Are there any critiques or uncomfortable/triggering aspects that are not immediately easy to grasp, but which have been directed towards today’s society? How does this represent a step out of your comfort zone? What turning point has it brought about, and what innovative key or punk spirit lies behind it?

I think for any exhibition, especially those that are responding to a curatorial prompt, there is always a moment, or in fact many moments, where things are unsteady and perhaps even uncomfortable. I think that friction is vital for how a project takes shape. What was wonderful about the dialogue Robert and I were able to develop was that it never settled, even right up till a few months from the show, we were thinking about how it is these fundamental questions of vibration might be represented in the works. We were also always thinking about the ways the works might talk to each other in the gallery. What was most satisfying was being able to move amongst the pieces and see how they form this mesh of fascination, practice and knowing.

What is different about this project, and what does it have in common with your previous works?

Energy Fields is easily the largest show I have been involved in. I think that’s likely the same for Robert too. We’ve both been active as curators for almost two decades, but the scope – and by that I mean everything from geography to fabrication to conceptual framework – of Energy Fields is truly something unique and profound. To stand inside Steve Roden’s Ear(th) work or be in Joyce Hinterding and David Haines’ anechoic chamber work Telepathy is to be consumed by the work. Likewise, something like Akio Suzuki’s Analapos piece or Kyle Slabb’s incredible Binanggu work, these pieces show the breadth of how artists might embrace the promise of knowing that is held in vibration.