested or pruned a lane, they have to put it in again. This way supervisors and growing specialists can really monitor this productivity. So, if you fall behind, or fall short of these norms, that might result in you losing your job.
This hypervisibility is not just external, it's also internalized because you can also log into a computer in the canteen to see if you have met the norm; if you're below the norm or above the norm. You can then adjust to meet these expectations. It doesn't just track labour productivity, it also disciplines workers and self-disciplines workers in a way. So, I think there are many layers to this visibility and invisibility in the case of migrant workers in the context of the greenhouse. So, it's very interesting to think around these themes.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Thank you so much. That's such a great start with a lot of insight into what it actually means to be a migrant worker in a greenhouse. I want to turn to Špela and maybe hear more about what your project is focusing on and why. What about the labour in the greenhouse interests you and why?

Špela Petrič: Thank you very much. So, I'm looking at the labour that's tied to the production and maintenance of living bodies. I would call this care. Even though in the case of the greenhouses, care is industrialized and automated and the bodies that are cared for are actually heavily designed. So, what I'm interested in is how this technology that forms part of the greenhouse infrastructure is utilized to achieve this desirable body. I would even say, that a desirable body is defined by the capacity of the technology. At the core of this technology, there's a premise that living beings as well as other phenomena can be described mathematically. So that you can collect data about the entities and then this [data] is processed into information that can then, in turn, manipulate the living entities, and this process can scale. This has been sort of a key tenet of this kind of digitalization of our society; surveillance capitalism, or data capitalism is premised on this. Platforms are premised on this. It's a particular framing of life. It's not the only framing of life that we could have, but this particular view lends itself very well to optimization within a set of given parameters. With the introduction of AI and AI automation, this concept is only going to get heightened, more pervasive and more precise. So we have to ask ourselves, how are these technologies used then to discipline? How are they used as biopower? How are our bodies shaped and conditioned by them?
When I started looking closer at the horticultural industry, specifically tomato cultivation and greenhouses in the Netherlands, like Caroline, in Westland, I was actually struck by how these spaces can also be understood as a sort of projection of future smart cities.
Of course, we're talking about tomatoes. Tomatoes are not the same as humans. Or are they? So if we deploy this particular sensing infrastructure with this particular logic behind it, how does this actually differ? Greenhouses seem like these contained spaces, a Weltinnenraum, sort of enclosed spaces where anything can be optimized. The question is only what do we decide to optimize for? But who is actually in the position to make this value call? I think that this artistic research that I'm undertaking follows this automation, this digitization twofold, the first aspect is to try to understand better what actually gets counted in these environments, what counts, right? What is the process of surveillance and control, what gets optimized and how do we actually make this public? Then the second path is, once we have this insight, [to see if] there is a possibility to intervene in these spaces? So if I - as a body - am produced by horticulture, because I eat the tomato that is grown within those infrastructures, can we consider these greenhouses as putative public spaces? If we were allowed as the public to have access to them, what would we actually do within them? So far I've been exploring the paths of data through so-called operational images, which are basically part of our invisual, visual culture. They are images of, let's say, tomatoes, that are never looked at by humans, only analyzed for information, for the data they contain. As a way of analyzing the AI pipeline, this is a very interesting entry point. That's what I've been collecting, or negotiating access to these data sets and then presenting them publicly as artworks. In February, we also have a five-day residency inside the greenhouse, to perform for the plants and for the infrastructures and to basically investigate how to symbolically contaminate these spaces.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: That's great. I find it interesting how often [in this podcast] we get back to Foucault and his Panopticon and this internalization of discipline. I'm going to turn to Penelope now because I think your project is quite good in complementing what both Carolyn and Špela have been doing because it speculates on a future, but perhaps not-so-distant future greenhouse ecosystem in which the workers are absent. Do you want to tell us more about it and how do you think being able to imagine this absence might help?

Penelope Cain: Thanks, Ana. I think you're right. I think it's really great that WAAG has sort of placed Špela’s project and my project together because there is this kind of 360 view, as you mentioned.
I am interested in this point of absence of the human body within this side of the greenhouse. When I was sort of thinking initially about the project, I was drawn to the greenhouse as a highly artificial site of knowing and worlding. There are plants in the greenhouse that know the world without soil and without immediate contact with the environment. They're artificially lit, they're artificially heated, they're supplemented with CO2. That's a really interesting kind of near future from a climate change, planetary perspective as well.
But I'm interested also in this site in terms of the emergence of an AI-robotized greenhouse. What this says about the last 10,000 years of humans living with, growing, tending and harvesting plants, and how after 10,000 years, my first kind of thought was: what do we know about this from a plant's perspective? I've been looking at a human decentered entry point of plant sensing and plant knowing, [and] what that can then reflect forwards onto where the humans are in this future relationship. When I was doing the research, I listened to a lot of podcasts and I came across an AI ethicist talking about kind of the near AI future. Her name's Rumman Chowdhury. She's an American AI ethicist who's interested in baked-in biases, misinformation and centralization of power. But she said this thing: we walk towards what we look at, (...) if we think about the worst-case scenario and an AI dystopia, then we will walk towards that. I'm interested in the point that this opens for the power of artists in a generally disempowered view, in how an artist can imaginatively speculate on a near future and speculate in a direction that we may want to go in, how an artist could future cast and potentially visualize that near future. So I'm interested in that.
There's also another cultural theoretician, Rosi Braidotti, a feminist theoretician, who talks about this posthuman convergence and says we are all in this together, but we're not quite the same as the subject.
I'm interested in that too, because the greenhouse is the present, near future of that, but there are increasingly fewer and fewer humans in this site, and this is a site of delabouring or labour displacement. I guess I'm interested in how this occurs because of the cost of food and this increasing drive to make food cheaper and cheaper. The first thing to go is the human body from the growing environment.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Just listening to all three of you, I was thinking it seems like there are two visual regimes when it comes to the workforce in greenhouses. One at maybe the national or local level of the authorities in which a worker becomes invisible or is kept invisible in these romanticized narratives of what farming or cultivating the land is. Then another one of the algorithms that rely on, as Carolyn also mentioned, the hypervisibility of the worker that's read and categorized as a more efficient or less efficient performer of tasks and sort of reduced to that.
I think the work that you all do engages to a certain extent with these levels of visibility to reveal something about or for the actors in the greenhouse, be they plants or workers. And I know that this is probably something you've asked yourself before starting this, which is how do you speak about for or with another? I'd be really curious to see your different approaches to that and how you tackle this challenge.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Yeah, I think that's a question [not] only artists think about. (...) I suppose ethnographers think about it a lot as well and I think they haven't really found the perfect way to remedy this. I've also thought about it a lot because for my project we needed to also do some kind of intervention. I like what Špela said about how can we symbolically contaminate the greenhouse when we see these spaces as a public space. Indeed. And I think Penelope said something about how an artist can imaginatively speculate about the near future. I had a similar question after my fieldwork: how to intervene in this setting? That had to do with my positionality as both a researcher and a worker. Because, yeah, I was working in the fields and I had built kind of a delicate position of trust and empathy with both the migrant workers as well as the growers. I'm also Dutch, so sometimes it was easier talking to growers or Dutch supervisors, than to migrant workers who spoke various languages. But both of these groups had really opened their worlds to me. They had shared food, taught me how to work with and attune or listen to strawberries and tomatoes, and given me their perspectives that were very valuable. And [I had to think about] how to bring that together in a way that's meaningful to all of these people in a way that isn't divisive or extractive. Besides [the fact that] I was used for my labour as well, in a way, this research relation is always a bit extractive. I also thought that if I bring these voices together around the usual entry points, focusing on exploitation, maybe on discrimination or even the unsustainability of agriculture, [while] I think these topics are important, they devise people. That's when I started thinking again about visibility and invisibility, but very much at the local level. And I was inspired by these local agricultural rituals. You have these blossom blessings, for example, and harvest festivals.
And as you said, they actually celebrate this connection that the local community has to agriculture, this very romanticized idea of local horticulture, agricultural heritage. They really romanticize, or keep romanticizing agriculture. They ignore this globalized capitalist reality that also relies on exploitative labour that is actually brought in from other places. But I think those rituals also show something that we don't necessarily associate with modern-day agriculture and that is care. Because it's also a form of [care], people care for their lands and for their crops in a way. They care also for the community and the things that agriculture brings to that community. So, what I did was ask migrant workers to take photos with their telephones of special moments in their work in the greenhouses, which are often seen as very alienating, because there is this repeated action that might distance you from the product that you're making and the people that will consume that product. But I think that it also involves care - care for the plants because you really have to know when you have to pick a tomato or strawberry so, you learn to attune to those plants as well, but also [care] for their fellow workers and for their shared labour.
Then I brought these photos to the rituals and contaminated that ritual space to use Špela’s word. That became a way to make these connections visible and celebrate the workers' contributions, but it also, which was my intention, opened a space for dialogue with local residents, growers, organizations, and migrant workers who were able to be there. So, it was a way to navigate these difficult and sometimes extractive positions that come with doing research with often precarious groups of people, and to make it somehow productive. And we talked a lot about how we imagine more inclusive infrastructures to care for migrant workers in these local communities. I couldn't fully remedy this, but I felt it was important to somehow confront this positionality in this way.
But then there was something interesting and I don't know, Špela or Penelope, if you've experienced it when media is starting to pick up on [your work]. I was interviewed about this in a regional newspaper and the article was titled Caroline Lived as a Labour Migrant for Months. You cannot change those titles of newspaper articles, but it totally shifted the intention of the whole intervention and the exhibition to really focus on me, a highly-educated Dutch woman. Oh, look at her ... There's also a trope of European or Western ethnographers coming back from the field. As though I could speak then as and for migrant workers, which I absolutely cannot, of course.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Talk about what you want to make visible and what you want to hide. This is the perfect example of that.

Špela Petrič: Yeah, I can add just that I totally understand and empathize. But then the way I navigate this position is to consider myself as what I am - as a consumer. I'm sustained by this infrastructure through the food that I eat, and therefore I'm produced by it. So rather than venturing into a foreign land, I'm already implicated in it and I'm already very intimate with it. And that's how I approach these spaces, as someone who is totally dependent on the workers, on the technology, on this weird factory of food, on this system of values and exploitation. And so I'm not necessarily speaking for another, but really exploring my own dependencies.
The other thing is that these infrastructures, besides being physical objects, are also like, patterns of thought and behaviour which we have all internalized. So we're reproducing them. While we might not be equally tied to them or implicated in an equal position, we are all sort of shaped by them. So my work is about one of the many possible approaches to expose and make visible these systems. Because these are patterns that also manifest in so many different areas of society.

Penelope Cain: If I could add to that perhaps this drive for the cost of food, to drive the cost of food down. I was just thinking, as you were speaking, Špela, do you know, when Donald Trump threatened to put these tariffs on Mexico, and then all of a sudden everyone realized actually how many tomatoes and bell peppers are grown in Mexico and what impact that would have on the grocery basket in America. It would be really fascinating to see that play forward, and what he actually does with that threat. This goes back to this thing about food. It's almost like the contemporary Western world has this unalienable right to cheap and highly accessible food. And like you say, we are this place because we consume its product.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: I'm going to try and go back to the question of visibility and invisibility, but maybe this time from a slightly different angle. Your previous work has dealt with plant intelligence and communication and this thin and porous line between humans and their plant others. I was wondering, within the ecosystem of the greenhouse, how are plants and human workers treated similarly or differently, or how are they similar or different in general? [Perhaps] also as a way of understanding how they might make one another more visible, or how the greenhouse might be a privileged site from which to look at the similarities or differences?

Špela Petrič: I mean, for sure, this kind of comparison is highly contentious, right? And I like this as a provocation, a point of departure, that algorithms are qualitatively indifferent to the bodies that they look at. There's nothing inherently human when the human is quantified and turned into data. So indeed, in greenhouses, you see this one next to the other. The climate is monitored with sensors. The tomatoes are photographed and assessed for ripeness, the stems are measured, and the nutrients are specifically added to make the tomatoes grow. On the other hand, we have, as Caroline mentioned, these workers who are also logged for their activities and then also selected. So, in these spaces, tomatoes are disciplined as much as the workers. Then we also have other agencies, like other non-human and human agencies that all fall into the same sort of surveillance regime. So, it is a site where you really have to ask yourself, is there a difference? And I would go so far as to say that actually there isn't. When you are deploying this type of technology, you will always have to boil it down to really simple categories that you want to improve.
We have another area where developments with AI are really going strong at this moment: healthcare. It's the same type of technology. It's AI, it's sensing, it's finding patterns, et cetera. But there we are taking care of humans, [it’s] for the better health of people. Again, we need to sort of categorize health as very, very simple proxies that algorithms can operate in. I think that is one of the questions if you're using this technology that operates at a superficial level - in terms of all that can be taken into account, the things that are counted -, it really remains an open question, how do you make a difference? How do you code for differential treatment of animals and plants, of humans and tomatoes, if you like.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: In this context [of the greenhouse as opposed to medical care], as a point of difference, is the focus on the plants [with] humans in the service of that. The conditions within the greenhouse are optimal for the plant to grow, not for the worker to work in as a potential point of difference. Which raises a whole different set of questions and issues.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Yeah, I wanted to very quickly share [something]. I'm not a specialist in AI or technology at all, but I think what I always look out for and what I find interesting is that, yes, human labour is indeed very closely monitored and calculated. But there's also a lot of creativity happening in the way that people and maybe also plants navigate this monitoring, this disciplining and this categorizing, and when they're transgressing these monetizations. Because then you start to really see those categorizations, those borders that are being transgressed or negotiated in interesting ways. As an anthropologist, I think that for me is the most interesting [thing]. I can see the disciplining and indeed the panopticon in the working or housing spaces - that, by the way, is also severely monitored -, but then what happens in the way that people still manage to make lives around that? The creativity in that. People and plants can only be disciplined to a certain extent. And markets as well. I remember also with the gas prices going up, the growing specialists were scared. They had to use all these other ways to make sure that the tomato greenhouses could still produce and be profitable because the gas prices went up and make sure that the tomatoes are not crazy expensive.

Penelope Cain: If I could add to that. That is also an interesting question about the greenhouse as lines of sight to geopolitical distances. The gas from Russia, the fracking from Groningen, so many things are condensed within this site that's of wider global interest.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: I think that's the interesting thing about greenhouses because you have migrant labour that works in these greenhouses. So agriculture is super political and super tied to geopolitical changes in the world. But migration and mobility are as well. So you have both in terms of labour mobility or labour migration and agriculture, all these larger scale forces and regimes that have an actual impact on the everyday way that these greenhouses are organized and how labour is experienced and how plants are grown and et cetera.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Thank you all so much. I think we can go on for a very long time, but unfortunately, we have to come to an end. But before we do, I just wanted to ask, for those listening that might want to dive deeper into this, if you have any recommendations for articles, research pieces, or artworks that might help them get into this.

Špela Petrič: I would like to recommend Seasonal Matters Rural Relations by the collective Seasonal Neighbours that Caroline actually partook in. It was an incredibly insightful book, full of methodology and a wonderful guide into what it looks like to actually work in these agricultural spaces.

Penelope Cain: I'd like to recommend, James Bridal, Ways of Being. They're an artist and writer who originally was interested more in AI, the emergence of AI, but increasingly - to try and I guess find a solution to all of that - is interested in these manifest and spectacular modes of non-human intelligence and of worlding in the planet. And I'm interested in how we can decenter our human-centric thinking about the world.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Great. I'm definitely noting that down, Penelope. I would like to recommend two things if I could. So there's this documentary by Renzo Sgolacchia, he is also a researcher and architect and he made a documentary called Living Labour looking into housing for migrant workers in the Netherlands. Not all of them work in agriculture, but I think it's a very powerful film about the situation that migrant workers are currently living in here.
The other one is an ethnography called Fresh Fruit Broken Bodies by medical anthropologist Seth Holmes. He looks into these different migrant groups that are working in the strawberry fields or fruit fields in California and I think one other region. They are often from Mexico, but Indigenous Mexican groups, so Triqui migrants. He really spends years and years and years in these fields and moving with them across the border. I think it shows brilliantly how these hierarchies of who's a good worker or less good worker are projected on the bodies of migrant workers and how that affects their health and also their access to healthcare.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: Great, thank you all so much. I want to add Špela's piece Awkward Intimacies, which we got a peek of and it's absolutely fascinating so I would highly recommend that. Is it published already?

Špela Petrič: Yes, it's been published in antennae and it's a piece I co-wrote with Agnieszka Anna Wołodźko, as well.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: It's great. I'll link it in the notes to the episode. Thank you so much to all of you for joining me. It was great chatting with you.

Carolien Lubberhuizen: Yeah, it was really a conversation we could continue I guess for quite some time.

Ana-Maria Carabelea: That's it for today. Thank you so much for tuning in, and I hope you enjoyed it. The Digital Deal Podcast is part of the European Digital Deal, a three-year project co-funded by Creative Europe. If you want to find out more about the project, check out our website, www.ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal.