masculine, and even slightly techno-fetishist, and seems to gloss over some of the more complex histories of weaving culture, such as the protests of the English Luddites in the 19th century against the threat of unemployment through technology. So, returning to the initial statement of “addressing issues related to the socio-psychological aspects of the interaction between man and machine” (Nicolai 2015), one wonders whose interaction exactly is referred to. Given the demise of the regional textile industries through processes of automation and globalization, visible in the vast Saxony landscape and underdeveloped cityscape of Chemnitz, any reference to the value of traditional craft, and particularly the female contribution to production, is palpably missing in this work. Perhaps this should be interpreted as a nod to the overtaking by machines of the manual live skill of the loomweaving professional, without judgment. The work is, after all, a celebration. References Cocker, E. 2015. “Live Coding/ Weaving – Penelopean Mêtis and the Weaver-Coder”s Kairos.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Live Coding, Leeds, doi:10.5281/

中文翻译：

---

Carsten Nicolai：Unitape

男性化，甚至有点技术拜物教，似乎掩盖了一些更复杂的编织文化历史，例如 19 世纪英国卢德派反对技术带来的失业威胁。因此，回到“解决与人机交互的社会心理方面相关的问题”（Nicolai 2015）的最初陈述，人们想知道究竟指的是谁的交互。鉴于自动化和全球化进程导致区域纺织业消亡，在广阔的萨克森州景观和开姆尼茨不发达的城市景观中可见，任何提及传统工艺的价值，特别是女性对生产的贡献，在这项工作中明显缺失. 或许这应该被解释为对织布专业人士的手工现场技能被机器超越的点头，没有判断力。毕竟，这项工作是一种庆祝活动。参考 Cocker, E. 2015。“Live Coding/Weaving – Penelopean Mêtis 和 Weaver-Coder”s Kairos。在国际实时编码会议上发表的论文，利兹，doi:10.5281/