From a distance, Elko Braas’ installation looks like a minimalistic sculpture: Two lines that seem to float in space at a fragile angle. But up close, the supposedly simple joint turns out to be an elaborate mechanism, in the center of which a stone is holding its balance – or is being kept in balance. In the observation of the infrequent trembles of the joint mechanism, the fragility of the construction gains a new dimension. It is not only the laws of statics and the material properties that cooperate in this balancing act; rather, actuators and reactors are also at work – an intelligent computerized system of six motors. The contemplative works of Elko Braas are based on technical ideas, which develop a poetic depth in their absurdity and in the interaction of analog and digital components. He is able to negotiate questions of immaterial digital space on a physical, sculpturally comprehensible level. For TRY KEEPING IT BALANCED, Elko Braas has two camera stabilization systems, so-called “gimbals”, work against each other. These complex gadgets work well as systems on their own. In the opposing gearing, however, the chaotic entanglement of feedback, control error and steering cause a permanently unstable condition. The latitudes that result from the mechanical inadequacies and limited processing power become visible. The Stone that is held in between threatens to fall to the ground at any moment. Exemplarily, this self-organized balancing of power dynamics can be compared on many levels to the tangible daily moments of overburdening. The trust in open cybernetic systems, which we rely on in almost every aspect of life, though they remain impenetrable in their hyper-complexity, is staged as unsettling irritation. A sensual experience that raises the question of how we position ourselves today to the statement of computer scientist Niklaus Wirth, who advises against the development of systems whose behavior remains incomprehensible to the individual: “The belief that complex systems require armies of designers and programmers is wrong. A system that is not understood in its entirety, or at least to a significant degree of detail by a single individual, should probably not be built.”