Good, matched and stored. A few things from the legacy record to cross-check: - **Title:** "3d-to-2d" — happy with that as the working title, or do you want to adjust it? - **Year:** Legacy says 1999 (post date Dec 1999) — you're saying 2000. I'll go with 2000 unless you want to dig into it further. - **Medium:** Listed as "photographs, cardboard" — that feels right for a performance documented with stills and built from cardboard. I'll stage it as a custom medium since it doesn't map neatly to a standard select. - **Dimensions:** 14.8 × 21 cm — that looks like A5, which would be the print size of the photographs rather than the performance itself. Does that track?

Great second shot — the suit is visibly deteriorating here, cardboard torn and splaying open at the top, standing in a children's playground next to a spring rider. The MABEF® box is starting to fall apart. There's something bleak and funny about it against that brick wall. So the suit was degrading as you walked — was that planned, or did the cardboard just start giving way on its own?

This is the best one. The suit is fully collapsing now — head caved in, arms splaying — and two older women on a Utrecht shopping street are completely delighted by it. One is laughing with her arms crossed, the other reaching out to touch it. "FRAGILE" printed on the side. The public has entered the frame. All three photos are now in. Let me get the core fields staged while we talk — title, year, series, city, medium.

That third photo is doing a lot of work — the public reaction is part of the piece. Was that interaction something you were after, or did it just happen when you got out on the street?

That's a great detail — refused entry to the coffee shop, then immediately embraced by two strangers on the street. The suit finding its audience outside, not inside.

Those dimensions are the photo prints (A5 — 14.8 × 21 cm), which is sm on the site grid. Does that feel right for how this should read, or would you want it to sit larger?

The assignment was "make something 3D, turn it into 2D" — but the suit itself is the thing that collapses that distinction as you wear it and walk. Was that loop — 3D object that produces 2D photographs of itself deteriorating — something you saw from the start, or did it emerge as you were building it?

So the concept sharpened in the doing — the walk itself was the discovery. How long were you out on the street?

HKU in 2000 — what was the reception like when you brought the photos back to school?

"That's not what I was looking for, but it works" — that's a good grade from a teacher who didn't see it coming. Was there anything about the assignment brief you were deliberately pushing against, or was it more that you just found a way through it that surprised everyone including you?

Was Jur Jarring someone you made work with regularly, or was this more of a one-time pairing for the assignment?

What drew you to working with him specifically — was it a shared sensibility, or more that you complemented each other?

Looking at the third photo — the two women, the collapsing suit, the shopping street — did that moment feel like the piece completing itself, or was it just a funny thing that happened on the way back?

So the suit found its audience, fell apart, and that was it — the walk had a natural ending. What made you pick up a camera for this rather than, say, presenting the suit itself back in the classroom?

And looking at it now — the suit deteriorating, the coffee shop refusal, the women on the street — did it end up doing more than the assignment asked for?

Were there any artists or works you were aware of at the time that felt related — people doing things in public space, or with costume, or with the body?

Ha — Bochum pride. And Beuys is a real connection here — the felt suit, the materials that carry meaning through use and deterioration, the idea of the artist's body as the medium. Did that land for you at the time, or is it more visible in retrospect?

You described this at the start as a 3D-to-2D assignment — cardboard suit, walk around town, taking pictures. Looking at those three photos now, is that still how it feels, or has something shifted in how you'd describe it?

I love that — "Cardboardman visits Utrecht." That's the title, really.

Do you want to use "Cardboardman Visits Utrecht" as the actual title, or keep "3D to 2D" as the archive title and hold the other as a description?

Where does this work live now — do you still have the photos, or did they stay at the school?

I've marked it not-for-sale — correct, or is there a status you'd prefer?

Good. I have everything I need — let me put the confirmation draft together now.

Done. Open **Wrap up / confirm** in the sidebar — you'll find all staged fields and the draft descriptions there. Edit anything that needs adjusting, then press **Commit** when you're happy. One thing worth double-checking in the panel: the title is now **Cardboardman Visits Utrecht**, and the description explains the 3D-to-2D logic without leading with it. If the formal contribution assessment feels too measured or too generous, rewrite it — it's a draft.