An exchange of sequences. The sequence usually rests on a linear development (see the early Christian sarcophagi), thus determining juxtaposition. But Leonardo Fibonacci, whom they rightly refer to, at the beginning of the 13th century highlights, in a succession, a phenomenon of consequence, i.e. a jump, which determines "other" consequences that differ from the initial situation (the formula is well known).

In their case, the consequence is precisely connotative. It is therefore a linguistically transmuting or deviant result.
This is quite different from when someone intervenes on an original and manipulates it in various ways. For example, to transfigure it and make it their own or for censorship purposes.

Here the aim is to determine a new work that seems to be consanguineous, even though the blood group is different. This probably takes into account the hybrid that we experience internationally. And it is precisely in the light of this observation that the experiment is different from the post-Dadaist "games" that some famous artists have played on other people's works. But again: despite these notations of epochal updating, in Anna and Ariel's operation the chiasmatic game of the exchange of tensions in X peeps out. As early as the fifth century B.C., Polyclitus fixed this game in his "Doriphoros". The sculpture flaunts the interplay between the tension of the left arm (holding the spear) and that of the right leg, which supports the weight of the body.

Of course, in this case, a hybrid within Western culture. But you can go even further, can't you?

Prof. Carmelo Strano