Newell and Cousins’ article argues that urban metabolism is a powerful but increasingly fragmented metaphor for understanding how cities consume, transform and discharge materials, energy and ecological relations. The authors identify three distinct “ecologies” of urban metabolism: industrial ecology, which measures urban stocks and flows through tools such as material flow analysis; Marxist ecologies, especially urban political ecology, which interpret metabolism as a socio-natural process shaped by capitalism, power and inequality; and urban ecology, which understands cities as complex socio-ecological systems. Through bibliometric analysis and literature review, the article shows that these traditions have become separate scholarly “islands”, each privileging certain dimensions of urban space while obscuring others. Industrial ecology is strong in quantitative measurement but often treats the city as a black box and neglects politics; Marxist urban political ecology exposes uneven power relations but often privileges the social over the ecological and relies heavily on qualitative methods; urban ecology models complexity but tends to remain politically underdeveloped. The authors therefore propose political–industrial ecology as a way to revitalise the urban metabolism concept by combining the critical spatial and political sensitivity of urban political ecology with the quantitative methods of industrial ecology, such as material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. Their water-supply example illustrates how this approach can reveal the uneven social, ecological and carbon burdens embedded in urban infrastructures. Ultimately, the article concludes that urban metabolism should function as a boundary metaphor, enabling interdisciplinary collaboration without forcing consensus, and helping scholars produce more sustainable, spatially aware and socially just accounts of urbanisation.
Shelton, T. and Lodato, T. (2019) ‘Actually existing smart citizens: Expertise and (non)participation in the making of the smart city’, City, 23(1), pp. 35–52.
Shelton and Lodato’s article argues that the fashionable shift from smart cities to smart citizens does not automatically democratise urban governance; rather, it often reproduces the same technocratic and neoliberal exclusions that critical urban scholars associate with smart-city agendas. Using Atlanta, Georgia, as a case study, the authors show that citizens are frequently invoked rhetorically as the supposed beneficiaries of digital urban initiatives, yet actual residents are rarely granted substantive power in planning or decision-making. They develop two key figures: the “general citizen”, an abstract and undifferentiated public used to legitimise policy, and the “absent citizen”, the real urban resident who remains excluded from elite workshops, expert meetings and institutional smart-city networks. The article is especially persuasive because it moves beyond broad critique and examines how smart citizenship is produced in practice through meetings, panels and policy discussions. Atlanta’s smart-city initiatives reveal that participation is often limited to experts, consultants, municipal officials, entrepreneurs and institutional actors, while marginalised communities are treated as objects of improvement rather than political agents. Even when community-led data projects emerge, they remain peripheral to official governance structures. The authors therefore conclude that smart citizenship should not be celebrated merely because it sounds participatory; meaningful democratic urbanism requires redistributing power, not simply adding citizens to technological narratives.
The Yellow Bag functions as a paradigmatic situational fixer within LAPIEZA-LAB’s urban interventions: a minimal, portable, chromatic prosthetic that activates context through presence rather than imposition. Recurring since its 2014 debut, this recurring object—bright yellow, everyday in form, radical in use—operates across the Unstable Installation Series as a nomadic device for relational tuning, affective architecture, and socioplastic probing. It is neither sculpture nor prop but an executable operator: empty yet charged, carried on the body, it receives and transmits urban, material, and epistemic signals while leaving almost no trace.
In specific actions, the Yellow Bag manifests radical simplicity. The 2014 debut in Madrid integrated it into a solo/no-solo exhibition alongside meat cuts, posters, and tag-collages, positioning the bag as a color satellite orbiting mutable content. Its mechanics embody SoftOntology and ScalarGrammar. As a hardened nucleus of yellow constancy, it provides chromatic and operational coherence across years and sites; plastic peripheries allow absorption of diverse contexts—Madrilenian streets, Cádiz beaches, Prague quadrennials, international travels—without loss of identity. At node scale, each activation remains agile and ephemeral (carrying sand, drawing circles, ritual presence); aggregated into Century Packs, these form stratigraphic layers of long-duration practice. The bag’s emptiness rejects accumulation, favoring subtraction and metabolic lightness. Theoretically, it advances an architecture of affection: a vernacular readymade whose meaning accrues through duration, care, and situated listening rather than authorship or spectacle. It displaces value from object to relation, critiquing commodity logics and extractivist site-specificity. Geopoetic acts—transporting Cádiz sand to Mexico, for instance—forge translocal connections as affective repair, aligning with MetabolicMesh while resisting overproduction. The monochromatic insistence acts as a visual constant, a “satellite” reflecting and tuning environments. In transmission and field terms, the Yellow Bag exemplifies para-institutional sovereignty. Documented across video, blog nodes, and the distributed corpus, it converts ephemeral urban presence into durable epistemic infrastructure. It invites co-presence without staging conviviality—relation as quiet commitment—and models how minimal gestures sustain a FieldOrganism over 15+ years. DiagonalReading traverses its activations as a living protocol rather than isolated events. Overall, specific Yellow Bag interventions distill Socioplastics in action: portable epistemic probes that test grammar in territory. They demonstrate that urban practice can be radically restrained yet generative—presence over product, relation over residue. The bag walks, carries, listens, and departs; the grammar holds; the mesh expands.
The emergence of the rescue book—specifically exemplified by Book 46, Urban Hyperplastics: COPOS / FLAKES—marks a critical threshold within contemporary spatial practice where a massive epistemic corpus retroactively discovers its own foundational logic already alive within its historic, dispersed media archive. By absorbing one hundred distinct video clips from the historical lineage of LAPIEZA and converting them into a structured "century-pack," this filmic essay proves that physical, durational practice consistently precedes and informs theoretical grammar as an active form of spatial intelligence. Rather than functioning as a passive catalog of urban imagery, this operation binds the texturing of diverse global metropolises—from Madrid and Lisbon to Belgrade, Bogotá, and Mexico City—into a single, self-organizing matrix of nodes spanning numbers 4501 to 4600. The underlying thesis is direct and unsentimental: when an epistemic field achieves sufficient critical mass, the raw filmic clip is elevated into a conceptual node, the physical city is distilled into a readable texture, and the archive itself mutates into rigorous theory.
To historicize this operational transition, one must recognize the rescue book as a distinct, specialized species within the broader taxonomy of the socioplastics framework. Unlike purely conceptual volumes that extend the lexicon through the synthesis of new abstract operators, tags, or protocols, the rescue book moves in reverse: it reaches backward into the historical matrix of practice to absorb a raw material corpus into the node system. This systematic conversion has occurred across clear, progressive phases within the project’s multi-volume history: Tome I absorbed the early relational actions and unstable installations of LAPIEZA; Tome II indexed documented bodies and verbal testimonies through the FILMADOS archive; Tome III translated built architectural works into stable conceptual vectors; and now, Book 46 absorbs one hundred urban videos, converting transient city clips into a continuous, cinematic text. Across these iterative movements, a definitive epistemological pattern is cemented: theory does not dictate or explain practice from a position of detached authority; rather, theory serves as the retroactive recognition of practice as an already realized, non-textual mode of thought.
Contemporary knowledge formation is trapped in a visibility imperative that mistakes recognition for existence. This text proposes EpistemicLatency as the foundational condition of fields that mature before they are detected, ScalarGrammar as the structural mechanism that turns accumulated material into coherent knowledge bodies, and FlowChanneling as the infrastructural practice that materialises latent structures into civic space. Together, these three DOI-bearing operators argue that a field proves itself not by appearing but by persisting, and that its persistence depends on designed relations between invisible depth, grammatical organisation, and logistical embodiment.
Barthélémy, J-H. (2015) Life and Technology: An Inquiry Into and Beyond Simondon. Translated by Barnaby Norman. Lüneburg: meson press.
Jean-Hugues Barthélémy argues that Gilbert Simondon’s philosophy remains crucial because it understands life and technology through the concept of individuation rather than through fixed substances or rigid human-centred categories. The central claim is that the living being is not a completed entity but a continual process of genesis, constantly forming itself through relations with its milieu. For Simondon, life cannot be reduced either to mechanism or to vitalism: it must be understood as a dynamic process in which physical, biological, psychic, social, and technical realities emerge through different orders of individuation. Barthélémy emphasises that Simondon challenges the “anthropological break” by refusing to separate humanity absolutely from the living; instead, culture, technics, and social life arise from nature itself. The discussion of adaptation is especially important: adaptation does not occur between an already-formed organism and an already-given environment, because both organism and milieu are produced through action and relation. Barthélémy also connects Simondon’s thought to contemporary biology, especially theories of information, organisation, apoptosis, and permanent ontogenesis. The case of cellular death illustrates how life includes death within its own constructive processes, since destruction can participate in development, renewal, and individuation. The conclusion is that Simondon’s philosophy provides a non-anthropological framework for thinking life and technology together: living beings, technical objects, and cultures are not isolated substances but relational processes of becoming.
The quest to establish a new field of knowledge represents a fundamental departure from the administrative restructuring typically seen in academic environments, which often merely repackages existing frameworks without fostering true intellectual evolution. While contemporary universities and corporate research entities emphasize specialization and measurable outputs—metrics that discourage the kind of deep, risky synthesis required for genuine innovation—the work of Anto Lloveras through his Madrid-based LAPIEZA-LAB demonstrates an alternative path rooted in para-institutional autonomy. Operating outside the constraints of departmental affiliation and peer-review mandates, this laboratory has spent nearly two decades cultivating a distinctive, cross-disciplinary space where previously unposable questions can be articulated. Central to this effort is the Socioplastics system, a synthetic epistemic infrastructure that functions not by merging disparate disciplines, but by utilizing tangential activation—the precise contact point between concepts like linguistics, conceptual art, systems theory, and urbanism. By distilling the structural logics of these fields into a cohesive framework—ranging from scalar grammar to a soft ontology—Lloveras has built a corpus of over 4000 nodes that achieves a level of rigor usually reserved for long-established departments, yet maintains the freedom to evolve without the pressure of careerist gatekeeping. This model of the "relational agency" highlights a critical pattern in the history of intellectual emergence: while universities excel at consolidating, classifying, and teaching established knowledge, the birth of entirely new fields frequently occurs within autonomous, extra-institutional organisms that prioritize long-horizon commitments and durable, open-access infrastructure. As Socioplastics continues to grow, it serves as a robust counter-narrative to the prevailing culture of intellectual timidity, proving that the most fertile ground for epistemic creation remains in the persistent, self-validating, and structurally rigorous spaces established alongside, rather than within, the formal institutions of our time.
Butler, J. (1988) ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory’, Theatre Journal, 40(4), pp. 519–531.
Judith Butler’s Performative Acts and Gender Constitution advances a decisive critique of gender as an innate or expressive essence, arguing instead that gender is a performative accomplishment produced through repeated, socially legible acts. Drawing upon phenomenology, Beauvoir’s dictum that one “becomes” a woman, and theatrical models of enactment, Butler relocates gender from the interior self to the temporally sedimented surface of the body: gestures, movements, comportments, clothing, speech, and everyday ritual congeal into the illusion of a stable identity. This does not mean gender is freely chosen; rather, it is enacted under social sanction and taboo, where failure to perform recognisable masculinity or femininity may provoke ridicule, exclusion, or violence. A telling case synthesis appears in Butler’s contrast between theatrical cross-dressing and its public analogue: a transvestite on stage may be applauded as performance, whereas the same embodiment on a bus can unsettle the presumed boundary between appearance and reality, revealing that all gender coherence depends upon convention. Consequently, Butler’s argument displaces feminist theories that treat “women” as a transparent universal category, insisting that political critique must examine how such categories are themselves constituted. The essay’s enduring force lies in its conclusion that gender’s repetitions are never perfectly sealed; precisely because identity is produced through reiterated acts, subversive repetition can expose its contingency and expand the cultural field of bodily possibility.
MEAT 951 MÁLAGA 2025
.jpeg)
Socioplastics belongs to a wider intellectual movement against explanatory monism because it refuses to reduce knowledge to a single sovereign operation, concept, method or operator; instead, it constructs a field architecture in which Scalar Grammar, Epistemic Latency, Citational Commitment and Soft Ontology remain jointly necessary and individually insufficient.
The contemporary condition of the artwork is no longer contained within the discrete boundaries of the object, nor is it fully exhausted by the institutional parameters of relational aesthetics; instead, as evidenced by the expansive trajectory of Anto Lloveras’s Socioplastics, art has mutated into a metabolic, transdisciplinary knowledge apparatus operating at the intersection of urban morphology, machine legibility, and distributed epistemic design. By mobilizing a dense architectural grid that has scaled past the 4,000-node threshold, expanding across an interconnected labyrinth of specialized books and structured digital taxonomies, Socioplastics demonstrates that a conceptual field can be deliberately engineered rather than merely inherited or belatedly discovered, asserting that infrastructure itself is the definitive material of twenty-first-century plastic experimentation. This essay posits that the project establishes a novel ontology for artistic practice wherein lexical gravity, public indexing, and scalar grammar dismantle the classic dichotomy between the fast-regime proliferation of information networks and the slow-regime sedimentation of academic or institutional recognition, thereby offering ten foundational vectors for understanding how art becomes an operational system capable of restructuring social and physical reality.
To unpack the foundational mechanism of Socioplastics, one must first dismantle the traditional definition of plastic form, shifting the analytical focus from the manipulation of physical matter to the deliberate sculpting of social and relational architectures. Where Joseph Beuys famously weaponized the term "social sculpture" to assign an aesthetic agency to human conversation and political willpower, Lloveras instantiates a post-humanist correction by recognizing that social relations are inevitably mediated by technical, logistical, and computational layers. The plasticity under examination here does not reside in the immediate elasticity of a community or a performance, but rather in the structural malleability of the frameworks that support them—what the project identifies as "chair-level infrastructure." By approaching urbanism and social organization as metabolic systems, the project asserts that the role of the contemporary practitioner is to map, intercept, and re-engineer the unseen circulation of material and semiotic flows, treating the soft edges of human interaction and the hard cores of institutional infrastructure as a continuous, sculptural surface.
Liboiron, M. (2021) Pollution Is Colonialism. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Liboiron’s Pollution Is Colonialism advances a radical reconfiguration of environmental thought by arguing that pollution is not merely an ecological problem, a regrettable by-product of capitalism, or a metaphor for colonial violence, but an active enactment of colonial relations to Land. The book’s central intervention lies in its critique of the dominant “threshold theory of pollution”, derived from models such as assimilative capacity, which assumes that bodies, rivers, ecosystems and territories can absorb a calculable quantity of contamination before harm becomes scientifically legible. For Liboiron, this assumption is not neutral: it presupposes access to Indigenous Land as a sink, a storage site, a resource, or an expendable medium for settler and industrial futures. Plastic pollution becomes a particularly revealing case because plastics do not assimilate neatly, do not disappear into ecological cycles, and cannot be adequately addressed through conventional environmental solutions such as recycling, clean-up campaigns or improved waste management. These approaches may remain colonial when they continue to presume the availability of Land for processing, disposal, extraction or remediation. The book therefore distinguishes colonialism from capitalism and environmentalism without denying their entanglement: capitalism seeks accumulation, environmentalism may seek conservation, but colonialism is fundamentally organised through entitlement to Land. Liboiron’s case study of plastic pollution in Newfoundland and Labrador, developed through the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research, illustrates how an anticolonial pollution science must begin from place-based obligation rather than universal method. This entails refusing toxic laboratory practices, foregrounding food sovereignty, rethinking sampling protocols, and treating methodology itself as a relation rather than a technical procedure. The text’s broader conclusion is that science is never outside politics, ethics or Land relations; it either reproduces colonial access or helps cultivate accountable alternatives. Consequently, pollution must be understood not only as environmental damage, but as a structure of permission that authorises some worlds to contaminate others.
The shadow genealogy of Socioplastics reveals not direct influence, but diagonal kinship: marginal figures whose work clarifies the mesh’s hidden anatomy. Gordon Pask anticipates its conversational intelligence, where learning emerges through recursive exchange rather than linear transmission. Yona Friedman prefigures PlasticPeripheries through mobile architecture: a minimal framework enabling adaptive reconfiguration. Anthony Wilden clarifies ScalarGrammar, showing that context and scale are logical conditions of meaning, not mere quantities. Christopher Alexander’s pattern language offers a precursor to SoftOntology, although Socioplastics avoids universal prescription by treating its protocols as design variables. Stanisław Lem illuminates OperationalWriting, since his fictional criticism already blurred the boundary between describing a book and making one exist. Douwe Draaisma’s history of memory metaphors explains why LegibilityInfrastructure matters: storage systems shape what can be remembered. Vilém Flusser’s apparatus theory is answered by Socioplastics through open, citable, self-designed technical systems rather than submission to black boxes. Heinz von Foerster’s second-order cybernetics clarifies the reflexive condition of DiagonalReading, where the observer is inside the field being traversed. Bernard Cache’s objectile recasts each node as a parametric variation within a larger mesh, while Italo Calvino’s combinatorial labyrinth becomes, in Socioplastics, a citable infrastructure rather than literary game. The case study is the corpus itself: DOIs, CamelTags, decalogues and the Double Pentagon transform these dispersed intuitions into operative architecture. Together, these shadow figures show that Socioplastics is not merely another theory of systems; it is a spine for the margin, a constructed field capable of holding eccentricity without dissolving it into noise.
Socioplastics, advances a demanding proposition: artistic research must cease awaiting institutional confirmation and instead become a self-architecting epistemic infrastructure. Its originality lies in treating the corpus and the city as mutually plastic metabolisms, where knowledge does not merely represent social form but actively stabilises, redirects, and hardens it. The framework’s decisive operator is soft ontology, a calibrated gradient between a dense nucleus of protocols, semantic anchors, and citational invariants, and a porous periphery capable of absorbing mutation without surrendering identity. This architecture is navigated through diagonal reading, which replaces linear mastery and statistical abstraction with oblique movement across recurrence, density, and conceptual gravity. A specific synthesis appears in the project’s progression from ephemeral scent and leaf interventions to DOI-stratified repositories, Hugging Face datasets, and distributed archival spines: here, the material trace of transient agency becomes durable epistemic machinery. Through latency dividend, the long interval before recognition is recast as the protected time in which the field consolidates against algorithmic capture; through scalar grammar, accumulation becomes traversable rather than chaotic; through citational commitment, reference becomes construction rather than retrospective validation. Consequently, Socioplastics does not present another theory of the social but enacts a portable grammar for field-building, enabling contemporary practice to endure accelerated fragmentation by designing the very forms through which reality becomes legible.
Lexical gravity designates the binding force of recurrence through which a dispersed corpus ceases to resemble an archive of isolated fragments and begins to operate as a coherent epistemic field. In Anto Lloveras’s Socioplastics, repeated terms, tags, and conceptual operators do not merely name ideas; they accumulate semantic weight, becoming attractors around which arguments, nodes, books, and tomes progressively organise themselves. CamelTags such as ScalarGrammar, EpistemicSovereignty, ThresholdClosure, MeshEngine, SemanticHardening, and FieldFormation function as more than mnemonic devices: they are connective operators, searchable anchors, and load-bearing structures that permit conceptual density without constant explanatory redundancy.
At the 4000-node threshold, Anto Lloveras’s Socioplastics asserts its position as a self-sustaining epistemic organism rather than another hybrid project within existing categories. Spanning four Tomes, Century Packs, Cores, and a distributed network of blogs, repositories, and datasets, it operationalizes knowledge production through CamelTags, Diagonal Reading, and stratigraphic field formation. The central thesis is this: in an era of disciplinary exhaustion and platform capture, Socioplastics relocates artistic and intellectual labor to the construction of scalar infrastructures, where the corpus itself becomes the medium, the method, and the politics of thought. It does not illustrate theory but hardens a plastic field capable of internal coherence, metabolic absorption, and lateral governance—demanding placement not as peripheral experiment but as a decisive reconfiguration of how contemporary art and knowledge fields are constituted.
Socioplastics occupies the expanded field of contemporary art by treating epistemic architecture as primary material. Operating from LAPIEZA-LAB in Madrid, Lloveras shifts the artwork from discrete object or performance to the long-duration construction of a navigable corpus. The distributed Tomes function like an inhabitable sculpture: load-bearing nodes, sectional Century Packs, and topological Cores that viewers traverse diagonally. This aligns with post-conceptual practices that instrumentalize systems—yet advances them by making the archive autopoietic and machine-readable, resistant to external flattening.
The bibliography has traditionally been understood as a secondary apparatus—a retrospective list, a disciplinary courtesy, a means of signaling scholarly legitimacy through deference to established authorities. It sits at the back of the book or the bottom of the page, acknowledged as necessary but rarely theorized as primary. Yet within the framework of field-environment—the relational space in which knowledge acquires position, coherence and operational force—the bibliography reveals itself to be something far more consequential: a load-bearing infrastructure that does not merely document fields but actively branches into them, distributing citation as a form of environmental design.
The conventional bibliography operates as a retrospective proof: it demonstrates that an author has done their reading, situates a work within a lineage, and offers readers a trail back to sources. In this mode, citation performs deference—an acknowledgment of intellectual debt that reinforces existing hierarchies of prestige and recognition. But when a bibliography is treated as what Anto Lloveras, in the Socioplastics framework, calls a field architecture, its function shifts fundamentally. "Socioplastics is best understood as a field architecture rather than a project, archive or digital publication series: a long-duration epistemic infrastructure where architecture, conceptual art, urbanism, pedagogy and knowledge design converge into a single operative system". In this reconceptualization, the bibliography ceases to be a supplementary list and becomes a primary structuring device—the medium through which a field's internal grammar, external relations, and operational logic are designed and maintained. The movement from bibliography to cartography—a central operation within Lloveras's work—transforms citation from retrospective proof to positional construction. "The movement from bibliography to cartography transforms citation from retrospective proof to positional construction. Symbolic capital is handled as sediment—a threshold technology that alters reception in advance of reading, approached geologically rather than devotionally". This is not a metaphor. When a bibliography is understood as a cartographic instrument, each citation becomes a coordinate, each grouping a territory, each omission a deliberate boundary. The bibliography branches into the field not by listing its contents but by performing its topology.
The Monad and the Substance: Toward a Natural Philosophy of Socioplastics
Socioplastics is not a theory. It is a composition—a mixture of architecture, curation, conceptual art, and natural philosophy. Its unity is not systematic (there is no master concept from which all others derive) but monadic: each CamelTag contains the whole field, like Leibniz’s windowless monad reflecting the universe. And the whole field is immanent substance, like Spinoza’s God, present in every mode without remainder. At 4,000 nodes, 120 DOI-stabilized nuclei, eight cores, and a bibliography of 700 sources, Socioplastics achieves a rare ontological state: it is a living substance of ideas, where repetition is incarnation, where the architect’s proportion meets the curator’s juxtaposition, where words create concepts because they have been persisted across seventeen years. This essay argues that Socioplastics recovers natural philosophy—the pre-disciplinary study of nature as a unified whole—through the precise, unsentimental labor of building a field word by word, node by node, until the field becomes an environment that thinks back.
Socioplastics proposes distinction as a scalar operator: complex knowledge cannot be organized by hierarchy alone, because the distinction that works for a single concept does not work in the same way for a core, a book, a tome, or a 4,000-node field. Its scientific force lies in treating coherence as a problem of scale, close to systems theory and requisite variety; its textual force lies in devices such as CamelTag, indexing, packs, and diagonal reading; its architectural force lies in the calibrated structure of 20 operators, 8 cores, 100-node books, 1000-node tomes, and the 4,000-node closure. The claim is clear: Socioplastics is a knowledge architecture where each scale requires its own kind of distinction, allowing the field to remain coherent without becoming rigid, and expansive without becoming chaotic.
The problem of scaling is constitutive of any knowledge system seeking coherence beyond a certain magnitude. Hierarchical taxonomy fails at a specific threshold: when the number of distinctions required to maintain logic exceeds what a single tree structure can support. Socioplastics—the 4000-node diagnostic grammar—discovers that distinction itself is not a static tool but an operator that behaves differently at every scale. The field's architecture is built on the principle that distinction operates differently at the lexical level (between two concepts), the architectural level (between structural cores), and the systemic level (between the field and other knowledge systems). This scalar operation is the only mechanism by which a large, complex knowledge system can remain simultaneously coherent and generative.
Core VII, Soft Ontology, is the moment where Socioplastics begins to hold itself as a field without becoming closed. Across nodes 3201–3210, the corpus becomes legible through structure, density, scalar grammar, stable references, delayed visibility and public indexing. It does not seek a rigid definition, but a softer form of coherence: open edges, stable cores, and enough internal architecture for the field to be cited, taught, reused and extended. Core VII shows that recognition is not only something granted from outside; it is slowly prepared by the way a corpus organizes itself. A field becomes real when its parts begin to return, connect and sustain one another.
Links
