Partition
In development. First prototype March 2026.
A window rendered opaque with vinyl. A single peephole. Adjacent to the peephole, a text: "By looking through this peephole, you agree to the terms and conditions of this exhibition." A QR code links to the full GDPR privacy notice.
On the other side, a pen plotter draws continuously. A WiFi CSI sensing system detects the cardiac rhythm of the person at the peephole through sub-millimetre chest wall displacements. Heart rate only. Consumed in real time by the drawing process. Not stored.
The plotter does not need the heartbeat to draw. It takes it anyway.
The GDPR document is seventeen sections, drafted in standard EU data protection notice format, indistinguishable in language from any institutional privacy policy. It lists five categories of data the system may process. The system captures one. It claims the right to store data for up to ten years. The system stores nothing. It lists seven categories of potential recipients. The system shares with no one. It reserves the right to employ machine learning. The system uses none. It grants the institution the right to change processing modalities at any time without notifying the data subject. Buried in the document: processing may additionally be carried out under the artistic-expression exemption, Article 62 of Luxembourg's data protection law, which implements GDPR Article 85 and releases artistic processing from several of the duties the notice itself promises, the duty to inform, the right of access, the limits on transfer. The form names, in its own fine print, the law that suspends the rights it appears to grant.
Inside, visible through the peephole, a screen displays a continuously scrolling text. Plain-language paraphrases of the document's clauses, one sentence at a time. "You have agreed that your heart rate may be recorded." "You have agreed that this data may be stored for up to ten years." "You have agreed that you have no claim to any artwork produced from your body." The viewer reads these disclosures while the machine senses their heartbeat. Their physiological response to learning what was done to them alters the heart rate data, which alters the drawing. The text never ends.
The drawing is the material trace of a physiological capture that was formally consented to, operationally discarded, and forensically unrecoverable. It cannot testify about the heartbeat. It cannot testify about the consent. It cannot testify about the rights that were claimed. It is a mute record of a system that took what it didn't need because nothing prevented it.
Essay: What the Wall Knows | Featured on CreativeApplications.Net | Code: github.com/PascalPiron/partition-csi
