Translated by Tanja Ohlsen

At first glance, the term “influence” seems to be broad, vague and kind of arbitrary, since it can be applied ton early any area of society. However, the question of which kinds of influence people today are exposed to, and which new forms of influence are becoming more and more important, is particularly interesting, because the global, parallel processes of fascisation and digitalisation today reach all areas of social life. The speed at which nearly every aspect of life is increasingly being shaped and controlled by technology and algorithms makes a critical reflection necessary. This refers to both socio-technological influence on art, culture, politics, economy and society as well as conversely the impact these have on technological and social processes.

A synergy of capitalism, digitalisation and artificial intelligence contributes to the market capitalism of a small group of global IT companies who aim it is to maximise the circulation of data. Users support this development “voluntarily” by disclosing their data, permanently producing new content and rating other users. In addition, the development of AI makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between human and AI-generated content.

In this context, it is nearly always unnoticed, whose mainly supports the development of artificial intelligence: the invisibilised data labour of millions of people worldwide. Precariously employed and underpaid workers are forced to view, sort and mark large quantities of data sets, so that the machines can “understand” them. Simultaneously, so-called shadow libraries violate and use author’s rights without their consent, to provide material for large language models. These data sets are then used to train AI-systems. Corporation outsource this work out to people who—on account of their political or economic circumstances—have little other choice.

The belief in a positive future, in progress and global democratisation held by the pioneers of internet, has been replaced by dystopic visions of the future and scenario marked by escapism. With the help of right-wing and far-right propaganda, spreading through the echo chambers of social media into the mainstream discourse, global justice movements, anti-discrimination initiatives and socially engaged segments of the civil society are being systematically discredited by for example labelling them as naïve, “woke” or as expressions of supposed moral do-goodism. Based on a nostalgically marked and backward-looking ideology sexism, antisemitism, racism and other forms of oppression are being legitimised. The will to change and to create a just society is to be stifled right in the beginning.

At this point it is important to ask, where art still can have an impact today, how in the time of multiple global crises and ever less public funding it can be able to initiate aesthetic and political changes. Art that denies the current imperative of speed and immediacy and that is complex, unspectacular and contradictory while demanding time and attention from its audience, finds it increasing difficult to survive within the current attention economy.

Whether, how and where art and art mediation can create meaning and have influence on social, political and cultural issues in spite of all this, is one of the central questions of this issue.

Nina Franz shows in her contribution, that the forms of algorithm governance and control should not be seen as an entirely new phenomenon, but need to be placed into a historical and critical context. The essay looks at the psychological programmes of control, power and influence, particularly based on the example of Hugo Münsterberg’s psychotechnics.

With her own memories and experiences as a starting point. Marie-France Rafael reflects on how the “society of the spectacle” has changed and a colonisation of our desire has taken place by our exposure to social media. She examines the economy of desire and the regime of visibility created by feedback and reaction systems of our digitally shaped present from a media-historical perspective.

Malin Kuht refers to the programme of cyberfeminist currents around 2000, that tried to link emancipatory and abolitionist approaches productively to an affinity for technology. Various thinking collectives tried to reach a symbiosis which might have been prophylactic then but now is necessary. It is precisely this necessity that makes the historical perspective of Kuht even more relevant.

Nowadays, most exhibitions are no longer experienced in person, but via a digital formalisation. Within the growing universe of online databases and digital documentation, Gordon Endt looks at some examples for artist databases like NPIECE and ArtFacts to find out what power structures and intransparencys the digital infrastructure brings. Alternative possibilities of digital archiving are explored through the web art project NotFound—a wiki conceived as an artistic project.

In her artistic practise, Jonna Sophie Baumann appropriates hetero- and cis-normative codes from trap music and popular culture in order to reinterpret them from a queer perspective. Using her alter ego lil cheap as an example, she examines the aesthetic potential of trap music for queer art and how disidentification, according to José Esteban Muñoz, can function as a productive form of appropriation. Simultaneously, she critically reflects on her position as a white rapper in order to discuss the limits and possibilities of sensitive, queer engagements with Black culture.

“I need to move!” The spontaneous exclamation of a child during a workshop at the Kestner Gesellschaft in Hannover provides the starting point for Julia Teubert’s text. It points beyond a mere physical need—to an approach to art mediation that is not planned linearly but responds dialogically to participants and situations. From this processual, resonance-oriented perspective, mediation shifts from schematic explanation towards attentive accompaniment that enables encounter and negotiation without prescribing them.

The artist Hye Hyun Kim describes by means of her project Unfolding, Blooming, how collective action within public space emerges on a small scale—in passing, opening and sharing. Encounters with the other, the unfamiliar as well as the familiar strange, but also the familiar, are the focus of her sculptural art. In participatory settings she explores processes of negotiation, consideration and listening. In a time shaped by efficiency and digital logics such artistic practise is of particular relevance.

In conversation with Mona Jas, director of the KinderKunstLabor for contemporary art in St. Pölten, Austria, Lucas Yannick Lühr addresses the question of whether and how institutions can develop programmes and offers that are not oriented towards an adult gaze. The focus lies on analysing how social change begins already in mediation and architecture, and how art can exert influence on political, social and cultural issues when we move away from patronising and infantilising adult perspectives.

Fiona Jassmann speaks with Johannes Büttner about his artistic discourse with society, production methods and economic living conditions. He is particularly interested in people’s fears, belief systems and forms of organisation. In The Factory (2020), Büttner examines the digital labour market and the self-images of online workers situated between working-class identities and digital entrepreneurship. In Soldaten des Lichts, a film realised together with Julian Vogel, he accompanies protagonists from conspiracy-theory and the so-called Reichsbürger scenes.

In his discourse with Wolfgang Ullrich’s book Die Kunst nach dem Ende ihrer Autonomie from 2022, Moritz Hertel discusses the proclaimed freedom from influence—the autonomy—of art. From a historical perspective, Hertel questions and comments on the discussion of a paradigm shift from the ideal of autonomous art towards an art increasingly entangled with commerce.

Today, it is standard within the humanities, that history is always embedded in relations of power, should be approached from multiple perspectives and needs constant renegotiation in order to make omissions visible. This makes it even more striking that a discipline like art history has relatively little disciplinary reflection on its own history. Following the first volume published in 2021 (Kunsthistorikerinnen 1910–1980, Reimer), a second volume appeared in 2025 focusing on that gap: Kunsthistorikerinnen im 20. Jahrhundert – Institutionen, Strukturen, Handlungsräume, reviewed by Benno Hauswaldt.

With “influence” as a leitmotiv, the contributions in this issue show that influence does not arise of itself but arises from a complex web of reciprocal relations. The issue explores how artistic and art-mediating processes can be forces of resistance in this context, and how they can provide impulses for a broader social cohesion and a pluralistic, resilient democracy.

Benno Hauswaldt, Martin Krenn

Editorial of issue 7: Einflussnahme / Taking Influence