Main Article Content
Today, most people spend their lives online: browsing social media, watching cat videos, etc. Some consider this a parallel activity—not part of their ‘real’ life. But the truth is that today those whose brains have been rewired through their interaction with these technologies are in fact constructing their reality through these systems of representation. One could argue that they seem so intimately attached to those images that even their reality seems post-produced (Steyerl, 2017). On the other hand, this new collective subjectivity offers new possibilities, as they promote the idea that today—as Joseph Beuys predicted—everyone can be an artist (2004), thus assigning a new role to internet shared images and their producers. The challenges that arise from these scenarios are: Can we embrace the creative potential of these apparently meaningless daily activities as the rich material for new collaborative narratives? Can we benefit from these collective productions to promote new bioethical discourses, or might this perhaps add another footstep towards a new becoming media? This paper will develop these arguments and present the results of the author’s formal artistic research based on open-source network technologies as the material-discursive tool for the articulation, promotion and distribution of collective singular intimate interspecies explorations in a 'new aesthetic' paradigm.
Berger, J. (2008). Ways of Seeing. Penguin.
Beuys, J. & Harlan, V. (2004). What Is Art?: Conversations with Joseph Beuys. Claireview Books.
De Landa, M. (1996). The Geology of Morals: A Neo-Materialist Interpretation. http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/geology.htm
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
Flusser, V. (1983). Towards a Philosophy of Photography. Reaktion Books.
Guattari, F. (1984). Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics. Puffin.
Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Combined Academic Publ.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination Into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. University of Scranton Press.
Jevbratt, L. (n.d.) Interspecies Collaboration: Making Art Together with Nonhuman Animals. http://jevbratt.com/writing/jevbratt_interspecies_collaboration.pdf
Kac, E. (2009). Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond. MIT Press.
Kull, K. (2009). The importance of semiotics to University: Semiosis makes the world locally plural. https://www.etis.ee/File/DownloadPublic/ea254a8c-669641989826b5c8a4816e83?name=Fail_3._TartuKullValif3m.doc&type=application/msword
Kull, K. (2011) Towards a Semiotic Biology. Imperial College Press.
Lazzarato, M. (2006). “Semiotic Pluralism” and the New Government of Signs.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983). The Raw and the Cooked. University Of Chicago Press. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0107/lazzarato/en
Steyerl, H. (2009). In Defense of the Poor Image. e-flux journal. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/10/61362/in-defense-of-the-poor-image/
Steyerl, H. (2017). Duty Free Art. Verso.
Uexküll, J.V. (1956). Mondes Animaux et Monde Humain. Rowohlt.
Uexküll, J.V. (1957). A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men: A Picture Book of Invisible Worlds. International University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell.
Wolfe, C. (2013). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame. University of Chicago Press.