Culture, including art, is natural. Since humans are makers this means art is fundamentally a techno-social, hybrid system of the mental, the biological, the machinic and the inert. New understandings allow for new technosciences which produce new social conditions that lead to new understandings, all the while this dance means the creation of new artistic practices (artivism, maketivism, prefiguration, performing cyborg citizenship, sousveillance, hypernatural) and theoretical claims (cyborg art, hybrid art, bioart, eco art, infoart, inhuman art, symbiotic art, digital art, inorganic agency). What are we to make of this proliferation? Do we know what we like and does that make a difference? What can we know when we are the flawed instruments of knowing? Should (can?) art be part of helping the world through its current crisis or can it only be an escape from it?
Originally posted on Progressive Geographies:
Where should you start with reading Peter Sloterdijk? I have previously done this with Henri Lefebvre, and Chathan Vemuri asked me the same question for Sloterdijk. This is my attempt at answering this, largely in relation to works already in translation – comments or additions welcome.
What is interesting is that in quite a short period of time, Sloterdijk has gone from very little being translated to almost everything either in print or under contract. Yet he can be a frustrating read, especially in his short works, and it is not always clear how books work in relation to each other.
His two first works (aside from a book he seems to have largely disowned) were Critique of Cynical Reason and Thinker on Stage: Nietzsche’s Materialism. Both were translated into English fairly quickly, but then none of his books were translated for almost two decades, even though he was publishing…
View original 739 more words
The lecture draws on recent debates about empirical sociology’s methodological crisis that results from the emergence of sophisticated information-based capitalism and digital culture. Researchers face the challenge of “newly coordinated social reality” in which social relations and interconnections exist across time and space. However, this challenge co-exists with an unprecedented opportunity to use digital multi-media to re-imagine the craft of social research. In the face of these challenges it is argued that sociological craft needs to be invigorated by a renewed focus on its political purpose. Back argues for a live sociology, able to attend to the fleeting, distributed, multiple and sensory aspects of sociality through research techniques that are mobile, sensuous and operate from multiple vantage points. The lecture is based on his new book edited with Nirmal Puwar entitled Live Methods
Originally posted on Pop Theory:
I have had Bruno Latour’s An Inquiry in Modes of Existence (AIME) kicking around my desk since last summer, thinking it’s the sort of book one should probably read in case it turns out to be mind-blowingly important. I finally got round to reading it, in a certain manner, recently, encouraged by the setting up of a reading group by the NAMBIO research group in the Geography here at Exeter, which I have actually not been able to attend until this week. I might not be able to go to the next one meeting either, so in the spirit of stretched-out, online thinking that this book is meant to exemplify, I thought I’d try to articulate some of the thoughts that it has provoked in me. (The book is just one element of a more ambitious ‘digital humanities’ project – a website, basically…
View original 4,379 more words