Joshua Speer
Introduction
This essay will question whether Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) is just fashionable theory or situated within a wider system. This will be undertaken through the perspective of being a practicing curator. It can be understood that systems are in fact just fashionable phenomena that operate in cycles within art history, however in this essay I am using the word ‘system’ as an operating framework whereby connectivity and relationality occur, and associations or connections can be examined, whether material or immaterial. This will be done through, as mentioned above, the reading of OOO in relation to thinkers and points within art history; also thinking of exhibitions as systems, introducing the term ‘metaphysical discursivity’. This essay could become easily framed by notions of the art market and capitalism when referring to an ‘object’ [in art], opposed to a ‘thing’ —which is not the intention of this text. To cut confusion I will use objects and things as synonyms, unless specified otherwise.
Fiction(?)
Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) is Graham Harman’s variant of the Speculative Realism movement. As an enquiry into the existence of objects it gives objects the same importance as humans. In doing so, humans are not all powerful over objects: we co-existing on planet Earth. Stating that humans are objects is one of the biggest [ethical] issues of OOO. The objectification of humans has been countered by an Object-Oriented Feminism (OOF) theory, as suggested by Katherine Behar (2016). Here, Behar questions the appropriation of humans as objects in the context of people from the working class, children, race and females (Behar, 2016: 7). I would therefore argue that instead of the objects taking authority and control over us, we take control of them. This isn’t to say we become authoritative over objects, rather a kind of anthropomorphism takes place in viewing objects: it gives us an indication of the object’s inner sensibilities. This is ‘Thing Power’. Such Thing Power is when the mute microphone speaks and the sardine can looks back (Mitchell, 2010: 2). Harman’s theory is predicated on a flatness to hierarchy – and ontology – through the authoritative position of being a white, educated male that stabilises this hierarchy, subsequently pushing forward a patriarchal theory. Equally, why is it that since the turn of the millennium when OOO became ‘fashionable’ books have been predominantly published by white men?: Timothy Morton, Levi Bryant, Ian Bogost and of course Harman to name but a few. Maybe a better term would be Object-Oriented Testosterone?
Is it anything new? Virginia Woolf wrote about objects with a very ontological consideration and it is also suggestive of Breton’s objets trouvés—giving sensibilities and inner identities through fictional narrative. Of course others such as Kant, Heidegger and Husserl also commented on objects’ existence. Whilst OOO is based upon a scientifically aware but philosophically managed way of thinking, it is ultimately fictional. Of course we can never know of the ACTUAL conversation(s) had between objects when placed within close proximity, equally we will not know what the sardine can is actually looking at when the eyes peer upwards, nor what the mute microphone says. It is speculative, and therefore it is subjective, therefore it is fictional.
Fashion
Since the start of the 90s, curatorial discourse has increased in fashion; the study of exhibition histories and curating as their own disciplines had moved away from the seemingly linear trajectory of art history, becoming known as The Curatorial.
I am going to use the term fashion here in two ways: the first is the understanding of fashion as being just a cycle within history that has no real end, often holding appearances within periods along the timeline; secondly as an up-to-date trend that often sits alongside popular culture. In the context of OOO we can understand this enquiry as being just a propelled set of thoughts originating from Kant’s ‘Things-in- themselves’. This notion of autonomy is what Bennett brings forward as the force of the/a thing (Bennett, 2010: 3).
Within curatorial discourse, or the practice of curating, this inner-ness of works is what’s usually displayed. Whilst art works remain contextualised by the artist’s existence they also hold a conversational property that is, in essence, the thingness within. A usual phrase within curating is that curators bring works together through a ‘constellation’ or through initiating ‘dialogue’ between work(s). However, whilst emphasis is given to the conversational properties of the works being, this is not translated into or through the work’s autonomy via its thingness. ‘Metaphysical discursivity’ is the means of describing the conversational thingness of art works when situated within the exhibition context; this is not to disregard its artistic context or denial of the hand, but to acknowledge the inner autonomy of a work; its being.
Fashion as an up-to-date, trendy entity is possibly the most basic and obvious definition. The popularity of something is defined by its coverage by both popular culture and mass media. Since the introduction of the internet there has been a boom in the appropriation of art works and their role within advertising. For OOO this is problematic, it can be understood that OOO is in conversation with some kind of economic structure—as though art economist Magnus Resch and Graham Harman were tag-teaming to create a super theory that would override all current structures. In some respects, this could be true. Harman comments on the Theory of Everything situated within physics, and claims that in fact such theory should not be situated within the sciences, and instead within philosophy (Harman, 2018: 23). However whilst OOO may bring forward a new interest or investigation into objects and materiality, it was not created to directly stop the current art market in its tracks. Exhibitions have been conceived and objects have been circulating long before OOO became fashionable. The capitalist structure of objects seem more apparent in the writings of Israeli curator Joshua Simon under—yet another—neologism: ‘Neomaterialism’ (Simon, 2013). Or possibly Baudrillard.
In both contexts of fashion, a few things become clear: OOO is operating in a system that is running parallel to other systems. OOO uses the future and prospective understanding of other realities as its core: it remains rigid and framed. Whilst its thinking is made up of hybrids of other thinkers and ideas, OOO uses its lack of historical grounding—by possibly denying other historical thinkers, other than Heidegger—to set in stone three capital OOO’s. Of course Harman does give a nod to other thinkers and philosphers: Lacan, Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Žižek, Butler and Latour (postmodernist thinkers) (Harman, 2018: 10), these seem very much cherry-picked and selected purely on the judgement of their propping up of his OOO theory. This is the same when Harman engages with Kant’s ‘Things-in- themselves’, Heidegger’s ‘Being’, Lacan’s ‘Real’ and Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ (Harman, 2018: 13). This is another cherry picked selection, all of which are males. With such propping, OOO becomes more of a brand that is just becoming increasingly recognised, and as with any other brand, with wider recognition comes wider authority and power.
Exhibitions
Thinking of curatorial discourse, and with the bringing together of works/objects, we can understand the exhibition space as a system; a constellation of energies bouncing from one another, instigated by the thingness of the work. This is most prominent in the thinking of Jane Bennett (Bennett 2012). Of course objects are given a narrative through the subjectivity of perception: one person may read an object and its context different to another. This subjectivity of perception is what hits the outside of the object, however within the object is the thing. This thing, or rather thingness, is what is in dialogue with other objects when placed in close proximity. It can sometimes alter or challenge the subjectivity of perception, but ultimately it is a ‘life’ or being that is external to our own. An energy sitting within the atomic core of an object, this is to argue against the anthropomorphisation of an object, and rather acknowledge its autonomous being in relation to the human consciousness. This is not to suggest that objects have feelings or emotions, of course they do not have a consciousness themselves, nor a nervous system. However, they do have an existence which is a life. This life is using atoms as a means of communication and living; this is metaphysical discursivity. Such methodology is appropriate to the exhibition as this is when an active dialogue between the thingness of work(s) play out.
Harman calls for the object as being non-relational and autonomous from human condition(s) or perception(s). In doing so, denying the reality of the thingness within, Harman suggests that objects are not able to ‘touch’, though are in fact able to affect one another (Bennett 2010: 228). Though how can objects affect one another, when you deny their thingness, which is in essence the objects reality/existence? There are two ways of thinking about this. The first is to think of the objects within a composition and the subjectivity of perception being the force or affect of change. This is a denial of the thingness, but to understand that objects become symbolic or fetishised within culture(s). We are sitting at a table, with an open laptop next to a cup of coffee, notebook and pen; we read this object composition as work. However, if we were to remove the notebook and pen for some sweet treats and a DVD, we read the composition as leisure. Although a denial of the thingness, it does give recognition to the object through its readiness to assist, each being a tool in the activity that is being conducted. However, this is a very Heidegger-ian notion of objects, which has been criticised as an exploitation of the object world (Behar 2016: 7).
The second is to contest that objects are not able to touch, and instead give a greater prominence to the object through its being, via the thingness within. If we are to understand the innerness of the object as being the thingness, and thus being the existence, we can understand this as being the point of interaction and dialogue between the work(s) of art—or rather, objects—on display. For it isn’t the perception of the object that is in dialogue, although we may read a composition of objects, it is rather the immaterial energies situated within the atoms of an object that when placed within close proximity with another thing, initiates conversation. As mentioned before, this is metaphysical discursivity.
Moving forward with the second statement, we can understand exhibitions as being systems. These systems are conditioned by the very being or presence of objects within a close proximity, their immaterial connections being the points of contact that presents the notion of a system. If the atom-crashing, discursive properties of work is continuously happening within this, then touch is always occurring, therefore the ability to affect one another is done so through the presence of an object through subjectivity of perception, but also the actual presence of an object, or another alongside; acknowledging their thingness.
One way of acknowledging the thingness of objects, is to question OOO’s placement within pedagogy. If we are to understand the existence of an object through its inner core, then should we be conditioned to realise and accept this? At what point do we learn about objects life in relation to our own? We are born surrounded by objects, using a construct of imagination to animate their lives. Harman talks about the pedagogical engagement of OOO within the humanities and current budget cuts. Whilst before the humanities were given authority alongside the sciences, it has now switched to the extreme opposite with the sciences—maths, engineering and computing—becoming favoured within education (Harman, 2018: 93). In Avram Davidson’s short story ‘Or All the Seas with Oysters’, as examined by Pil and Galia Kollectiv, we can see how we [humans] do not hold a critical use of objects and in turn falsify their true nature (Kollectiv 2008: 2). We need to therefore develop an almost poetic framework in which to form relationships with objects. Acknowledging that even the most mundane of household objects have an existence; a life. It is easy to subvert and therefore agree with Harman and OOO about us becoming objectified. Becoming used by our very own creations through a change of gaze. However, as we grow older and become swallowed up by capitalism, our imagination towards the inanimate becomes commodified. Popular culture tells us we want objects to assist in our lives for either pleasure or economic gain, the importance and/ or autonomous identity of an object—its thingness—is placed into an economic system.
Conclusion
If the internet now frames our very existence and is so closely aligned with the mass media that any kind of revolutionary way of thinking quickly becomes commodified, any kind of system made in response to something, or system attempted to be un- systemised just becomes swallowed by capitalism and made a fashionable phenomena. Everything is turned into capital. Therefore the question: ‘is OOO the latest fashion or just part of a system’ is almost easily answerable. It is both. Fashion is a systematic way of operating, it is an entity unable to be broken or taken apart from another. OOO is a set of thinking operating within one larger system that is in turn a system; assemblage theory.
In Harman’s newest publication, he writes about having read the metaphor essay by José Ortega y Gassett before even encountering Heidegger. In becoming exposed to such way of thinking, it took 18 years of reflection to be at a point of comment (Harman, 2018: 72). Therefore, there is a certain degree of naivety in directly challenging a theory that – in self admittance – is still very new, and in some respects, largely abstract to me. I feel this essay has worked as a means of trying to articulate a stance or viewpoint within OOO for situating my curatorial practice and critical identity. In essence, I have created my own system for trying to navigate the pre-existing system, which is in fact commodified through the current educational structure in which I write this. Equally, being a curator studying such course I am just perpetuating the fashion of a cycle further until someone else catches on. Is OOO just a religion?
Bibliography
Behar, K. 2016. Object-Oriented Feminism. United States of America. University of Minnesota Press.
Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things. United States of America. Duke University Press.
Bennett, J. 2012. ‘Systems and Things: A Response to Graham Harman and Timothy Morton’. [online]. jstor.org. Available at: < http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/ 23259373.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A868f364cee1803450c33d8ccca807329 > [Accessed 17th March 2018]
Harman, G. 2018. Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. United Kingdom. Penguin Random House UK.
Kollectiv, P & G. 2008. ‘The Life of Objects’. [online]. Kollectiv. Available at: < http:// http://www.kollectiv.co.uk/Objects.html > [Accessed 18th March 2018]
Simon, J. 2012. Neomaterialism. Germany. Sternberg Press.