CACrown ArchivesHistory · sources · collections
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Random International

Open-knowledge reference entry

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 23, 2026
Entity authorityQ16671937
Source-derived summary

Random International is a London-based art collective and collaborative studio, founded in 2005. The group shot to prominence with its interactive Rain Room art installation. Its work includes sculpture, performance and large-scale architectural installations. Two of its exhibition pieces have now become permanent installations, the first of which was the critically acclaimed and popular Rain Room, now permanently housed in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The group was founded in 2005 by German artists Hannes Koch and Florian Ortkrass. Ortkrass graduated from the Royal College of Art in London in 2005, while Koch graduated in 2004. Its experimentation with digital technologies has led to collaborations with Harvard roboticists on creating 'point studies' that reduce representation of the human form in motion into 15 light points, as well as with architects to create large scale public displays that include covering a German train station with LED lights.

Rain Room

Rain Room, now installed in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, was the first installation of a Random International project in a purpose-built, permanent structure. The work was previously shown at the Barbican, London (2012); MoMA, New York (2013); Yuz Museum, Shanghai (2015) and LACMA, Los Angeles (2015–2017). Rain Room allows visitors to the installation to walk through a downpour without getting wet.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Random International” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Random, International and Open-knowledge, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2005, 2004, 2012, 2013—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Random, International and Open-knowledge is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 23, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16671937. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005, 2004, 2012 and 2013.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Random International”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Random International primary sources, Random International archive and Random research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Random International”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Random International” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.