Jackson Anxiousness of Objects v2

8/13/2019 Jackson Anxiousness of Objects v2

1/34

135

Te Anxioune of Objeand Artwork

Micael Fried, Obje Oriented Ontology andAesheti Aborption

Robe Jackson

Universiy o Plymouh

I , Douglas Huebler amously roe

ha: The orld is ull o objecs,more or less ineresing; I do no ish o add more.1Byexperimening ih he limis o ar as he processing oinormaion, Huebler aned o creae orks ha had aban-doned he ypical Modern Ar aesheic objec in avour orelaions and conex. This aricle ill argue o concur-ren scenarios or he readers o his journal, ariss andphilosophers alike; ha Michael Frieds ork onAbsopionand Teaicalitprovides enough ineres or a philosophy

o objecs, and Graham Harmans riings on allure haveconsiderable repercussions on ar hisory and criicism. Thereader is eniled o pick eiher, and consider no only hesimilariies o each, bu he necessary, producive differences.Indeed, i one reuses o add more objecs, hey unitingly

1 Despie many myhs surrounding he origin o his quoe, i as iniallypu orard by Huebler as an aris saemen or he January 5-21 exhibiiona Ne Yorks Seh Siegelaub Gallery, 1969.


2/34

Speulation II

136

ransorm Hueblers more or less ineresing objecs inobrand ne absorbing ones.

Objec Oriened Onology (OOO)2posis ha onology is amess3o objecs; equally corporal and incorporeal,4arificialand naural. Forged concurrenly o he explosion o Specula-ive Realism, a number o philosophers and academics havedisanced hemselves rom he movemen o ocus on heonological relaions (and non-relaions) beeen discreeobjecs. No single objec is deemed onologically inerioror superior, auhenic or inauhenic; hey mus all be heldaccounable. Any objecs acual relaionship oards anoherhas an equal validiy o any oher single relaion; heher a

relaional neighbour in a configuraive sysem, he objecsdisinc or elemenary pars or an objecs mediaed connec-ion. The ocus is no longer on he limied human access oobjecsha is i objecs ere he ocus anyaybu helimied access o all objec relaions. Objecs are no longerunineresing, aggregaed lumps o suff ha boher heinsular melodrama o human finiude, nor do hey exis asan individualised eniy direcing atenion aay rom a pre-individual realm. Objecs are ineresing realms o realiy in

heir on righ. Objecs are real, discree and independen.They are defined by heir on auonomy, separaed romoher objecs.

2 The name and acronym o Objec Oriened Onology (OOO) has been sug-gesed by Levi Bryan, as a improved name or Objec Oriened Philosophy,as coined by Graham Harman in a 1999 lecure. See Graham Harman, ObjecOriened Philosophy, in owads Speculaive Realism(Wincheser, UK: Zer0Books) and Graham Harman, ool-Being: Heidegge and he Meaphysics ofObjecs(Chicago: Open Cour, 2002). Proessionaly, he group includes Gra-ham Harman (American Universiy o Cairo), Levi Bryan (Collin College),Ian Bogos (Georgia Tech) and Timohy Moron (Universiy o Caliorniaa Davis) amongs oher advocaes.3 As briefly menioned by Ian Bogos. See Ian Bogos, Videogames are amess (paper presened a he Digial Games Research Associaion (i)conerence, Uxbridge, Unied Kingdom, Sepember 1-4, 2009). htp://w.

bogos.com/riing/videogames_are_a_mess.shml4 Wih excepion given o Graham Harmans argumen hich idenifies adecisive spli beeen real objecs hich are compleely ihdran and

sensual objecs ha never ail o be presen a all imes.
http://www.bogost.com/writing/videogames_are_a_mess.shtmlhttp://www.bogost.com/writing/videogames_are_a_mess.shtmlhttp://www.bogost.com/writing/videogames_are_a_mess.shtmlhttp://www.bogost.com/writing/videogames_are_a_mess.shtml


3/34

Robert Jakon Te Anxiousness of Objecs and Awoks

137

Given he young duraion o he group, is relaively easy oundersand a lack o usion ihin conemporary ars pracice,or a possible broader influence on ar criicism and ar hisory.5

Hoever one could hypohesize a preliminary mapping oOOO ono a sereoypical ars pracice quie easily. To ocussolely on a collecion o objecs and heir hisorical or crii-cal journey is perhaps he Modern Ar sensibiliy objecified.Whas more, since he idely regarded ailure o Modernism;

born o an objec based crisis in he early o mid 1970s, moreand more ariss (like Huebler) had moved urher rom heypical exhibied arork-objec and ocusedsomeimesenirelyon he inormaional relaionship beeen objec

and human vieer, or he poliical and economical conexsurrounding he arorks recepion. The ocus had movedrom aesheic objecs, o inormaion and relaional sysems;rom saic, durable, rans-conex unis, o fluid, user-generaed,rans-acual assemblages.

Given he sharp unpopulariy o objecs ihin lae 20hCenury and 21sCenury Wesern Conemporary ars pracice,one could happily speculae on a nosalgic reurn o ubiqui-ous ar objecs. Whils a reurn o idealised arork-objecs

migh be a emping shif or die-hard high modernis arissand criics, any reurn o an objec-based ars pracice requiresa careul reading and re-reading. Furhermore, hils hisaricle ill ully endorse he reurn o objecs, i ill alsohighligh a poenial aesheic cisis. A crisis firmly siuaed

beeen he orced choice o privileging idealised objecsand privileging correlaionis6 conex. Le us remember ha

5 Bar noable excepions: Joanna Malinoskas exhibiime of Gueilla

Meaphysicas held a Canada Gallery in Ne York rom December, 2009unil January, 2010. Oher examples include Urbanomics Te Real Ting:Awoks and Speulaive Realisma Tae Briain in London held on he 3rd oSepember, 2010, Sam Leachs exhibi Pesen-a-handa Sullivan + Srumpin Sydney beeen Ocober 7h-24h, 2010. See also Warren Sack ho de-livered he keynoe address o he Neork Poliics: Objecs, Subjecs andNe Poliical Affecs conerence a Ryerson Universiy in Torono, Canadaon Ocober 22-23rd , 2010 here he linked Digial Ar Sofare, Poliics andObjec Oriened Onology.6 Quenin Meillassoux,Afe Finiude: An Essay on he Neessi o Coningenc,


4/34

Speulation II

138

a crisis does no necessarily endorse despair, bu can equallygive reasons or dynamic change.

Fusing onology and aesheic expression has a long, convo-lued and chequered hisory. Many dominan and occludedhisorical ar movemens have had a deep correlaion ihphilosophers and culural heoriss alike. The hisory beeenonology and arisic expression is beyond any brie gener-alisaion here, bu ouocus should be one o using onol-ogy and arisic sensibiliy. By sensibiliy e usually denoehe paricular adopion o syle, expression and aesheicinen ha ypically maniess in an ariss ork. Alhoughmany criics like o disance he o disciplines, such ha

philosophical ideas encourage he ariss sensibiliy (heoryinorms pracice), here e should ocus on ho an ariss sen-sibiliy is explicily onological, in so ar as pracice becomesheory. By all means, he argumen is no a ne one,7bu as e

blend and repel ogeher he ideas beeen Harmans allureand Frieds ar criicism, he reader should ideniy hy heormer disancing atains litle uncionaliy.

Objet Oriented Objet-hood

The olloing quesion is, perhaps, a ore-gone conclusion;Can awoks eain auonomy of expession, whee humans aeno longe pesen?

The quesion seems quie a home in a journal dedicaedo he developmens o Speculaive Realis philosophy, in soar as an applicaion o hough regarding he in isel ouldallude o an unhinkable episemology here senien lieis no longer presen, and he problems o correlaionalism

are no longer an issue. Bu noe ha he above quesion doesno deal ih Meillassouxs absolue, Brassiers Nihilism,Grans Naure or even (o sar off ih) Harmans Objecs.

rans. Ray Brassier (London: Coninuum, 2008), 5.7 See Ian Bogos,Alien Phenomenology(Ann Arbor: Open HumaniiesPress, 2011) [orhcoming]. Ian Bogoss noion o carpenry, influenced byHarmans guerilla meaphysics, builds on he argumen ha philosophycan be consruced ih an objec praxis raher han jus academic riing.


5/34


139

The quesion does no even ask abou aesheicspe se; orbeter or or orse, i deals ih arorks. Arorks; objecs

ha manies human culural concerns ino profiable iconicscapegoas.

To a number o ar criics and hisorians orking oday, arcriicism (paricularly American ormalis criicism) pivos ona spli synonymous ih Frieds early riings. We should ocuson he recepion o arorks in paricular because as e illsee; I claim ha he spli beeen he ypical ormalis ehosand is subsequen pos-ormalis rejecion in he mid olae 1960s, had been due o he mehodology encouneredin he ariss sensibiliy and he Modernis orks recepion.

To clariy, my inenion here is o embellish he onologicalparameers o recepion and urhermore o begin mappinghe srucure o Frieds ormalism ono Graham Harmansonological saemen ha aesheics is firs philosophy;8ha aesheic recepion can exis ormally, bu ihou anyneed or criical judgemen rom humans.

I as he American ar criic Michael Fried ho in he es-sayA and Objehood (1967)spli his ype o receiving inoone undamenal area and a second subordinaed, insidious

offshoo. Since he 1967 essay, Fried has made no apologieso argue or he coninuaion o he Greenbergian paradigmha suppors he ormalis, auonomous and independenarork; he elusive arork ha reains independence, despiechanges in he surrounding hisorical or poliical conex;he elusive arork hich coninues he idealised, dedicaedcommimen in criical aesheic progress. Never beore in arcriicism had a criics ager been simulaneously desroyedand displaced by is anihesis.

To briefly summarise he inamousAfoumessay, Friedargued ha here as a degeneraive spli beeen he Mod-ernis commimen o picorial shape and he hen, laesenerprise: Minimalism, or as Fried dismissively ermed iLieralis Ar.9Those atached o ha Fried idenifies ih he

8 Graham Harman, On Vicarious Causaion,CollapseII (2007): 221.9 Michael Fried, Ar and Objechood, inA in Teor: -: An Anhol-


6/34

Speulation II

140

lieralis sensibiliy, Donald Judd, Rober Morris, ec., creaedork ha as indicaive o a broader philosophical projec,

no an isolaed episode bu he expression o a general andpervasive condiion.10

So ha exacly is his spli, and ho does i divide haFried erms Obje-hood rom ar? Folloing Greenberg, Friedidenifies he Modernis commimen ih he consruciono pieces hich above all, aim o deea or suspend is onobjec-hood.11 Wha does his mean? Fried argued ha haconsiued a ork o ar (and hence, he criical procedureha olloed) as o be had purely rom he ork isel. Greaorks o ar remain imeless or a reason. There is somehing

paricular, usually an ideal paricular or uniy, ihin he orkha he aris has creaed o make he ork an arork. Thisideal-paricular is ha should be regarded as alogeher di-eren rom oher mundane objecs. Typically, his is herehe criicism o Greenbergian ormalism begins; ha is, o sayan objec is ransormed ino ar because i is ar, srikes us asan absurd paradox orhy o Zeno. Thus he pos-ormalissupporer has litle ineres in recouning he ranscendennaure o arorks; insead arorks, ariss and vieers

are oven ino deep relaions; ha o curaorial neorks,exhibiion hisory, canonised exbooks, criical uors, andidealised myhs o confliced ariss ha inersec ih or-ured exisenial quandaries and religious hegemony. This ismiles aay rom Frieds inenions, as he oulines;

Wha is a sake in his conflic is heher he painings or objecs in

quesion are experienced as painings or as objecs: and ha decides

heir ideniy as paining is heir conroning o he demand ha

hey hold as shapes. Oherise hey are experienced as nohing morehan objecs.12

ogy of Changing Ideas, ed. Paul Wood and Charles Harrison (London: WileyBlackell, 2002), 823.10Ibid., 823.11 Ibid., 824.12 Ibid., 829.


7/34


141

The ideniy o he ork comes direcly rom he ork isel,and no rom ha Fried erms he beholder, he personho is vieing he arork. To behold he ork is o beholdsomehing in paricular, as humans do no behold everyhingin daily percepion. In he 1967 essay, Fried is quie specificabou ho objecs can negae heir on onological saus asan objec and hereore operae as ar; i is, above all, i is aspecial idealised uniy ha acs as a direc and deerminedvehicle or he ariss expression. I should also be noed hahils Fried ollos he ormalis posiion concerned ihemphasising medium-specificiy, he is also esablishing an

inormed phenomenological enquiry.13

Fried pus orard a scahing atack on he lieralis sensibil-iy; hey consruc pieces o ork hich are holly engagedin implicaing he beholder rom he sar ihin a onexualsiuaion, hence beraying he Modernis sensibiliy. Mean-ing and recepion is no o be ound ihin he Minimalisork isel, bu insead he ork operaesfohe beholderscircumsance. The ork can only uncion or beholders andis only consruced ih beholders in mind. The beholder is

less ha hich can behold and more like a gap in a sysemneeding o be filled, so ha he aesheic effec can properlyuncion. The inclusion o he beholders experience pro-cessing he arork is inegral o he arorks expression. Inconras, Fried champions arorks hich undamenallyignore he role o he beholder.

Teatrial Objet

Fried opposes he lieralis sensibiliy and erms i Thearicaliy,14

13 This replicaes he suggesion ha an adherence o orm makes any orkmore han a mere objec, raher han jus as percepion. Merleau-Pony,Greenberg and Fried all share he ormal value in arorks, such ha grea-ness (presenness) is issued rom arorks. See Maurice Merleau-Pony,

Eye and Mind, rans. Carleon Dallery, inA in Teor: -, ed. PaulWood and Charles Harrison (Malden: Blackell Publishing, 2005), 767-71.14 Fried, Ar and Objechood, 822.


8/34

142

or o reasons. The firs is a largely personal criicism labelleda arorks ha are aesheically hearical, concepual, kischand no direcly a serious ork o conemplaion. The secondreason reerences he suggesion ha heares sensibiliy iso engage, ac ou, inerac, implicae and relae o he audi-

ence rom he sar. Consider Frank Sellas Empess of India(1965) [Fig 1], championed by Fried ashe discovery o a nepicorial srucure based on he primacy o he picorial shapeover lieral shape.15

When he general public have vacaed, he lighs are urned off,

15 Michael Fried, Shape as Form: Frank Sellas Irregular Polygons, inAand Objechood(Chicago: The Universiy o Chicago Press, 2004), 77.

[Fig.1] Frank Sella, Empess of India, 1965, Meallic poder in

polymer emulsion pain on canvas, 6 5 x 18 8 (195.6 x 548.6cm). Gif o S.I. Nehouse, Jr. 2010 Frank Sella/Ariss RighsSociey (), Ne York.


9/34


143

and securiy officers are atuned o exerior disurbances, cane sugges ha he arork sill expresses aesheic auonomy?Financially, he paining is orh a considerable amoun ocourse, bu can e sugges ha he ork ranscends banalrules o poliical, fiscal and human percepion rom he resulo is independence? Orlike he pos-ormalisshould econsider ha Sellas ork only regisers his auonomy henhe vieer brings ih hem years o conexual baggage? Theproblem does resemble a philosophical dj vusereoypeorhy o a ree in he oods, bu neverheless highlighs heonological spli ha Fried idenified in 1967.

Lieralis sensibiliy is hearical because, o begin ih, i is concernedih he acual circumsances in hich he beholder encouners lieralis

ork. Morris makes his explici. Whereas in previous ar ha is o

be had rom he ork is locaed sricly ihin [i], he experience o

lieralis ar is o an objec in a siuaionon ha, virually by defini-

ion, includes he beholder.16

One mus remember ha or Fried, objec is a heavily negaiveerm. I one approaches Sellas Empess o Indiaand considers

i as jus an objec, somehing severely rong has happened.The Modern arork conains ihin isel, somehing in-dependen and absorbing, somehing o behold. By conras,

Judd and Morris ork are meano be regarded as objecs,and hey anno union as objesihou he beholder. Friedanicipaes his sensibiliy in he hree-dimensional srucureo lieralis ork, hich is ofen as large as he beholder.

The lieralis user is mean o relae o he ork as anobjec, hus, he onus is no on he arork isel, bu on he

beholder o complee he ork, hereas he modernis arorkis already complee, unified and i is beheld as such. Logicallyhen, he Modernis arork does no serve a purpose orsociey, nor should i ac as being socially useul, bu inseadranscend ordinary lie on is on erms.

The ac ha Fried uses he erm objec in a negaive ay,

16 Michael Fried, Ar and Objechood, 825.


10/34

Speulation II

144

should no disrac us rom he realisaion ha he isn alk-ing abou objecs a all; a leas no in he objec orienedsense. Fried does inend o figurehead objec-hood as heanihesis o ar, bu his can be counered in o ays. Firs,he unnecessarily conflaes objec-hood ih hearicaliy orno oher reason oher han he ans o disance ar rommundane objecs, a rivial claim a bes hich ill be dealih in Graham Harmans reamen o Marin Heideggersamous essay on arorks. In Frieds erminology, he arorkis simply he ranscending uniy ha negaes is on objec-hood, hus or Formalism, he judgemen o an arork is o

be had rom he idealised ork isel, no rom he relaional

journey beeen beholder and mundane objec.Secondly, or an arork o qualiy as a ormalis areac, imus be auonomous, unified and independenhe pereccandidae or a comparison ih Objec Oriened Onology.In opposiion, hearicaliy denoes no objecs hemselves,

bu an inenional, reciprocal, o-elaionbeeen beholderand objec. The hearical arork canno be conceived assuch ihou a beholder. Hoever, he ormalis arork iselis an arork ih or ihou he beholder, hus e have an

onological ager orhy o speculaive concern.

Te Privileging of Aetheti Sytem

The reciprocal co-relaion beeen beholder and objeceffecively ended any hope o aesheic progress or Fried.He ached as he mainsream ar orld became consumedih he lieralis sensibiliy in ever progressive saes. The1970s reached he pinnacles o concepual ar, here Laurence

Weiner18 and Sol Leit19 amously argued ha he ork needno be consruced, as he idea or i as enough. The idealised

17 I use he rejoiner co-relaion here, in he explic sense ha Meillassouxdefines correlaionism.18 Larence Weiner,e.al., Having Been Said: Wiings &Ineviews o LaweneWeine: -(Haje Canz Publishers, 2005).19 Sol Leit, Paragraphs on Concepual Ar, inAfoum, June 1967.
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/et.alhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/et.al


11/34


145

objec confliced ih he orks meaning (ha is i meaningas he inenion), he aris ould creae an objec, bu onlyin so ar as i mus insigae o he beholder a relaion beeenhe ariss concep, he objec and he beholders experience.

Concurren o he 1970s, heA Foumcriic, Jack Burnhamscahed he unorhy independence o he ar objec, andagered ha ariss ould dispense ih hem in avour osysems and relaions avouring he concepual ocus mea-phor o compuaional sofare.20 Ar objecs ere no longersaic imeless pieces o be rejoiced, bu necessary unifiedlumps do be done aay ih; eiher in he relenless srippingo criique, or ih he ascinaion o reciprocal co-relaion

and he insabiliy o meaning.As he Digial Ar Hisorian, Edard A. Skanken argues, herelaionship beeen concepual ar and ar-and-echnologyis buil on orgeting any ocus o he arork-objec isel,and oregrounding hepocesso co-operaion:

For many ariss orking a he inersecion o concepual ar and ar-

and-echnology, he paricular visual maniesaion o he arork as

an objec as secondary o he expession of an idea ha becomes eali

by simulaing i...Bu hereas compuer sofare has an insrumenalrelaionship ih hardare, coordinaing is operaion, he ariss

proposiions uncion as mea-analyses o he phenomenological and

linguisic componens o meaning. In oher ords, hey demand ha

he vieer examine he process o processing inormaion, while in

he pocess of doing so.

Frieds criicism o he lieralis sensibiliy is less a ligh atackon privileging objec-hood, han i is a desrucive accoun

o orgeting he uniy o arorks, in avour o bondinghe beholder and objec ogeher ino a conexual sysem. Inreerence o he oresigh o Jack Burnham, Luke Skreboski

20 Jack Burnham, The Aseheics o Inelligen Sysems, inOn he Fuue oA, ed. E.F. Fry (Ne York: The Viking Press, 1970), 119. See also Jack Burnham,Sysem Esheics,Afoum, Sepember 1968.

21 Edard A. Shanken, Ar in he Inormaion age: Technology and Concep-ual Ar, Leonado35:4 (2002): 436-437.


12/34

Speulation II

146

explicily erms his, as a move rom an objec oriened o asysem oriened culure.22

Muliple concurren acors led o he endorsemen o asysem oriened ar criicism. One o he major issues per-ained o, as ha he ar criic Harold Rosenberg coined,Te Anxious Obje;23he deliberae consrucion o an areacha insils episemological ambiguiy and uncerainy oheher he ork concerned is acually genuine ar or no.One can insanly evoke he lesson rom Marcel DuchampsReady-mades, hich reused o give ar is auonomy and ex-posed he conexual sysems ha gave birh o i; he publicsunexpeced illingness o consider i as ar or he gallery

ha gives he anxious objec is ile and space. Duchamp asless concerned ha any objec can be ar, bu on he conrary,he challenge o making somehing ha isna ork o ar bua simple objec. Eiher ay, i is argued ha he anxiousnesso he beholder is privileged raher han he arork iselhich is undermined in avour o ha Greenberg criicisedas he ea o ideaion.24 Greenberg hined ha hese ypes oobjecs ook on he role o oregrounding he idea o non-ar,such ha an [...]idea remains an idea, somehing deduced

insead o el and discovered.25 For Greenberg, ideas alonecanno achieve he uniy o aesheic conronaion, i haso come rom he ork ormally.

Conemporary orms o ar criicism such as Nicolas Bour-riauds Relaional Aesheispush social, relaional conex evenurher, in so ar as, he onex isel is he awok.26 The direcmaerial objec o conemplaion is compleely dispensed ih,

22 Luke Skreboski, Tae PapersAll Sysems Go: Recovering Jack Burn-

hams Sysems Aesheics, Tae (2006) accessed January 3rd, 2011 htp://w.ae.org.uk/research/aeresearch/aepapers/06spring/skreboski.hm23 Harold Rosenberg,Te Anxious Objec, (Chicago: Universiy o ChicagoPress, 1982).24 Clemen Greenberg, Recenness o Sculpure, inMinimal A: A Ciical

Anhology, ed. Gregory Batcock (Los Angeles: Universiy o Caliornia Press,1995), 184.25 Ibid. 184.26 Nicolas Bourriaud,Relaional Aseheics(Paris: Les Presse Du Reel, 2002).
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/06spring/skrebowski.htmhttp://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/06spring/skrebowski.htmhttp://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/06spring/skrebowski.htmhttp://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/06spring/skrebowski.htm


13/34


147

and he conronaion is holly relaional. Ariss consrucsocial gaherings raher han canvas, evens and communiiesraher han objecs. Ar criic, Claire Bishop had noed ha,

raher han a discree, porable, auonomous ork o ar haranscends is conex, relaional ar is enirely beholden ohe coningencies o is environmen and audience.27 Shequoes he associaed aris; Liam Gillick, ho saes ha;

My ork is like he ligh in he ridgei only orks hen here are

people here o open he ridge door. Wihou people, is no aris

somehing elsesuff in a room.28

In opposiion hen, he ask o mapping Objec OrienedOnology ono arisic sensibiliy should invesigae heclaim ha even he relaions beeen suff in a room mus

be orh as much aesheic speculaion as social evens.

Te Alluring Split between Real and Senual Objet

Since he publicaion o Graham Harmans hree majororiginal philosophical reaises, ool Being: Heidegge and

he Meaphysics of Objecs(2002),Gueilla Meaphysics(2005),and Pince of Newoks: Buno Laou and Meaphysics(2008),he discussion o such orks have consisenly deal ihhe imporance o uniary objecs in philosophy. Wih heexcepion o Ian Bogoss pragmaic influence29 and MichaelAusins criique o vicarious causaion,30 one finds less cov-erage given o he sensual realm o Harmans hough; hephenomenological induced, inenional realm ha residesin he inerior o real objecs.

27 Claire Bishop, Anagonism and Relaional Aesheics,Oobe110 (2004): 54.

28 Liam Gillick, Renovaion Filer,Recen Pas and Nea Fuue(Brisol: Ar-nolfini Gallery Ld, 2001), 16.29 See Ian Bogos,Alien Phenomenology.30 See Michael Ausin, To Exis Is o Change: A Friendly Disagreemen WihGraham Harman On Why Things Happen, Speculaions 1:1 (2010), 66-83.


14/34

Speulation II

148

One mus remember ho significan Heideggers Fouroldis o Harman.31The Fourold provides objec oriened onologyih a helpul schemaic o analyse he inside and ousideo objecs. Harman argues ha every uniary objec in hecosmos can be spli ino o disinc realms oZuhandenhei,(ihdran, ready-o-hand) vs. Vohandenhei, (presen-a-hand),puncuaed urher by spliting hose realms ino anohero; somehing specific, (cerain qualiies) vs. somehing a all,(a vigorous uni). In he end, e have he real objec and isqualiies, coupled ih he sensual objec and is qualiies.32

Harman noes ho hese our realms are nodifferen ypeso objecs, bu raher our sides o he same uni. Everyhing

ihin he ourold, grounds ha Harman erms VicaiousCausaion.33 Tha causaion is a meaphysical occurrence be-een o or more sensual objecs mediaed by a real objec,or o real objecs mediaed by a sensual one.

I ool Beingis Harmans atemp o launch he legiimacyo real, ani-exhausive, ihdran objecs, hen is successor,Gueilla Meaphysics,is he atemp o locae ha exaclyispresen hen objecs collide. Harmans unique readingo Heideggers ool-analysis becomes seminal in so ar as

Daseins, presence reveals a very limied layer o aareness,resing upon an indirec reliance o ihdran equipmen.

Equipmen is no effecive because people use i; on he conrary, i

can only be used because i is apable o an effe, o inflicing some kind

o blo on realiy. In shor, he ool isn usedi is. In each insan,

31 See Graham Harman, Delling Wih he Fourold,Space and Culue12:3 (2009), 292-302.32 I one mus give he same onological auheniciy o objecs as human

beings, (as he OOO commimen sipulaes), I have grea rouble doing hishen Microsof Word decides o auo-correc he ord is sipulaing heoning o somehing (an objecs qualiies) o he correcive o is noinga subordinae use. The echnicalies o English puncuaion aside, Ive lefhe ord is or rheorical purposes alone; I leave he vieer o decideha hey preer.33 Graham Harman, On Vicarious Causaion,CollapseII (2007), 187-221.


15/34


149

eniies orm a deerminae landscape ha offers a specific range o

possibiliies and obsacles. Beings in hemselves are ready-o-hand,

no in he derivaive sense o manipulable, bu in he primary sense

o in acion.34

From he ge-go in ool Being, Harmans sraegy is o suggesha he ihdran realm o equipmen is apparen hen iis presen and even when i is used. No process o experimen-aion, explosives or digesion reveals he execuan Beingo ha objec, or he Heideggerian insigh ha Beingis nopresen and ha i canno be conclusivelymade pesen. Theoher speculaive challenge Harman holds, is ha human

consciousness is no relevan a hislevel o he analysis. Allobjecs make some localized sense o each oher ih helogics hey possess, and equally he qualiies ha canno bepresen, ell, ihdra.

Unlike ha Harman erms he Carnal Phenomenologiss35oLevinas, Merleau-Pony and Lingis, he insigh ha objecshave a limied access o oher objecs discredis he suggesionha he hole orld is ihdran in one pre-individuallump. Insead as Tim Moron has elaboraed,36 orld is no

longer a legiimae opion or onology; insead here are onlydiscree eniies and heir qualiies, boh in explici percepionand ihdran execuion. For he objec oriened onologis,percepion is a largely broad erm o describe he ranslaingrelaionship beeen one objec and anoher. Ho does heauonomy o aesheic expression fi in he inerplay beeenexecuion and relaion?

34 Graham Harman,ool-Being: Heidegge and he Meaphysics of Objecs

(Chicago: Open Cour, 2002), 20 his emphasis.35 Graham Harman,Gueilla Meaphysics: Phenomenology and he Capenrof Tings(Chicago: Open Cour, 2005).36 See Timohy Moron,Hypeobjecs .: Physical Gaffiilecure given aLoyola Universiy, College o Humaniies + Naural Sciences, Ne Orleanson November 2nd in 2010. Here he discusses he ecological dangers o

World in he Heidegger erminology, as somehing enclosed as a horizonseparaing us rom he ouside. You can find he audio on Timohy Morons

blog, las accessed 3rd January 2011: (htp://ecologyihounaure.blogspo.com/2010/11/hyperobjecs-20-oil-remix-mp3.hml)
http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/11/hyperobjects-20-oil-remix-mp3.htmlhttp://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/11/hyperobjects-20-oil-remix-mp3.htmlhttp://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/11/hyperobjects-20-oil-remix-mp3.htmlhttp://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com/2010/11/hyperobjects-20-oil-remix-mp3.html


16/34

Speulation II

150

Te trange Mereology of rigger Broom

The aim o Gueilla Meaphysisis o undersand ho discreeeniies rom all levels acually relae. I all objecs ihdraino heir privae discree realies. he paradox o srangemereology unolds.37

There is a onderul scene in he Briish elevision sicomOnly Fools and Hosesha highlighs he paradox o objecs andrelaions almos perecly. In he episode Heoes and Villains,he sicoms residen idio, Trigger, mees he cenral cas ina London greasy-spoon cae. He proudly shos hem a phooo himsel, acceping he aard rom he Peckham Major, or

services o he communiy as he councils long-sanding roadseeper. Reflecing on his career and his seeping broom, hemuses, You kno, his broom has had seveneen ne headsand oureen ne handles in is ime. The oher characerslooked bemused. One replies, Ho he hell is i he same

bloody broom hen? Quick as a flash, Trigger snaps back,Well heres a picure o i, ha more proo do you need?38

From an Objec Oriened perspecive, boh paries aresomeho, correc. Whils he example is exremely absrac,

he scene highlighs he cenral paradox o he objec orienedposiion. An objec is boh a vigorous, consisen uni ihreal qualiies, and ye a he same ime compleely ihdranrom all o is composie relaions, elemens, qualiies andpars. As a combinaion and composie o boh broom-headand handle, he nely ormed broom-objec is a consisenuni, hich ihdras rom boh broom-head, broom-handleand all o is consiuens (horse hairs, quarks, kno-holes,varnish). The broom-objec is irreducible o is use by road

seepers, is manuacurer and he insigaing phoo o i. Iis a sel-supporing Heideggerian hing39 and ye i e ere

37 To borro Graham Harman and Levi Bryans objeced oriened variano he sudy o pars and holes.38 You can vie his paricular scene on YouTube. Las accessed 20h March2011: htp://w.youube.com/ach?v=cPJO99bFGQ839 Marin Heidegger, The Thing, inPoer, Language, Tough, rans. Alber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJO99bFGQ8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJO99bFGQ8


17/34


151

o separae he broom-head and broom-handle, he broom-objec ould be cease o be a uni. Levi Bryan exemplifieshis paradox ih he example o he couple;

When conroned ih a couple e can hus ask ho many objecs here

are. Our common sense anser ould be ha here are woobjecs, o

i, he o people relaed o one anoher. Hoever, he objec-oriened

onologis ould beg o differ. A couple is no woobjecs, bu raher

heeobjecs. There are, on he one hand, he o people, bu heouple

iselfis ahidobjec. In oher ords, he couple is a hird objec over

and above he o people enangled in he couple.40

I is up o he Objec Oriened Onologis o explain hisparadox. Wha causes o objecs o come ogeher in such aay ha he composie objec is auhenically unified in iseland ye a he same ime over and above is pars? Raher hanrelaions coming firs in a pre-individualising realm, i seemsha every relaion is an objec in is on righ, and ye, heparadox posis he difficuly o differeniaing beeen anyrandom collecion o unis and a genuine real uni. Ever hephenomenologis, Harmans undamenal anser is o ocus

on he inerior o he real objecs hemselves and he role oaesheics ihin heir core srucure, inanimae or oherise.

Super-Aymmetrial Allure

In Gueilla Meaphysics, Harman briefly argues ha ihinhe objec lies o sries; horizonal and verical.

Verical srie is he difference beeen real objecs and he oher real

objecs ha play a role in creaing hemnamely, heir pars, hichare caricaured in such a ay as o ransorm hem ino he noes o

he ne objec. Horizonal srie, by conras, is ha occurs beeen

Hosader. (Ne York: Harper, 2001).40 Levi Bryan, Three Srange Mereologies,Laval SubjecsBlog, accessed2nd January 2011: htp://larvalsubjecs.ordpress.com/2010/05/01/hree-srange-mereologies/
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/threehttp://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/three


18/34

Speulation II

152

sensual objecs and he ohers ha are grafed ono hemhen he

noes o a sensual objec immediaely lead us o oher sensual objecs

as heir pars.41

As a rule, a real objec is simply haever unifies noes, crea-ing a privae inner realiy ha no oher objec ever exhauss.42For Harman, he only realiy here can ever be is real objecssealed off rom all relaions and heir ineriors,43hich as heexample o Triggers Broom yields is a duel beeen a hingand is pars.44Whils sensual objecs are equally discreeindependen eniies, hey are direcly beore us in all heirpresence heher e ill hem o be or no. Folloing Hus-

serl, Harman adops he sraegy ha ha objecs perceiveare no pure qualiies, bu sensual objecs:

The relaion beeen one level o he orld and he nex is a relaion

o pars ha are convered o noes in a ne unified hing, hile he

relaion ihin he sensual cosmos is one o noes ha lead direcly

ino sensual pars.45

In his passage, e mus noice he firs crucial elemen o

objec oriened causaion, ha he elaionship beween he ealand he sensual ealm is asymmeical. The pars o real objecsare unified o become qualiies; conversely he qualiies ohe sensual objecs are alays-already is pars. In he 2006paper Physical Naue and he Paadox of Qualiies,Harmannoes ha he sensual objec is beyond all is essenialqualiies [...] like a brooding poer or syle ha lurks beneahhe qualiies and animaes hem.46

41 Harman,Gueilla Meaphysics, 22942 Ibid., 193.43 Ibid., 193.44 Ibid., 172.45 Ibid., 229.46 Graham Harman, Physical Naure and The Paradox o Qualiies, inowad Speculaive Realism(Wincheser UK: Zero Books, 2010), 137.


19/34


153

The role o he asymmerical is crucial or vicarious causa-ion, in order o come o erms ih he paradoxical causaliy

beeen ihdran objecs. There is no balance beeenhe connecions o real objecs; here is only a delegaed,one-sided effec ha causes real objecs o connec ihouany real connecion, and or Harman a leas, his processinvolves he sensual objecs uniary noes. I is here, ha hefirs aesheic disincions creep ino his onological cascadeo aoms, brooms and couples:

...causaion can only resemble allure. For hile causaion has impac only

on cerain aspecs o he objec, is impac is on noes, no parsand

noes, unlike pars, are alays inherenly linked o he hing as a hole.47

A las e find an aesheic parallel beeen Harman andFried, in ha he auhenic aesheic experience is no jusobjec oriened bufundamenally diffeen fom pecepion.Like hearicaliy, percepion occurs hen an objec is reaedas an objec and is consiuen pars. In conras, allure issomehing alogeher differen or Harman, as i deals ihhe separaion o he essence (or noe) rom he hole sensual

objec direcly. This disincive even can only occur in heseparaion o sensual objec-noes, or he reason ha hereal objec is inaccessible and i i ere separaed, i ould

be desroyed.

Normal percepion simply moves around he exerior o an objec or

beeen objecs, one sep a a ime...By conras, allure iniiaes a rif

in he hing ha as lacking beore. 48

In ideniying allure as an aesheic effec, a sensual objecbecomes alluring by spliting off rom is noes,49or exissas, he separaion o he hing rom...is noes.50Harman is

47 Harman,Gueilla Meaphysics, 214.48Ibid., 213.49 Ibid., 224.50Ibid., 211.


20/34

Speulation II

154

careul o insis ha ha emerges rom his conronaionisn he real objec in all is beiching serendipiy, as hisould be presen-a-hand. Wha emerges is boh unclear

bu amiliar, and Harman has pleny o aesheic examplesa hand o iniiae he urher claim ha allure iscausaion.

There are o quesions ha emerge rom his encouner;he firs is a clarificaion beeen percepion and allure,and heher he cause is rom real objecs hemselves or a

broader disincion o an arork. The second quesion isa concern regarding he causal srucure o allure and hy ishould ormally occur as aesheics raher han somehingelse. In boh quesions, he crucial place o urn o is ha

Fried erms ani-hearicaliy.

Preent-Zuhandenheit

Those ho ill have been olloing hus ar ill quicklyrealise e inend o have our cake and ea i ih he ono-logical saus o arorks. Like Harmans disincion beeenallure and percepion, e appear o be dealing ih o ypeso relaion, one auhenically aesheic (in Frieds case) and

one inauhenic in he circumsanial sensibiliy o siua-ion. The addiional query is heher his comes rom he

beholder or a special ype o uni ha can be ormalised asan arork. Ineresingly, Heidegger poses he same quesionon he onological saus o he arork.

Boh philosophically and chronologically, Heideggersnoion o he arorks origin exiss somehere beeenequipmen and he hing. I is never enirely clear ha hearork is or Heidegger. The arork clearly isn equipmen,

as i canno ihdra in he slighes, ye Heidegger cannoreduce hese paricular orks o sheer presence-a-hand, evenhough hey are clearly presen. Heidegger does denoe hehingly51characer o he ork, in he sense ha he ork

51 Heidegger, Marin, The Origin o he Work o Ar, inMain Heidegge:Te Basi Wiings, rans. David Farrell Krell (Ne York: HarperCollins, 2008),143. More specfically, Heidegger ocuses on hree inerpreaions o hehings characer in relaion o arorks; accidens, sense percepions and


21/34


155

is sel-supporing. Unorunaely, Heidegger never revisedhis amous essay on arorks in ligh o Te TingandTeFoufoldand so his pus arorks on a precarious ooing. Iany eniy (such as he jug) is an auhenic hing, hen hyshould e be convinced ha i is also an arork?

To complicae hings urher, Fried noes a disincionbeeen presence and presenness (Frieds las ords inAand Objechoodare Presenness is grace52). Lieralis orkoregrounds objecs o presence o he beholder, in he samemanner ha Heidegger shoos don presence in onology;presence can only exis ihin he beholders experience. Inconras, he Modernis arork is boh presen and presens

presenness, i independenly presens uniy insananeously.Monoonous ordplay aside, Heidegger and Fried cannohave i boh ays; Objec-hood canno relae inauhenically

by making he beholder explici, hils a he same ime, argu-ing ha he independen ork relaes auhenically hroughis uniy and compleeness.

Heidegger argues ha he arork presens he srie beeenEarh and World. Srie i seems is everyhere a all imes,

bu i is only presen as srie ihin arorks. As Harman

indicaes in he paper On he Oigin of he Wok of A (aonalRemix),53and deduces rom his revised ool-analysis, hismakes litle sense as a phenomenological disincion. I oneere o hold a can o kidney beans or example, e can seeha srie is also clearly presen as srie. There is sill, heamiliar hidden execuan being (Earh), and he presen-ness o relaion (World). Hence, an aesheic realism likeallure is needed o secure he separaion beeen percepion

ormed mater (hich is laer conflaed ih equipmen).52 Fried, Ar and Objechood, 825.53 Graham Harman, The Origin o he Work o Ar (aonal remix), (paperpresened a The Ars Insiue a Bournemouh, Bournemouh, UK, Febru-ary 1s 2008). This paper as largely improvised ih cuecards and eauresno riten documen o cie rom. You can hoever lisen o he paper asrecorded via he kind ork o he group. Las accessed January 3rd2011: (htp://w.esnips.com/doc/d36e2be0-2e9a-41e7-b39a-06c6ca9c869/Harman_).
http://www.esnips.com/doc/d36e2be0-2e9a-41e7-b39a-06c6cfa9c869/Harman_AIBhttp://www.esnips.com/doc/d36e2be0-2e9a-41e7-b39a-06c6cfa9c869/Harman_AIBhttp://www.esnips.com/doc/d36e2be0-2e9a-41e7-b39a-06c6cfa9c869/Harman_AIBhttp://www.esnips.com/doc/d36e2be0-2e9a-41e7-b39a-06c6cfa9c869/Harman_AIB


22/34

Speulation II

156

and somehing exising beyond he sensual objec presen.Allure is good erm or Harman, as i indicaes he sense osomehing alluring, (he aoremenioned brooding syle o hesensual objec), hils concurrenly preserving he ihdranexceuan being o he objec isel, by ay o allusion. Thealluring objec alays alludes o somehing never presen. Oro pu i anoher ay, in allure e approach he uniy o heobjec as an elusive uni prior o he presence o is qualiies.

Harmans exemplary aesheic paradigm is meaphor.Objecs do no jus presen hemselves meaphorically, bu asmeaphor.54Meaphor here is one o a larger se o examplesha include; beauy, disappoinmen, courage, humour, and

ineresingly paradigm shifs.Beore e finally pair off Harmans aesheics ih Frieds,e mus deduce ha ype o aesheic sensibiliy ould con-siue ani-hearicaliy? I ould ake Fried hireen yearsand a ranser rom ar criicism o ar hisory o sugges hisalernaive.

Te Inner Effet of Aborption

Despie Michaels Frieds credenials as an esablished arcriic and hisorian, he differences beeenAbsopion andTeaicalit55are relaively easy o undersand. Like all he

bes onological ideas hoever, ha is easy o undersandin principle, becomes beiching and complex afer a longperiod o inerrogaion.

In summary, he argumen is simple. I he arork hasbeen made o explicily implicae he role o he beholder ina conexual siuaion or sysem, hen i is hearical. I he

arork deliberaely ignores he role o he beholder hen iis absorpive. Boh sraegies are relaional in he sense ha

boh ypes o ork are consruced o be seen, ye he ono-logical sensibiliy o each orks recepion couldn be more

54 See also Ian Bogoss inerpreaion o Carpenry and his noion o Mea-phorism in Ian Bogos,Alien Phenomenology.55 Michael Fried,Absopion and Teaiali: Paining and Beholde in he Ageof Dideo. (Chicago: The Universiy o Chicago Press, 1980).


23/34


157

differen. Fried is piercing in his commimen, ha henhe consciousness o vieing is suspended, he hearicalsensibiliy emerges. He hopes ha his aesheic golden ruleis ha separaes legiimae arorks rom he banaliies oheare, mass-culure and simple objecs. Unorunaely, ihardly separaes isel rom he later.

In ha sense does he arork ignore he role o hebeholder and suspend his or her consciousness o vieing?For Fried, he anser can be ound hisorically, alhoughhe makes i undamenally clear in he opening saemenoAbsopion and Teaicali56ha he reader should racehis lineage ihin he ormalis orks championed byA

and Objechood.I is he philosopher Denis Didero, hom Fried elcomesas a necessary ally in he aesheics o absorpive composi-ion. In he background o he riumphalism o he Rococomovemen in he 18hCenury, i as Didero ho primarilyopposed he ornae and hearical syle o he movemen.57Folloing Didero, Fried piles hisorical reading afer reading,(along ih his on inerpreaion) o he orks rom Jean-Bapise-Simon Chardin, Jean-Bapise Greuze and Carle

Van Loo. For Fried and Didero, hese 18hCenury orks oar demonsraed he poer o he composiional uniy iselashe absorpive syle.

Consider Chardins Te Soap Bubble(1733) [Fig.2] andTeHouse of Cads (1737) [Fig.3], Fried suggess ha Chardinsprimary preoccupaion as o afford a uniy ha maniesso he beholder he subjec maters deph o absorpion,58or in oher ords:

56 Ibid., 5.57 Also reerred o as Lae Baroque Fried defines he Rococo period asa decoraive hearical developmen. Ariss generally involved ih heRococo period ere Franois Boucher (17031770), Jean-Anoine Wateau(16841721) and Jean-Honor Fragonard (17321806).58 Fried,Absopion and Teaicali, 47.


24/34

[Fig.2] Jean-Bapise-Simon Chardin, Te Soap Bubble, c. 1739. Oil on Canvas.61 x 63 cm. Meropolian Museum o Ar, Ne York.


25/34

[Fig.3] Jean-Bapise-Simon Chardin, Te House of Cads, c. 1737. Oil onCanvas. 83 x 66 cm. Naional Gallery o Ar, Washingon, D.C.


26/34

Speulation II

160

...by singling ou in each picure a leas one salien deail ha uncions

as a sign o he figures obliviousness o everyhing bu he operaion

he or she is inen upon perorming. 59

For our purposes here, here is an onological imporance oabsorpion ha supersedes any negligible criicism o pico-rial represenaion. Chardins echnique o composing heprimacy o absorpion on he surace, conrons he beholderonologically by alluding o he hidden illusory deph ohe scene. For insance, Fried asks he reader o ocus on heimmediae oreground o Te House of Cads; ha bears hesophisicaed device o he hal opened draer conaining

o playing cards:

By virue o roning he beholder and ha is more opening oard

him, he draer serves o enorce a disincion beeen he beholders

poin o vie and percepion o he scene as a hole and he quie di-

eren poin o vie and limied, exclusive ocus o he youh balancing

he cards. There is even a sense in hich he conras beeen he o

cardsone acing he beholder, he oher blankly urned aay rom

himmay be seen as an epiome o he conras beeen he surace o

he paining, hich o course aces he beholder, and he absorpion ohe youh in his delicae underaking, a sae o mind ha is essenially

inard, concenraed and closed.60

For Fried, he ranscenden aspec o he beholders encoun-er ih he porable and sel-sufficien61 ableau62as hesupreme ficion i afforded: A ableauas visible, i could

be said o exis, only rom he beholders poin o vie. Buprecisely because ha as so, i helped persuade he beholder

ha he acors hemselves ere unconscious o his presence.63

59 Fried,Absopion and Teaicali, 47.60Ibid., 48-49.61 Ibid., 89.62 I is orh noing he imporance ha Fried affords he French ransla-ion here. A ableauxis more ha jus a picure bu a ranscending eniyha atains picorial uniy.63 Ibid., 96.


27/34


161

Didero echoes he primacy o absorpion, in so ar as hesough i o be he arorkspimar funcion. The uniy ohe ork neuralises he visualiy64 o he beholder, no oaddress i or make i explici like hearicaliy. This becomescriical or Fried; he onological percepion o he audienceis ficionalised ino believing ha he or she does no exis,

ha i as no really here, or a he very leas had no beenaken ino accoun.65

We kno e are ono an ineresing similariy hen enoice ha e are dealing ih one and he same onologicalparadox. Ho can he beholder no be aken ino accoun andye circumsance dicaes ha hey have a relaion oards

he ork? For he same reason ha he hing in isel exiss bucan neve be made pesen. The beholder vies a ficion, eveni i is a sincere one or a represenaional scene o aciviy(in his insance, he scene o he youh balancing he cards).I is he impossible glimpse o somehing no-presen hacauses he beholder o be absorbed o he ork. Bu noe hahe beholder does no insanly use ino Te House of Cadscanvas anymore han a broom head does ih he broom.They are absorbed, bu no used.

Par o he problem ih his reading is ha Fried believesabsorpion o be a reciprocal, dialecical even. The ork isabsorbing and in urn a circular gesure is given rom he

beholder ho is negaed.66 Bu his makes no sense, noleas rom he onological realiy o he objec (hich Frieddismisses anyay).67Wha he beholder sees is no he real

64 Ibid., 96.65 Ibid., 96.66 Ibid., 103.67 Indeed, a he end o he chaper Toards a Supreme Ficion, Fried brieflyconlcudes: This paradox direcs atenion o he problemaic characerno only o he paining-beholder relaionship bu o somehing sill moreundamenalhe objec-beholder (one is emped o say objec-subjec)relaionship hich he paining-beholder epiomizes. In Dideros riingson paining and drama he objec-beholder relaionship as such, he condi-ion o specaordom, sands indiced as hearical, a medium o dislocaionand esrangemen raher han absorpion, sympahy, sel-ranscendence;


28/34

Speulation II

162

objec or a real arork, bu he alluing sensual objec. Thereal objec ha is, Te House o Cadsis more han all o hesesurace effecs, composed o causal relaions in all o heirinerior and exerior vicissiudes; dus alling on rame, painsains and rapped horse hair, canvas resing on meal sup-pors. All o hese objecs have equivalen uniy and equalaesheic beholding.

For he objec oriened onologis, Frieds analysis is no somuch objec oriened, bu uni oiened. Chardins painingscan be placed anyhere (alhough Fried, ever he classicis, haspreviously noed ha i should be eye level on a gallery all),

because hey reain an absorpive uniy ha is auonomous

and discree. Bu a leas Fried is aare ha uniy exiss, headdiional problem is ha he is oo idealisic ih i. Onlyhuman ariss and culural arorks can produce convicionand uniy, and urhermore only he human beholder iscapable o inerpreing i in heir absorpive capaciy.

There are also sarling similariies beeen Harmans allure,Dideros houghs on ar and he causaliy o naurenoihsanding differen ideas on ha ha causaliy consiues.Fried offers a brie commenary on he disincion beeen

Didero and his peers a he ime:

The machine-paining analogy as a radiional one [...] or De Piles

and oher classical riers he poin o he simile as chiefly he idea

o an inernal accord and muual adjusmen o pars [...] perhaps be-

er described as osensible occasions or he acion or expression o

individual figureshereas or Didero uniy o acion and beyond

ha he uniy o paining as a hole involved nohing less han an

illusion o inheren dynamism, direcedness and compulsive foce of

causaion iself.68

and he success o boh ars, in ac heir coninued uncioning as majorexpressions o he human spri, are held o depend upon heher or nopainer and dramais are able o undo ha sae o affairs, o de-heaializebeholdingand so make i once again a mode o access o ruh and convicion,albei a ruh and a convicion ha canno be enirely equaed or knon orexperienced beore. (Fried,Absopion and Teaiali, 103-104, his emphasis).68 Ibid. 85, my emphasis.


29/34

163

[Fig.4. Jeff Wall,Adian Walke, Ais, Dawing Fom a Speimen in a Laboaorin he Dep. of Anaomy a he Univesit of Biish Columbia, Vancove, 1992.Transparency in lighbox. 199 x 164 cm]

In recen years, Fried has riten ha he issues o behold-ing, absorpion and hearicaliy have been reopened onceagain bu or he medium o conemporary phoography. Inhis laes publicaion Why Phoogaphy Mates as A as nevebefoe(2008), Fried argues ha conemporary phoography:

[...]seeks o come o grips ih he issue o beholding in ays ha do

no succumb o hearicaliy bu hich a he same ime regiser he

epochaliy o minimalism/lieralisms inervenion by an adknoledge-

men o o-be-seeness[...]69

69 Michael Fried,Why phoogaphy mates as a as neve befoe(Ne Havenand London: Yale Universiy Press, 2008), 43.


30/34

Speulation II

164

The quoe is in relaion he absorpive composiion evidenin Jeff Walls body o ork. Fried noes ha Walls insana-neous capuring o his figures displays he absorpive effecin is classic orm,70mos noably in WallsAdian Walke(1992) [Fig.4]. Frieds noion o o-be-seenessinroducedhere as a hal-ay house beeen he phoograph made o beseen and he capuring o he absorpive evenaccouns orhe deliberae saging o he even in quesion. Fried arguesha oher conemporary phoographers such as ThomasSruhho capures public reacions o classic orks inmuseumsalso ener ino ne dialogues concerning he

beholders onological saus.In suppor o my earlier criicism ha Fried only envisageshuman beholders in mind, he chaper Jeff Wall and Absorp-ion; Heidegger on Worldhood and Technology esablishesFrieds mapping o Heideggers World and Equipmen onoWalls absorpive near-documenary orks. The issue is asimple correlaionis one; Fried never offers o speculae onscenarios, ohe han Daseinsuse o he objec(s) presened,

because o he Heideggerian imperaive o equipmens in-

order-o.71To ruly ignore he beholder, a speculaive enquiryshould move aay rom Frieds ever increasing suppor orabsorpion ihin relaional equipmen and insead moveoards he onological indifference o objec-arorkshemselves.

Elsehere72I have previously claimed ha Harmans ar-gumen or he discree irreducible execuion o hings isconveyed poenly ihin non-paricipaory, digial, runime

70 Fried,Why phoogaphy mates as a as neve befoe, 40.71 I is or his very reason Fried becomes unsuck in he laer pars o hechaper analysing Walls Diagonal Composionshich eaure no humanaciviy a all. Fried is reduced o he suggesion, ha he mos imporanelemen is he coninued human use despie an absence o praxis.72 Rober Jackson, Heidegger, Harman and Algorihmic Allure, Paperdelivered or he Associaion o Ar Hisorians Conerence Session: Heideggerand he Work o Ar Hisory, April 18 -20h, 2010.


31/34

[Fig.5] John F, Simon, Jr, Ever Icon, 1997. Sofare: eb based and all hang-ing (Macinosh PoerBook 170 and plasic acrylic) versions.


32/34

Speulation II

166

arorks, such as John F, Simon Jrs Ever Icon[Fig. 5] andhe Algorihmic aris Anioine Schmits Vexaion .74Theseorks in paricular dra heir aesheic conronaion byoregrounding discree execuion explicily, hrough hearisic sensibiliy o generaive compuaion. I claim hahese orks also ignore he role o he beholder, bu do soin he oregrounding o execuion as a primary mechanism.The beholder is also horoughly absorbed ino he execuiono he orks by he onological exclusion o Being. A anymomen, a hos o objecs are also coninually absorbed byus in an equivalen causaliy.

Te Anxiou Objet Reompoed

Hopeully he vieer ill be convinced by he las passage,ha, in purely ormalis erms, Frieds absorpion and Har-mans allure are similar in scope. I ould be raher unair ocriicise Fried solely on his idealis opinion ha humans arehe sole bearers o aesheic judgmen, ye his is ha mus

be abandoned i objecs are o reignie he ormalis projec.In response o he aricles earlier quesion concerning

he expressive auonomy o he arork ihou aesheicjudgemen e can no undersand hy his issue is doublycomplex. As objec oriened onology has claimed, humansare no he sole bearers o uniy hen i comes o objecs, yei, as he ormalis crieria esablishes, uniy is required orhe auonomy o expression, hen e reach he unexpecedoucome o such a manoeuvre. To ollo Harold Rosenbergonce more, ever sensual objec is always-aleady an anxiousobjec, capable of aesheic effec. Every sensual objec sais-

fies he crieria or he modern arork in isel, so muchso, ha anxiousness reappears as a meaphysical quandary.

73 John F, Simon Jr,Ever Icon, Java Apple and Web Broser (1997). Las ac-cessed January 3rd 2011: htp://w.numeral.com/eicon.hml74 Anioine Schmit,Vexaion , Compuer, loudspeakers, behavioral algorihm,no ineracive (2000). Las accessed January 3rd 2011: htp://w.grain.org/as/. (This is Schmits personal ebpageclick on arorks and hen helink or Vexaion ).
http://www.numeral.com/eicon.htmlhttp://www.gratin.org/as/http://www.gratin.org/as/http://www.gratin.org/as/http://www.gratin.org/as/http://www.numeral.com/eicon.html


33/34


167

Even Frieds presenness is no enough o break he depho objecs. Tee ae no awoks as suh, bu insead o humanconex bearing he reason or anxiousness, i is he random

binary encouner o causaliy ha chances he auonomy oexpression, no he inenions o he beholder or even he aris.

Bu a more elling eaure o Absorpion is an obvious in-egraion ihin realis meaphysics, in so ar as i providesa necessary accompanimen or allure. Like allure, Absorp-ion indicaes o concurren evens; firsly i reerences hesubjec mater in quesion, he subjec coninually absorbedin pracice. Ye, i also describes he role o he beholder asdoing he very same hing ih he objec in quesion. A

firs glance, hey appear o be one and he same inenion,bu noice ho allure deals primarily ih he spliting ohe sensual objec isel.

Harman does accoun or a causal effec in he real execu-an objec, bu a he momen o riing his aricle, hereis no curren explanaion as o hy his should occur. Thereal objec o course is he sie here he sensual inerioris ound, bu a presen allure does no ully explain hyhis effec ould cause he real objec o become a par o a

larger uni. By conrasand ih a lo o eakingFriedsabsorpion looks o provide an accurae descripion o a realobjec coninually absorbed ino anoher ihou muualreciprocaion. This ould explain he suggesion as o hyan objecs pars are absorbed, ye discree. Wha Fried needsis a vicarious occurrence, no a dialecic one.

Like he example o Triggers broom or Bryans couple, heeven o absorpion requires he suspension o lieral percep-ion o uncion. I e have esablished ha all arorks are

in realiy objecs ih heir on specific auonomy, hereshould be no reason hy paricipaing objecs canno also bealloed o uncion as beholders. Furhermore, he disinc-ion beeen beholder and objec is sill asymmerical, in soar as any objec or collecion o objecs, heher pain andcanvas, algorihm and broser, marble and glue, C-prin andilluminaed rame, plexi-glass and ood, sill cause he be-holder o behold and no be reciprocally included in a sysem.


34/34

Speulation II

68

The absorbing objec isel is no direcly affeced by hebeholder in so ar as hey ail o conron he real objec isel,bu conron an absorbing, sensual appariion. In urn eshould noe ha ha resuls rom his conronaion is a

brand ne objec: An objec is real hen i has, no an ouereffec, bu an inner one.75Unlike he exension se heory oa philosopher such as Alain Badiou, Harman indicaes haan inner effec is responsible or he causaliy o discreeunis; no an agen arbirarily naming ses. For o or moreobjecs o come ogeher ino a genuine uni here mus

be some absorpive inner uniy ha composes he ormalexecuan hing.

Furhermore, by explicily suggesing ha his effec canbe locaed beeen any sensual objec and is real beholder,Rosenbergs noion o he anxious objec akes on an alogeherdifferen connoaion rom is original circumsanial bear-ings. Aesheic absorpion is no deermined like Fried seemso hink i is. Beholding is an anxious, coningen affair. Iis an alluding illusionary even ha ficionalises aesheicdeph ino he objec relaive o oher beholding objecs. Whais beholding or one objec may no longer be beholding or

anoher; i may never be beholding a all.

75 Harman,Gueilla Meaphysics, 232.

Documents

Jackson Anxiousness of Objects v2