Colophon

Third suggestion - combines two and one (minor adjustments to be done are bold):

The Faculty of Invisibility composes itself of a group of artists, practitioners, designers, theorists and teachers who mutually carry out an emerging institute. On invitation tutors open departments with regard to their very practice. The authority over these departments is at the disposal of the tutors. The departments hold their own sites and formats. Hence the Faculty's scope cannot be detached from the tutors’ practices. The Faculty does not stage events and can therefore not be watched, but it issues its communications. As such the Faculty of Invisibility appears to be in disengagement, a potential context in withdrawing.

The first manifestation of the Faculty of Invisibility, The Speech took place on December 6/7/8 2006 at the Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Here we have XXX sheets of paper. Courant print 45 gram. First disassembled these sheets are folded once, then put on top of each other and then again folded into each other. Important is how the object is organised. Hence the use of the given format constructs an object that functions differently. Each page is cut through a blank inside, a gap, an opening. The blank introduces a rupture into the time that reading takes to come to an end and the fact that reading takes time is exposed.

The layout follows the construction of the object. Broad margins on the top and sides face almost no margins on the bottom. Each element is given its place within the usual structure. The typeface, Time New Roman, is used in one single size throughout the communiqué. Time New Roman is commissioned by the Faculty of Invisibility in 2007 and designed by Paul Vincent Gangloff to be of good readability at high speed printing processes on cheap paper. It will change unnoticeably within a space that reveals itself expressionless. The Faculty of Invisibility is working towards inoperative spaces.

Printed by Dijkman offset this assemblage will also acknowledge that a responding community has taken place. Roé Cherpac, Wim Cuyvers (Department of Common Spaces), Paul Gangloff (Department of Haunting), David Goldenberg (Department of Post-autonomy), Sönke Hallmann (Department of Reading), Ingela Johansson (Department of Uncertainty), Nikita Kadan (Department of Parasitism and Symbioses), Lesya Khomenko (Department of Play), Volodymyr Kuznetsov (Department of Survival), Nebojsa Milikic (Department of Learning), Onedaynation, Hinrich Sachs (Department of Speech Genres), Monika Vykoukal (Department of Doubt), Inga Zimprich (Department of Practice).

The communiqué in an edition of 1000 copies is distributed by the tutors.
This is a manifestation of the Faculty of Invisibility.

The Faculty likes to thank Madeleine Bisscheroux and Anne Vangronsveld, Gon Zifroni, Achim Lengerer, Maria Iorio, Marres Centrum voor Contemporaine Cultuur, Ron Stoffels, Het Blauwe Huis, Patricia Reed, Ian Brown, Hilde Meeus.
The Faculty of Invisibility has been supported by Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht.
The Faculty of Invisibility has been initiated by Inga Zimprich.

Second suggestion (left overs scroll down):

Then folded into each other.

Despite the efforts of historians, scribes, and all sorts of archivists, the quantity of what is irretrievably lost in the history of society and in the history of individuals is infinitely greater than what can be stored in the archives of memory.
- Thank God. / – Damn.
(that's a joke, take that out)

Here we have sheets of paper.
Courant druck 45 gram.
First disassembled, then folded once.
Then put on top of each other.
Then folded into each other again.
Important is how this object is organised.
Printed on one side by Dijkman offset.
Time New Roman, used in one single size throughout the communiqué.
Commissioned by the Faculty of Invisibility in 2007 and designed by Paul Vincent Gangloff.
To be of good readability with high speed printing processes on cheap paper.
It will change unnoticeably.
Looking for a space that would be unused.
Broad margins at the top and the sides and almost no margins at the bottom.
To the point it reveals itself expressionless.
This can’t refer to a realm of the other side of language.
The language beyond language takes place within any given language.
Each element is given its place within the usual structure.
This usage creates a gap in meaning and communication.
We were thinking of disengagement, of contextualising
without relating, of entering in withdrawing.

To me the Speech was certainly not about assembling a community that would answer questions –
Roé Cherpac, Wim Cuyvers (Department of Common Spaces), Paul Gangloff (Department of Haunting), David Goldenberg (Department of Post-autonomy), Sönke Hallmann (Department of Reading), Ingela Johansson (Department of Uncertainty), Nikita Kadan (Department of Parasitism and Symbioses), Lesya Khomenko (Department of Play), Volodymyr Kuznetsov (Department of Survival), Nebojsa Milikic (Department of Learning), Onedaynation, Hinrich Sachs (Department of Speech Genres), Monika Vykoukal (Department of Doubt), Inga Zimprich (Department of Practice)
– rather it was about acknowledging that once in a while such a responding community has already taken place. And of course I am in this context, I will remain here for a while, I will write about it and relate to it.
The Communiqué in an edition of 1000 copies is distributed by the tutors.
This communication is a manifestation of the Faculty.

* * *

The Faculty composes itself of a group of artists, practitioners, designers, theorists and teachers who mutually carry out an emerging institute. Upon invitation tutors open departments to their personal practice over which they hold authority. The Faculty of Invisibility is a self-generative structure in which the Faculty's tutors are each others students, and students each others tutors. The Faculty does not stage events and can therefore not be watched, but issues its communications.
The Faculty's departments hold their own sites and formats of working and activity, hence the Faculty's scope cannot be detached from its tutor's practices. However it is not our intention to conceptually frame the world as Faculty or vice versa.
The Speech, the first manifestation of the Faculty of Invisibility took place on December 6/7/8 2008 at the Jan van Eyck Academie.
The Faculty thanks Madeleine Bisscheroux and Anne Vangronsveld, Gon Zifroni, Achim Lengerer, Maria Iorio, Marres Centrum voor contemporaine cultuur, Ron Stoffels, Het Blauwe Huis, Patricia Reed, Ian Brown, Hilde Meeus.
The Faculty of Invisibility has been supported by Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht.
The Faculty of Invisibility has been initiated by Inga Zimprich.
Times New Roman has been commissioned by the New York Times in 1931 and designed by Stanley Morison together with Starling Burgess and Victor Lardent to be of good readability with high speed printing process on cheap paper.

First Suggestion

This is an appearance of the Faculty of Invisibility. As such the Faculty of Invisibility appears to be in disengagement, as a context in withdrawing. The Faculty of Invisibility uses a given space, but addresses an object that functions differently. Important is how this object is organised.

Our use of the format creates each page to be split with a blank inside, a gap, an opening. Sheets first folded once, then put on top of each other and then again folded into each other. This keeps a typographic XXXXX. We had to think about Japanese binding in which the sheets, printed on one side are folded into two. A Japanese bounded book has doubled pages with a blank inside and a printed outside.

This use creates a gap in meaning and communication. The blank introduces a rupture into the time of reading. The fact that reading takes time is exposed and an adjacent space reveals itself essentially expressionless. The Faculty of Invisibility has been working towards this space that would be in un-use.

Our layout follows the construction of the object, broad margins on the top and sides and almost no margins on the bottom. Each element is given its place within the usual structure. The typeface is used in one single size through the communiqué. This makes all elements XXX visible.

The typeface XXX Times New Roman. Times New Roman has been commissioned by the New York Times in 1931 and designed by Stanley Morison together with Starling Burgess and Victor Lardent to be of good readability with high speed printing process on cheap paper.

Notes

this
Times New Roman has been commissioned by the New York Times in 1931 and designed by Stanley Morison together with Starling Burgess and Victor Lardent to be of good readability with high speed printing process on cheap paper.
or
The Faculty would like to thank (in order of appearance): Stanley Morison, Starling Burgess and Victor Lardent, Madeleine Bisscheroux and Anne Vangronsveld, Gon Zifroni, Achim Lengerer, Maria Iorio, Marres Centrum voor contemporaine cultuur, Het Blauwe Huis, Ron Stoffels, Patricia Reed, Ian Brown and Hilde Meeus.

Alternatively:
The Faculty composes itself of a group of artists, practitioners, designers, theorists and teachers who mutually carry out an emerging institute. The Faculty of Invisibility is a self-generative structure in which the Faculty's tutors are each others students, and students each others tutors. Upon invitation tutors open departments to their personal practice over which they hold authority. The departments hold their own sites and formats of working and activity, hence the Faculty's scope cannot be detached from its tutor's practices. However it is not our intention to conceptually frame the world as Faculty or vice versa. But the Speech, the first manifestation of the Faculty of Invisibility took place on December 6/7/8 2008 at the Jan van Eyck Academie. The Faculty does not stage events and can therefore not be watched, but issues its communications.

- - - (lost fragments: here!)

If you went along the instructions of the object: broad margins at the top and the sides and almost no margins at the bottom. Towards a space which is nearly expressionless. That could create a gap in meaning. That could be unused in a sense. Even if each element were given its place within the usual structure.
This can’t refer to a realm of the other side of language. The language beyond language takes place within any given language.

Fold, Reading, Production of the Object (its history and its making), Newspaper as a Manifestation (talking about the newspaper as we would talk about the Faculty - blank, fold, space, printed, initiated etc)

This is an appearance of the Faculty of Invisibility, which you now hold in your hands. Not that we are going to write it, but we are going to make it happen.

Writing about exile, tracing a politics of intimacy, being ensnarled in a spectral texture. It appears to be a series of matters, that already has become quite common to us since the first letter from the beginning of this year - anyway. To me The Speech was certainly not about assembling a community that would answer such questions. Rather it was about acknowledging that once in a while such a responding community has already been taken place. Therefore at stake were neither different forms of socialising those relations and interests, that might have appeared, nor a simple possibility of leaving them behind as if nothing would have become manifest during these three days. In a way we might have just performed several rhetoric’s in order to experience them on the level of instituting us. This was one of the dynamics within your set-up. The Faculty was as suggested a speaking arena, a door without a building. Nothing to be confused with the notion of idea. But we were also talking about disengagement, about contextualising without relating, about entering in withdrawing - and of course I am in this context, I will remain here for a while and write about it and relate to it.

In as much as this elusive community is therefore about disengagement, founded for the short moments of its existing on the possibility of disengagement, it is about non-knowledge. Certainly not in terms of measuring the realm of that, which is not known yet. Not in mapping, so that we would literally see the blind spots - waiting to be cleared. But rather in relating to non-knowledge differently. I am thinking about questions such as: How is it possible to relate with every act of knowing to not-knowing? How is non-knowledge always already inscribed in any kind of knowledge precisely as that, which allows for knowledge? At the very core of knowledge is non-knowledge, capable of itself as not not knowing and therefore recallable - animal knowledge as I would like to title it. Again in The Time That Remains by Giorgio Agamben I found a note concerning the question of memory that can be easily translated to that of knowledge: »Despite the efforts of historians, scribes, and all sorts of archivists, the quantity of what is irretrievably lost in the history of society and in the history of individuals is infinitely greater than what can be stored in the archives of memory. In every instant, the measure of forgetting and ruin, the ontological squandering that we bear within ourselves far exceeds the piety of our memories and consciences.« How can we relate to the quantity of not-knowing? And trace a possibility that would allow for another existing of non-knowledge, one that wouldn’t fall back in mysticism or mythologies?

A notion that insistently recurred during The Speech was that of trust, not so much as a value of its own, but rather as an economy that works differently than that of appointment and instituting. As such an economy trust belongs to the politics of intimacy. It is an anticipating discourse and therefore related to the question of gift and hospitality. This morning I was thinking again about the notion of gift. I tried to come up with a radical concept of the gift - a gift is only a gift, if it doesn’t appear as a gift otherwise it would never escape the realm of exchange. Giving means to avoid to give a gift, not in terms of covering it, but rather in undoing the gift as an gift. Something has been lost, something has escaped culture, so to say. Any gift is involved in undoing itself as a gift in order to not fully coincide with the economy of exchange. How to give trust in advance? How else? This is one of the questions Derrida follows in his Politics of Friendship, a question that destabilises our very crucial concept of politics. Trust can’t simply call for institutions. Therefore a politics of trust will also always take place at the risk of the worst suppression and dependence. But still as an anticipating discourse trust refers to a law, that remains to come, that has been convoked in owning.

A last remark for now. If we are talking about a language beyond language then this can’t refer to a realm on the other side of language. The language beyond language takes place within any given language. An adjacent space – with Agamben this might take place at the very point at which language - human language – reveals itself as essentially expressionless.

Text made out of our design talks

Important is first how the object is put together: A newspaper
consists of sheets put on top of each other, then folded
(spine) into each other, the all volume is again folded
in two. Here, we will have sheets first folded once, then
put on top of each others, then again folded into each
other (spine). This allow us to keep a typographic
design that is on the same scale than a full-format newspaper
(usual type size), but an object that functions differently.
We use the given space, format of a newspaper (A3 weekend format)
and its two folds in a different way: The spine is not the long fold
but the shortest. This result in an A4 publication. The sheets are compiled
differently, first put out of each others, folded and put back in each other.
(This is what is happening with us as well, as we probably will come back
within each other, with a different fold, revolving around a new axis)
This use of the format creates each page to be somehow 'split' (splitting
pages - splitting hairs) with a blank inside, a gap, an opening. (see japanese
binding reference)

The second folding creates two sorts of pages: "outside pages" where the
text is printed and "inside pages" where the empty structure is
shown by making the division lines of the typical newspaper layout thicker.
While turning the pages, one would access the text,
while the structure remains only half accessible. It is visible in a sort of
sneaking in the "inside" pages and as well would be seen through the
paper, supporting the text side. We had to think about Japanese binding
in which the sheets, printed on one side are folded in two, print on the
outside, then bound at the opposite side of the fold. A japanese bounded
book has "doubled" pages with a blank "inside" and a printed "outside".
We have been working toward a space that would be unused in the sense
that it would create a gap in meaning, in communication.
what I like about these kind of blank gaps, is that they introduce a break
of the time of reading that first of all exposes that reading takes time

My question now is - how are the sheets folded inot each other or are they just stapled?
-I don't understand your question, they are folded and stapled
How could one get lost in the paper otherwise? then we block a passage out and we hide
the inside, instead of each one deciding to just not step in

The layout is made according to a daily, A2 format, in order that an open
spread (the open spread of the A4 publication is A3) appears as the top half of
a the daily A2, that is how one sees newspaper at the kiosk. That is also how
one fold a newspaper to read it on the breakfast table. It is a familiar (sub)format.
Here we would have this half as a spread. Closed, the publication
would appear unusual, but an open spread, rather usual and
comfortable to read.
The layout follows the construction of the object, broad margins on
the top, and sides and almost no margins on the bottom. The typeface
is used in one single size all through the publication. Each element;
header, headline, subhead, author… is given its place within the usual
structure, only it remains in the same size as the body text. The placing
of the elements, their presence appears strongly because of the blank
space left by the 'former' bigger element taking that place.

The typeface is Times New Roman, made for newspapers, it is here used
within a newspaper layout but remains the reading text size (11 pt.) everywhere,
as it would in a book. This makes all elements, headlines, titles, names, highlights
more visible by giving to their presence (as an editorial decision) and
their disposition in their space given by the layout, the only element of hierarchy in a page.
The funny thing about Times New Roman is that it has been comissioned by the
New York Times in 1931 and designed by Stanley Morison together with Starling Burgess
and Victor Lardent to be of good quality readibilty with high spead printing process on
cheap paper, but then it became a best seller font for books as well (as publisher wanted
to make savings on material costs) then, Microsoft used it as a standart (that stops to make
sense about printing) because it was such a best seller(?)

The hierarchy within the all object, namely the question of the front page
and the back page is dealt with by overusing an principle designed to diversify
a newspaper front page: beginnings of articles continuing inside are put next
to each others. This happen on the "right side" of what would be the top half
of an A2 front page. (the cover and back cover are, of course, as well designed
within the A2 layout used inside, this means as a spread that will not be looked
at as such). The left side is used for the colophon and a text introducing the
faculty of invisibility and/or the speech.

For that the newspaper is not the faculty (as an institution, a group of people) what is
department in the faculty becomes 'sections'. As like ECONOMY, SOCIETY, SCIENCE, NATIONAL
in a non specialist newspaper. I imagine if one would have a science publication, it would be
GEOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, SURGERY… The place for that is on the top of the page,
centered, all capital.

P.S: I forgot to mention an important element one can not see on the pdf:
The print, trim and crop marks, as well as the little holes characteristic
of newspapers will be left on, not cut. The format will be slightly bigger
than A4 and those marks will be important visual elements because of
the purity and emptiness of the design.