NEW AESTHETIC NEW ANXIETIES

Published : 2012-06-22
License : GPL
TABLE OF CONTENTS

New Aesthetic New Anxieties

1 Aesthetic Turns 3
2 Contributors 6

Introduction
3 Introduction 11
4 New Anxieties 18

Curatorial Readings
5 A Blogpost as Exhibition 28
6 Collect, Remix, Contribute -> Curate? 32
7 Error 404: No Aesthetic Found 35

Irruptions
8 The New Aesthetic as Representation 41
What are the Conditions of Possibility for the New
9
Aesthetic? 44
10 The New Aesthetic as Mediation 49
11 The Politics of Emergent Aesthetics 54
12 Bibliography 64
13 Acknowledgements 72
1
 NEW AESTHETIC NEW ANXIETIES

1. AESTHETIC TURNS
2. CONTRIBUTORS

2
1. AESTHETIC TURNS
A month before this book was developed, the Dutch Electronic Art Festival 2012
exhibition The Power of Things opened its doors. The exhibition examined notions of
materiality and beauty through a collection of eighteen works which were mostly
sculptural objects. Numerous people attending the opening night and their
overwhelmingly positive responses filled the curatorial team with a sense of pride and
achievement. The next day, however, one of the curators encountered a renowned
media art critic outside the exhibition venue and asked him if he had enjoyed the
exhibition. The answer (to the curator's surprise) was a firm ‘No’. According to the
critic, this is not the time to address such tedious things as natural phenomena, let
alone relate these to trivial discussions on beauty! How could one, in these dark times,
ignore the threats we are facing and the slashed cultural funding to create an
exhibition that does not take a critical stand against the crises at hand? Did the critic
have a point? Was this exhibition an exercise in fiddling while Rome burned? The critic
refused to acknowledge that at this very moment a push for aesthetics - as a politics
of form and experience - is a potentially radical gesture.

In 2006, Claire Bishop signalled that art criticism often fails to judge the artistic merit
of socially engaged practice as “emphasis is shifted away from the disruptive
specificity of a given work and onto a generalized set of moral precepts” (64). Indeed,
if the artistic experimentation and the reworking of forms, affects and materials is
downplayed, art becomes stagnant and only preaches to the converted. With the
recent 'social turn' in contemporary art, curators and artists have quite often resorted
to the discourses of political autonomy to frame the historical present. Certainly, the
current situation is characterised by new pressures and urgencies, requiring clarity and
firm directives. But if this results in a reduction of legitimate political positions,
perspectives and stances, then the operative zone for art becomes very narrow.

There is a level of accountability and risk-taking involved here. Politics cannot just be
coquettishly applied to the white cube gallery space and expected to stick. This was,
for example, the case at the 2012 Berlin Biennale, where the curators invited the
Occupy Berlin movement into the gallery space of KW Institute for Contemporary Art,
the main biennial venue. This move ignored the fact that the Occupy movement is
about public dissent in public space; it is about “the street” being heard. Locking up
Occupy in the white cube is a simplistic curatorial gesture of putting “politics on
display.” A performative act such as this, turns artistic practices and curating into
performances of already-activated political processes.

Perhaps an exhibition like The Power of Things was difficult to read as critical,
because a critical exhibition - in traditional electronic art terms - typically entails a
bunch of computer screens and robotic sculptures in a dark industrial space, brought
together under a dystopian scenario serving as an exhibition theme. Such classic
‘critical’ electronic art exhibitions, however, inform an antiquated interactive electronic
art aesthetic - one that dictates that critically looking at technology’s impact on our
world is best achieved by displaying hardware at work, and dispensing with frivolous
topics such as beauty. Critical art, however, is also a question of sense and
perception, of transformative forms and diagrams. The approach of The Power of

3
Things explored relations between different materials in the world. This involved an
aesthetics aimed at generating new hybrid or more-than-human collectives.

The Power of Things exhibition included only a few screens, and their presence was
always to support sculptural objects. Pigeon d'Or (2010) by Tuur van Balen, for
example, was a proposal to genetically modify pigeons so their excrement is
composed of soap and, therefore, the city is cleaned rather than soiled when pigeons
defecate. The installation included material things which gave viewers a sense of a
project's conceptual and thematic scope. Most works in the exhibition were sculptural
objects, or objects with screens as support, instead of time-based or image-based
interactive works. This was not a prohibition on the use of screens, but an attempt to
complicate certain established and conventional exhibition practices in new media art.

Other works such as Irrational Computing (2011) by Ralf Baecker dealt with the
materials and aesthetics of digital processes. Using semiconductor crystals (the key
technical component of information technologies), five modules based on varied
electrical and mechanical processes that form a kind of primitive, macroscopic signal
processors. Irrational Computing is not supposed to ‘function’ – its aim is to search for
the poetic elements on the border between ‘accuracy’ and ‘chaos’, amplifying the
poetic side of these materials. Similarly, Pulse (2008) by Marcus Kison dealt with the
materials and affects of digital processes in the form of a cascade of wires and
exposed mechanical parts. Pulse is a live visualization of real-time emotional
expressions on the internet. Each time an emotion is identified in a recent blog entry, a
red shape-shifting object at the centre of the installation transforms itself, so that the
new volume of the shape creates a visual representation of an overall current
emotional condition of internet users.

Beyond the domain of new media art, human-computer relations are also not new to
the contemporary art world. The works of Thomas Bayrle presented at dOCUMENTA
(13) for example, are machines which move in rhythmic and hypnotic ways,
accompanied by barely audible soundtracks of murmured prayers. Also at
dOCUMENTA (13), in a neighbouring venue, several physical experiments by
physicist Anton Zeileger were installed, which affectively materialized the work of a
field which is normally quite opaque to those outside it. Although the contemporary art
world could not be said to be hermetic (an interest in machines and their aesthetics
stretches back to at least Futurism), the new media art world and contemporary art
world still remain very much distinct. Manovich infamously referred to this as the
difference between 'Turing-land' and 'Duchamp-land' (Manovich, 1996). Curator
Catherine David expressed the Duchamp-land view in an early statement when she
suggested "technology in itself is not a category according to which I judge works. This
type of categorization is just as outmoded as division into classical art genres
(painting, sculpture…). I am interested in the idea of a project; ideally the means of
realizing the project should arise from the idea itself" (1997). However, from the
perspective of a decade of change, we can now recognize the reticent politics of the
'project' as a characteristic of neoliberal governmentality.

The conversation about the New Aesthetic, even though it arose from a design
context, is remarkable for the way that it so naturally disregards established divides of
creative industries, art practice and theory. It posits an aesthetic turn that has

4
arguably animated all of these scenes; an aesthetic turn brought about itself through
a 'new nature' (Bridle 2011c).

Irit Rogoff argues in her essay on the notion of 'turns' in contemporary art's trajectory
(including those within the practice of curation itself), that "it seems pertinent to ask
whether this umbrella is actually descriptive of the drives that have propelled this
desired transition" (2008). Contemporary art workers encounter suggestions of
turns with ambivalence and a certain secret sense of relief - everyone needs senses
of movement in their frames for working, the styles of comportment for what they do,
in order to enable a capacity to absorb, recognize, situate and insightfully propel
individual practices into intelligible scenes of aesthetic encounter - usually this takes
shape as an exhibition. But what constitutes a turn, and what kind of comportment do
specific turns register in relation to the larger historical presents in to which they are
pitched and thrown? Rogoff asks:

Are we talking about a 'reading strategy' or an interpretative model, as

was the understanding of the 'linguistic turn' in the 1970s, with its
intimations of an underlying structure that could be read across numerous
cultural practices and utterances? Are we talking about reading one
system—a pedagogical one—across another system—one of display,
exhibition, and manifestation—so that they nudge one another in ways
that might open them up to other ways of being? Or, are we talking
instead about an active movement—a generative moment in which a new
horizon emerges in the process—leaving behind the practice that was its
originating point? (2008)

For Rogoff, who seems very much aware of the relationship of art world trends to
networked connectivity and socio-technological change, what is at one moment
heralded as a turn can easily "harden" into a series of "generic or stylistic tropes," and
might risk even resolving “the kinds of urgencies that underwrote it in the first place”
given that it is designed to deal with interdisciplinary challenges at the precise points
where things "urgently need to be shaken up and made uncomfortable" (2008).

Taking up this challenge to consider disruption, Michelle Kasprzak (Curator at V2_

Institute for the Unstable Media in Rotterdam) invited one facilitator and six writers to
come together in a 'book sprint' to explore these issues. The book sprint format
involves a group tasked with writing a book over a few intensive days - in this case, we
met over approximately four and a half days. Talking, writing, editing, eating, drinking,
and debating ensued and the result of those focused days of effort is this publication.
We are proud of what emerged in this interdisciplinary group of curators, writers, and
academics, although of course as we neared the end of this process we found
ourselves wishing for "just one more day". As an initial step towards a deeper analysis
of this contemporary moment where new aesthetics appear against the backdrop of
global discord and unrest, we hope you find it as interesting to read as we have found
it to (collaboratively) write.

Rotterdam, June 2012

5
2. CONTRIBUTORS

David M. Berry is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Media in the Department of Political and
Cultural Studies at Swansea University. He is currently a guest researcher at Institutt
for medier og kommunikasjon (IMK), University of Oslo. He is author of The Philosophy
of Software: Code and Mediation in the Digital Age (2011), Copy, Rip Burn: The
Politics of Copyleft and Open Source (2008), and editor of Understanding Digital
Humanities (2011) and Life in Code and Software: Mediated life in a complex
computational ecology (2012). He is @berrydm on Twitter http://twitter.com/berrydm
and also http://www.swan.ac.uk/staff/academic/artshumanities/berryd/.

Michel van Dart el (NL) is a curator at V2_Institute for the Unstable Media and
the Dutch Electronic Art Festival. Currently he is a guest teacher at Transmedia, a
postgraduate program in art, media, and design at Sint-
Lukas Brussels University College of Art and Design. Michel also works as external
advisor to the Mondriaan Foundation and the Amsterdam Fund for the Arts; guest
curator of ARTICLE, a biennial for electronic and unstable art; and, associate editor
of the Journal for Artistic Research. Prior to his current appointments, Michel
undertook research on knowledge representation in robot models of cognition, for
which he received a PhD in Artificial Intelligence and an MSc in Cognitive Psychology
from Maastricht University. (@MichelvanDartel | [email protected]
| www.v2.nl/archive/people/michel-van-dartel)

Michael Diet er (AUS) is a lecturer in New Media at the University of Amsterdam. His
research interests focus on relations of media art, ecology and politics. He is finishing
his PhD on contemporary technoscientific art practices, entitled 'Reticular Aesthetics'.
His publications have appeared in Fibreculture, M/C and the Australian Humanities
Review.

Adam Hyde (NZ/DE) is a Book Sprint facilitator, Project Manager of an open source
book production platform (Booktype) and founder of FLOSS Manuals. Adam started
the Book Sprint methodology 4 years ago and has been pushing the facilitation
process further into new contexts of collaborative knowledge and culture production.
http://www.booksprints.net

Michelle Kasprzak (CA/PL) curator and writer based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
She is a Curator at V2_ Institute for the Unstable Media, the Dutch Electronic Art
Festival (DEAF), and part of the global curatorial team for the 2012 ZERO1 Biennial in
California. She has appeared in Wired UK, on radio and TV broadcasts by the BBC and
CBC, and lectured at PICNIC. In 2006 she founded Curating.info, the web’s leading

6
resource for curators. She has written critical essays for Volume, C Magazine,
Rhizome, CV Photo, Mute, and many other media outlets, including one anthology and
essays for two books currently in production. Michelle is a member of IKT
(International Association of Curators of Contemporary Art). (@mkasprzak | [email protected]
| www.v2.nl/archive/people/michelle-kasprzak)

Nat Muller (NL) is an independent curator and critic based between Rotterdam and
the Middle East. Her main interests include: the intersections of aesthetics, media and
politics; media art and contemporary art in and from the Middle East. She is a regular
contributor for Springerin, MetropolisM and her work has been published in Bidoun, Art
Asia Pacific, Art Papers, Majalla, Daily Star and Harper’s Bazaar. She has curated
video screenings for projects and festivals in a.o. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Berlin, New
York, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Grimstad, Lugano, Dubai, Cairo and Beirut. With
Alessandro Ludovico she edited the Mag.net Reader2: Between Paper and Pixel
(2007), and Mag.net Reader3: Processual Publishing, Actual Gestures (2009), based
on a series of debates organized at Documenta XII. She has taught at the Willem de
Kooning Academy (NL), ALBA (Beirut), the Lebanese American University (Beirut),
A.U.D. in Dubai (UAE), and the Rietveld Academy (NL). She has served as an advisor
on Euro-Med collaborations for the European Cultural Foundation (ECF), the EU, and
as an advisor on e-culture for the Dutch Ministry of Culture. She is currently working
on her first book for the Institute of Network Cultures and Nai Publishers. She serves
on the advisory board of the Palestinian website project Artterritories (Ramallah), the
arts organisation TENT (Rotterdam), seats in the selection committee of the
Mondriaan Fund (NL).

Rachel O'Reilly (AU/NL) is an independent writer, curator and critic based in

Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Australia. Her current research examines
relationships between moving image and installation art practices, aesthetic politics
and neoliberal governance. She was a curator of film, video and new media at the
Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane (AUS), 2004-08, and Special Projects Consultant to
MAAP Multimedia Art Asia Pacific, 2008-9. She was part of the Pacific Rim New Media
Summit’s Cultural Futures working group foregrounding postcolonial and indigenous
approaches to code, location and virtuality for ISEA 2006, and in book form in Place:
Local Knowledge and New Media Aesthetics. Key curatorial projects include The
Leisure Class (co-curator) at the Gallery of Modern Art (AUS), 2007
and VideoGround (AUS, THAI, USA) 2008, commissioned by MAAP Multimedia Art
Asia Pacific. She was part of the Australian Cinematheque curatorial team of the Fifth
Asia Pacific Triennial (AUS), 2006, has taught at the University of Wollongong (AUS)
and published in Postcolonial Studies Journal, Leonardo, RealtimeArts and numerous
exhibition catalogues. ([email protected] | www.racheloreilly.net)

José Luis de Vicent e (ES) is a researcher, curator and writer working in design, new
media and cultural innovation. He directs the Visualizar program on Data Culture at

7
Medialab Prado (Madrid) and is one of the founders of ZZZINC, an independent lab
for cultural research based in Barcelona. Recent exhibitions as independent curator
include Invisible Fields: Geographies of Radio Waves (Arts Santa Monica, Spain
2011) and Playtime: Videogame Mythologies (Maison d'Ailleurs, Switzerland 2012)

8
 INTRODUCTION

3. INTRODUCTION
4. NEW ANXIETIES

9
10
3. INTRODUCTION

It's 2011, and I have no idea what anything is or does anymore. (Taylor, in
Bridle 2011c)

How do we think about media art aesthetics and the production of critical knowledge
as the creative industries paradigm consolidates around us, amidst ongoing financial,
environmental and political crises? Can we still claim a special place for media art
given the increasing ubiquity of informational technologies in everyday life and the
intensification of cultural distribution through social media platforms? This book
reflects on these questions through the recent New Aesthetic. More specifically, we
are interested in reflecting on why a notion developed by the British designer James
Bridle caused such a reaction across multiple contexts, sectors and segments of
network culture. Pitched as a highly-curated batch of crowdsourced visual and textual
content on the commercial microblogging and social networking platform Tumblr, the
New Aesthetic was presented as a 'shareable concept', a 'theory object'. This
collection, moreover, was delivered with a message: the machines were telling us
something, trying to speak to us, and we just need to return their affectionate,
surveillant gazes, and communicate with their program languages.

The term New Aesthetic felt the full force of love and hate from a disparate crew of
writers, media art theorists and practitioners, designers, object-oriented
ontologists and curators in an outpouring of frenzied attention and criticism. Ironically,
even ambivalent responses were well documented. Since its explosion online, many
have relegated the phenomena of the New Aesthetic to the status of a 'non-event.'
But how could such a thing be both phenomenal and superfluous, attracting so many
contributions, sightings, parallels and revisionist accounts, including from new media
practitioners themselves? The question of how and why the New Aesthetic became
emblematic of a particular kind of sensibility, one arguably characteristic of a
disruptive network culture, is the subject of this book.

Approaching this topic, we want to think through the anxieties, misunderstandings,

arguments, bruised egos and skirmishes the New Aesthetic generated. We attempt to
move beyond lazy thinking, positions of pious indifference or naive enthusiasm, and
ask what the New Aesthetic might tell us about this juncture in which find ourselves,
as curators, critics, artists theorists and creative workers. We especially want to
explore the discomfort and challenges of the New Aesthetic for a number of
commentators working in proximity to 'new media aesthetics.' Somehow the New
Aesthetic as a point of conversation seemed to generate strong boundary anxieties
at a time when media art and the cultural sector in general, here in the Netherlands
and across Europe, are having serious difficulties conceiving of present conditions and
future visions of their own. Especially considering this fact, the sense of beautific
sentimentality and foreboding captured by its images, along with the distributive
attention it attracted, raises interesting questions for the future of new media art.

The first section of this book provides some definitions and introduces key themes.
11
This is followed by a series of reflections by curators on how curatorial practice and
expertise in proximity to the New Aesthetic makes sense of its objects, forms and
artifacts. We then move to conceptually situate the New Aesthetic - as one kind of
emergent aesthetic form - into a broader episteme of computationality and
periodisation of neoliberal governmentality. This is an attempt to expand our
perspective on what the New Aesthetic might mean, and also consider how media art
can reimagine itself by asking some difficult new questions.

WHAT WAS THE NEW AESTHETIC?

Defining the New Aesthetic is necessarily problematic. It's a vibe, an attitude, a

feeling, a sensibility. Posted to the blog for The Really Interesting Group - a
creative design partnership based in East London - Bridle introduced the term on May
6th, 2011 by stating:

For a while now, I’ve been collecting images and things that seem to
approach a New Aesthetic of the future, which sounds more portentous
than I mean. What I mean is that we’ve got frustrated with the NASA
extropianism space-future, the failure of jetpacks, and we need to see the
technologies we actually have with a new wonder. Consider this a mood-
board for unknown products.

(Some of these things might have appeared here, or nearby, before. They
are not necessarily new new, but I want to put them together.)

For so long we’ve stared up at space in wonder, but with cheap satellite
imagery and cameras on kites and RC helicopters, we're looking at the
ground with new eyes, to see structures and infrastructures. (Bridle
2011a)

The post contained a series of digital images documenting this sensibility associated
of the future. These visual artefacts included satellite imagery, tracking of geotagged
data from iPhones, the location of Osama Bin Laden's 'hideout' on Google Maps from
a New York Times article, splinter camouflage on military jets, the Telehouse West
data center in East London by YRM Architects and 'low res' industrial design by United
Nude, among others. At a glance, these appear as a random set of images. Indeed,
something about it recalls what ADILKNO once described as vague media, "their
models are not argumentative, but contaminative. Once you tune in to them, you get
the attitude. But that was never their intention; their vagueness is not an ideal, it is the
ultimate degree of abstraction" (1998). However, perhaps the reference to mood-
boards is more telling, a highly contemporary technique of concepting integral to
creative labour in advertising and design settings. This is a cultural technology which
involves creating an 'atmosphere' or context for consumption around a product
(Ardvisson 2005). Explicitly for Bridle, it is something designed for network culture to
take up: for him, the products are 'unknown.' In this respect, it aims purely to evoke a
potential atmosphere around standard infrastructure. It performs a sense of notional
space, but not a natural sublime. On the contrary, the New Aesthetics strives to stare
down a thoroughly hybridized socio-technological world (Latour 2011).

12
In his original pitch, Bridle reflects on digital and networked technologies from the
weird perspective of a father figure for the machines in the style of Alan Turing. For
Bridle, “child machines” should be educated not through Turing's politically incorrect
method of punishment and rewards, but through positive reinforcement, care and
creative communicative strategies (2011c). Let's be frank, there is an urgent need to
interrogate computational processes, but Bridle's kitsch affection for thinking
machines is ultimately underpinned by a political naivety that could perhaps only be
maintained by the creative classes. The socio-political asymmetries perpetuated by
data-mining, the privatized social graph, facial recognition technologies, drone
attacks, and camouflage are swept aside by the positive message to make the world
"more exciting, make it better" (2011c).

We're not surprised any longer by the political aporias of the creative sector - even
whilst they claim an ethical stance. We aim to take the New Aesthetic in other
directions; we're interested in intersecting practices or ecologies, technical critiques
and questions of medium-specificity in the computational episteme. We're curious
about unknown products, especially as it relates to a potential for producing new
spaces for the common. But rather than fixating on Bridle's pitch, let's find some other
angles and approaches into this vague terrain. Let's follow some practices, discourses
and criticisms associated with the New Aesthetic, refigure distinctions between expert
and layman, the commercial and the noncommercial, the proper and improper. Let's
build some critical feedback loops along these conf using trajectories.

ALGORITHMIC AGENTS

Recent debates over the 'correct' use of algorithms can help us start to define the
New Aesthetic in useful ways. Last February, Norwegian born, NYC-based artist
generative artist Marius Watz posted a brief article on his Tumblr that was intended
to act as a warning sign and wake-up call to his peers - the community of artists and
designers for whom the medium of computer code is their working toolset. He wrote,

Yes, heavy use of standard algorithms is bad for you. That is, it is if you
wish to consider yourself a computational creative capable of coming up
with interesting work... You cannot lay claim to 'owning' any given algorithm
(or hardware configuration), unless you have added significant extra value
to it. To do so is at best ignorant... This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t
experiment with great algorithms. (Watz 2012)

In effect this was a critique of what Watz called "algorithmic laziness" and seemed to
be an attempt to sketch the contours of acceptable algorithmic use in artistic practice.
As Bruce Sterling (2012a) commented, "A 'canon of algorithms.' What an intriguing
development."

It is helpful to know a bit more about Watz to understand the relevance of his
comments and to feel his concern. He has worked in the medium of the algorithmic
image for the last decade, taking his practice to countless festivals and events in the
global new media circuit as he progressively execut ed a transition to the gallery scene.

13
Jumping from the medium of the screen and the projection to more tangible outputs,
last year he became the first 'Artist in Residence' at Makerbot industries, the open-
source, VC-backed company that produces the most affordable and popular 3D
printer. Watz is slowly becoming a familiar sight in hacking spaces and mostly-Western
art and technology institutions.

Instead of choosing the comfortable position of an artist who concentrates on their

own work and won't intervene in debates, Marius Watz frequently contributes. As an
evangelist of the generative, he started the Generator-X conference showcasing
latest generative strategies and software processes in digital art, architecture and
design, has curated several software art exhibitions and teaches frequently coding
and modeling workshops for beginners, freelancers and professionals. While modest,
he is also very opinionated, and will enjoy a (polite and good humored) polemic on
blogs, social networks and mailing lists now and then. This is just to say that Watz
really cares about code, and has great expectations about its role in art practices
today. He doesn't want his great love, the computated image, to be banalized or the
tools of his trade to be used poorly. Some of the most determinant of these tools are,
probably, algorithms.

From this perspective, the entry posted on February 13, 2012 on his Tumblr titled 'The
Algorithm Thought Police', was a sincere effort to unpack the problematic relationship
between the artist who writes code and the larger entities that she manipulates to
produce a visual output. Because these entities, in his words,

Are not neutral vessels. Algorithms provide the means to produce specific
outcomes, typically through generative logic or data processing. But in the
process they leave their distinct footprints on the result. […] “speaking”
through algorithms, your thought patterns and modes of expression are
shaped by their syntax. (Watz 2012a)

These entities - lists of instructions that calculate a function - would be easy to

recognize, if not name, by most citizens in western societies today. Because they
codify through their outputs a specific, increasingly ubiquitous texture of reality, a skin
that's being overlaid in buildings, fashion, cars, jewelry, print publications, and chairs.

A list of the creative coder's 'problematic friends', in Watz's affectionate term, would
include, among many others: Circle Packing (which define an area in circles
progressively without letting them enter in contact, until the area is completely
covered), Polygon subdivision (different techniques of splitting an area in polygonal
shapes) and boids (the simulations of the behavior of birds flocking); or voronoi, which
is "the partitioning of a plane with n points into convex polygons such that each
polygon contains exactly one generating point and every point in a given polygon is
closer to its generating point than to any other" (Bhattacharya and Gavrilova 2008:
202)

Algorithms are a technical aspect of the medium within which the New Aesthetic is
being created, used, disseminated and remediated. Watz’s concerns point us to
issues of technical literacies, know-how, categories of distinction and boundary
conditions that are necessary for establishing new modes of critique. The same
concerns regarding the use of tools, forms, and the creative treatment of digital
14
objects, the politics of their management and so on, seem to circulate everywhere
across various academic and artistic scenes that are literate in computation and
politics. In our current conditions, these questions of medium-specificity, material
access to devices and techniques of interrogability that support the development of
media art practice themselves face new challenges. Processes of obfuscation, the
refrain of efficiency, intellectual property regimes, built-in obsolesence, censorship
and surveillance form part of a wider constitutive context through which these
practices become politicized. In V2_’s recent publication Vital Beauty, Dutch media art
critic Arjen Mulder makes explicit the stakes of this scenario,

All the signs indicate that technological art will succumb to current social
pressure and becoming something useful to people and the economy. In
the process, we will lose part of what I will call the intellectual life of our
times: the extent to which we are able to be conscious of the present.
Artists are not creative in the sense of constantly coming up with new
content. Rather, they change the form, the medium, the framework. In their
hands, form is elevated to method, media become cocreators, and
blueprints turn into diagrams. (Mulder 2012)

What is interesting about creative experimentation which is conscious of tools and

politics is what new forms of critical art try to gather up and deal with: the complexity
of our incontrovertibly aesthetic negotiations of things.

Whether radical, formalist, corporate or fascist, aesthetics compose subjects in a

contract with technological, political and economic realities. In this way, new forms of
sense and perception offer up different ways of thinking about our intimate
attachments to the historical specificity of the world. In this sense, they are also forms
of publicity for specific kinds of comportment. Already with Futurism and the historical
avant-garde, artworks’ proximity to publicity worked to disrupt and deregulate cultural
values through the shocks of modernity. The New Aesthetic, however, does not
present a modernist manifesto, nor invent an autonomous aesthetic grammar. Rather,
the New Aesthetic exists as a Tumblr that evokes particular subjectivities; a cascade
of images, a collection, an archive, or more specifically, a database that attempts to
document a certain unfolding condition.

This condition in question is precisely the age of the algorithm, or the regime of
computation (Golumbia 2009). For Sterling, it captured “an eruption of the digital in the
physical”, (2012b) for David Berry, this was an attempt to “see the grain of
computation” (2012a). The New Aesthetic signifies the digital and computation
through image files. That is, the Tumblr accumulates representations of pixels,
standardized objects, calculative operations and other instantiations of applied
mathematics.

Somewhat paradoxically, however, as the New Aesthetic attempts to document the

'reality' of this condition - the ubiquity of computational processes - it remains caught
in the computational regime itself. This is most obvious through the emphasis on visual
knowledge and in the tension that exists between representation and mediation in
software (Chun 2011). The New Aesthetic attempts to represent the condition of
computationality, but does not reflect on its own status as media. This is why the New

15
Aesthetic seems to evoke what already was, rather than what might be. Indeed, if the
New Aesthetic suggests a particular subject, as we go on to discuss, it would be more
accurately described as desubjectified, or partial. Defined more by intensities than by
consciousness or action, which are deprioritized or unavailable, this is comparable to
what Tiqqun call the Bloom (2000), but we describe under computationality as the
riparian user (Berry 2011). However, we want to suggest that this is not some critical
failure of the New Aesthetic (it was never trying to be otherwise); rather, it can be
taken as a generalized symptom of disassociated relations that are characteristic of
software, bound by the logic of computation.

It is a related concern that the computational regime is operative during a phase when
the post-89 market-driven social and economic reforms of neoliberalism have come
into crisis, impacting upon our comportment in the present as producers, critics and
everyday negotiators of culture at large. This is another, until recently, obfuscated
paradigm of production for today's fine art and creative industrial work. As a
neoclassical economic approach to governmentality, it stresses the efficiency of
private enterprise, delimits the state’s role in providing from public services through a
politics of risk privatization and social disinvestment. As welfare state agendas are
deemed outmoded, in the view of its historian's like David Harvey, neoliberalism names
the deepening penetration of processes and regimes of capitalization into political
and social institutions – and indeed, cultural consciousness (2007). On many levels it
is not a changed capitalism, merely an intensified, pernicious version of real
subsumption. But its difference, tracked early in 1979 by Foucault in The Birth of
Biopolitics (2008), is the way in which the latter has succeeded in creating greatest
conceptual distance between the state, corporate takeovers of wealth, and the
conception of the 'free' liberal democratic imaginary of citizenship. This freedom rises
into its own ethic above all other political imperatives, and cultural logics.

For affect theorist Lauren Berlant, both art and popular cultural experiments process
the present of our neoliberal, networked relations and their conditions of possibility
(2011). Aesthetic relations take shape as trackable 'genres' or forms which enable
contemporary subjects to attach to and at least inhabit the contradictions and
ambivalence of this Now. A genre, perhaps especially when pitched as 'new'
(pertaining to now) offers us a recognizable form that we can "groove with" or hold
onto, so that we modulate and adjust to the present in the form of affective contracts
upon encounters with people and things. Genres, significantly, can be both efforts
towards, and defenses from, more politicized ways of thinking and feeling through the
present.

Most relevantly, Berlant has taken up these approaches to aesthetic forms to replace
the persistent legacy approaches to aesthetics inherited from modernism that are very
much unsuited to thinking through moments of ongoing crises. In Badiou, for example,
events throw us into a new present, supposedly rendering old tools, categories and
analytics, including political analytics, supposedly obsolete (2009). Berlant de-
dramatizes this to suggest contrarily that the present moment is increasingly being
experienced as the imposition of a sense of extended crisis. Incidents don't infact
shock us differently, the drama in fact is the opposite of this; things more tend to pile
up and we navigate them in a mode of adjustment that itself feels as permanent as it
does precarious (2011). For her, new aesethetic genres invested in the political, the

16
ones that in some way actually respond to, ride on, or aim to make sense of crisis, are
also becoming increasingly reflexive. She tracks and theorizes such new genres as
different instantiations of dealing with what is unfolding about the present’s political
scenes. This consciously political investment in new genres, which we share
(differently between us) as curators, critics, writers and media theorists, connects us
sensually to the pursuit of productive knowledge; indeed it is an attempt to bring
consciousness and knowledge more in line, rather than experience these as
glitched (2011). We pay attention to new forms of art and aesthetic encounter so that
something, indeed anything, about the present might become more knowable. Here
especially, the New Aesthetic poses a particularly interesting case for understanding
the politics of aesthetic attachments to form in the technocultural present.

Deleuze and Guattari, reflecting on the state of philosophical thought in their late
work, expressed deep concern that “the most shameful moment” had already come
“when computer science, marketing, design and advertising, all the disciplines of
communication, seized hold of the word concept itself and said: 'This is our concern,
we are the creative ones, we are the ideas men!' We are friends of the concept, we
put it in our computers" (1994: 10). There should be no doubt that the New Aesthetic
arises from a certain 'creative context'. But the New Aesthetic is also an estranged
idea, a "bastard" of sorts born from network culture. Besides appropriating already-
existing content, it's trajectory was driven by collective emailing, tweeting, posting and
commenting. Bridle himself would note before eventually closing the Tumblr, "it's a
rubbish name, but it seems to have taken on" (2012c). To be sure, the New Aesthetic
has enthusiasts, but there is also a real sense that it is a resented and unwanted child.
It comes from the wrong parentage (creatives, Wired, SxSw, commercial design), and
has been subject to ridicule, mockery and outright dismissal. However, being born out
of these conditions, it provokes confusion and discomfort that does not easily
dissipate. Contra Deleuze and Guattari (or perhaps, to put it more accurately, in the
spirit of their thought), we need to now reconsider the conditions of possibility for
concept production here. There is no simple solution, only problems and questions, to
which we now turn to examine.

17
4. NEW ANXIETIES

The # tumblresque is not John Berger's Ways of Seeing but sprays of

seeing. (Wark 2012)

What is it about the New Aesthetic that makes you so damn uneasy? There’s a
deeply intriguing quality about the New Aesthetic that is more remarkable than any of
its merits: it cannot be ignored. Since Bruce Sterling’s first essay popularized the term,
the Tumblr that stood as its main platform of communication, and the group of ideas,
references and icons that its originators gathered under its umbrella have been
refuted, dissected, mocked, celebrated or laughed at. Those who have felt obliged to
enter the debate about the New Aesthetic come from philosophy, from new media art
practice and curation, from interaction design or from the digital humanities. But
almost no one has passed on the opportunity to say something; nobody has just
shrugged with indifference and said 'they can’t be bothered'. The fact of the matter is,
everyone seems bothered, somehow.

This needs to be investigated because, quite clearly, it says something about the
state of these disciplines and those who are working today in this cultural space. While
it would be almost impossible to find any unconditional apologist for Bridle's
proposition, it’s even harder to find indifferent commentators. Whatever the New
Aesthetic is, it's a set of ideas that can make you feel twitchy and uncomfortable, for
a range of reasons depending on who you are: the academic, the digital curator, the
new media artist. Whether we call it a brand or a half-formed body of theory, it reflects
back insecurities, biases, or feelings of inadequacy as often as it attracts valid critical
responses.

But what would happen if we properly embraced the New Aesthetic as a topic for
network culture? It is claimed the term refers to a 'new nature', and as Haraway
reminds us, references to nature inevitably raise questions of the common, "we turn
to this topic to order our discourse, to compose our memory ... to reinhabit,
precisely, common places - locations that are widely shared, inescapably local, worldly,
enspirited; that is, topical. In this sense, nature is the place in which to rebuild public
culture" (Haraway 2004: 65). The New Aesthetic has temporarily lit up and disturbed
network culture, not only in terms of common concerns, but as a gauge of the state
of net discourse. These anxieties, moreover, can be useful, especially in what
Matthew Fuller and Andrew Goffey describe as the collision of grey media and grey
matter, where “the cracks, faults and disturbances marking our mental universes offer
the same kinds of opportunities for exploitation as do bugs in the algorithmic
universes of software, and one stratagem is always in the position of being able to
turn another to its own account” (2010: 157). Let's dig into some responses, and
diagnose the health of the current debate.

If we examine the New Aesthetic as an anxious topic, the process comes with its own
perils. Whatever goal Bridle had when he opened the New Aesthetic Tumblr, it was

18
inevitably affected - maybe derailed - when Sterling posted his essay to Beyond the
Beyond blog at Wired.com on April 2, 2012. Many of the answers and additional
commentary, while insightful, ignored that this notion was a work in process, an
atmosphere or mood, a temporary litany of findings, and not a final and definitive
statement.

Sterling's initial post set the tone for the considerable debate that followed, by both
claiming this project as a 'serious' avant-garde arising from British media designers,
while acknowledging its shortcomings on a theoretical level. Of course, Sterling shares
an investment with Bridle in science fiction and future-thinking, and there was more
than a little wish-fulfillment here, although expressed in a satirical register.
Nevertheless, the urgency of the New Aesthetic was the major aspect of the essay
itself:

I've seen some attempts along this line before, but this one has muscle.
The New Aesthetic is moving out of its original discovery phase, and into a
evangelical, podium-pounding phase. If a pioneer village of visionary
creatives is founded, and they start exporting some startling, newfangled
imagery, like a Marcel Duchamp-style explosion-in-a-shingle-factory…
Well, we’ll once again be living in heroic times! (Sterling 2012b)

Other positive attributes were listed: that the New Aesthetic is 'telling the truth',
'culturally agnostic', 'comprehensible', 'deep', 'contemporary', 'requires close attention',
'constructive' and 'generational' (2012b). His piece worked hard to mythologize the
'movement' through the legitimacy of a modernist canon, citing Russian
Constructivists, French Impressionists, Italian Futurists; even adding a comparison of
Bridle to Andre Breton-style Pope of this emergent scene.

However, Sterling also noted a number of considerable downsides or troubling

aspects. Beyond recognizing the messiness of the accumulative Tumblr format, these
mainly revolved around the lack of rigorous theoretical analysis and comprehension. In
particular, the fact that many of the images refer to radically different phenomena and
issues - splinter camouflage, for instance, is not about computational vision, but the
physiology of human perception - and almost none of these can be easily indexed
back to a Turing notion of artificial intelligence or thinking machines. On the contrary,
the imagery generated by the machines is a profoundly human problem:

I hasten to assure you that I’m not making lame vitalist claims that our
human reactions are mystical, divine, immaterial, timeless or absolute in
truth. I am merely stating, as a stark and demonstrable fact, that our
machines have no such reactions. To rely on them to do that for us is
fraudulent. (Sterling 2012b)

The real trouble here, as Sterling notes, is that this conceptual framework hinders the
development of an aesthetic agenda grounded by the specific material workings of
these technologies. More concerningly, as we also observed in the introduction, it
obfuscates the political problems perpetuated by these digital and networked
systems. These critical comments, in any case, were for the most part lost in the
discourse on the new aesthetic that followed his essay, which tended to follow the
'heroic' narrative. If the new aesthetic is 'collectively intelligent', then Sterling's essay
19
worked to propane-fuel this intellectual discourse.

The new aesthetic inevitably raised questions around its novelty, historicity,
ontological basis, gender bias, politics. Here, a central concern was the 'new' in the
new aesthetic itself, what does 'newness' refer? Marius Watz, writing on the Creator's
Project in a series of responses to Sterling’s essay, argued the case that this aspect
was deceptive, "most of what NA offers up for examination is not all that new.
Technologies like machine vision and geo-location are old by most standards” (2012b).
In his reading, a sense of everyday practices and the ubiquity of digital and networked
systems were claimed as distinctive instead: “what is new is their integration into our
lives to the point where we are bringing them to bed” (2012b).

Moreover, if aesthetics can be taken as a sensibility related to a transition in the

pervasiveness of computation, then this experience is one that is equally wraught by
anxieties or disturbances. As Watz puts it,

This is the new Aesthetic - human behavior augmented by technology as

often as it is disrupted. The New Aesthetic is a sign saying 'Translation
Server Error' rather than 'Post Office'. The New Aesthetic is faces glowing
ominously as people walk down the street at night staring at their phones -
or worse, their iPads (Watz 2012b).

Indeed, disruption and augmentation can even be generalized beyond this

phenomenological state, given increasing transformations associated with software
infrastructures throughout everyday life (Dodge and Kitchin 2011), and the pressures
they have brought to bear on institutional forms (Lovink 2012). In other words, if there
is a sensibility, it becomes one of experiencing the large-scale 'breakdown' carried
along by socio-technological processes at large.

In the recognition of this shifting ground, a number of reactionary responses

immediately arose regarding the relation between media art and this wider condition
signalled by the new aesthetic. In this context, Mez Breeze, a practioner of code
poetry and artist involved in early net.art, raised concerns regarding the appropriative
dynamics of new aesthetics in its role as an aggregative litany of digital images. Using
the term, 'The Phrase That Shall Not Be Named', the specific act of labelling work was
criticized as an act of assembling cultural capital, 'cred value', 'ego aggrandrisement',
or cultural capital capable of being monetized: "name the new art phase in order to
perform/get x" (2012).

This process was understood as raising a series of questions around cultural

ownership and attribution: "to employ a relevant phrase: it just smells wrong" (2012).
Indeed, for Breeze, the 'faux-trendoid label' problematically grouped together a series
of practices, techniques and approaches to digital and networked technologies that
had much longer histories and were related to competing conceptual frameworks and
discourses: "appropriating + remixing graphic markers/standards from marginalised or
'other-fied' disciplines/decades does not a new genre/paradigm make" (2012). Her
position raises important questions around both the histories and immediate future of
media art practices. Nevertheless, gesturing to the dynamics of concept generation in
network cultures ("and so it goes"), she would conclude with the highly pious note:
"this too will pass" (2012).
20
But how satisfying is this familiar claim that media art is playing a long game, so that
any emerging developments can merely be ignored, and business can continue as
usual? Certainly, the traditional resources and funding that have supported media art
are quickly evaporating or, at least, they are increasingly held in question; but there is
also a larger ongoing question of the role of these artistic practices in a period of
pervasive computation. In a provocative set of secondary remarks on the topic,
effectively rubbing salt into the wound, Sterling declared on his blog,

It may be, that after a long generation of 'New Media,' 'computer art,'
'digital art,' 'device art,' 'net.art,' 'code art,' and similar always-new
pseudonyms, we’ve found a better perspective. We’ve paid a bill in blood
and struggle, and a generational shift has occurred. It’s like watching a
generation slog it out in the muddy barbed wire, and then seeing a drone
appear overhead ... The barbed-wire and bayonet era of net-art is over. It is
one with Ypres and Verdun now, and its trenches will fill in with grass. It will
never return. (Sterling 2012c)

Such commentary strategically disregarded any distinction between the design

context of Bridle and media art practices for the purposes of pursuing an agenda of
algorithmic art.

Elsewhere, the cultural politics of curatorial work was a major strand in this
discussion. Christiane Paul posted on the empyre mailing list,

I have a hard time even seeing the novelty of the 'new aesthetic'
construct - as many people on CRUMB have pointed out, it stands in the
tradition of many strands of artistic practice that have developed over
decades. CTheory or Turbulence have certainly established a lot more
(curatorial) context for approaching digital works than the 'new aesthetic'
tumblr. Tumblr itself, with its focus on the latest post, seems to have
decontextualizing tendencies.

On a larger scale and along the lines of Nicholas Carr's The Shallows, I'm
interested in how the online environment, which seems so deeply
contextual by nature, can also obliterate context through the privileging of
'the latest post' rather than a dialogue and "deep" crosslinking of ideas.
(Paul 2012)

Meanwhile, in a highly conservative response to the term, Robert Jackson drew a line
between Bridle's 'low' social media and 'high' media art practices, noting "the triteness
of using Tumblr as the 'official site'" (2012). Immediately evident in the title of his
contribution, 'The Banality of the New Aesthetic', Jackson stated explicitly: "memes
require instant satisfaction. Art requires depth" (2012).

More radical enthusiasm about the New Aesthetic came from Greg Borenstein, who
suggested that when viewed through Object Oriented Ontology (OOO), the New
Aesthetic is a “visible eruption of the mutual empathy between us and a class of new
objects that are native to the 21st century” (2012). The New Aesthetic, in this case,
can supposedly “help us imagine the inner lives of our digital objects” picking up on the

21
“pigeon language” that takes place “between their inaccessible inner lives and ours”
(2012). Like Bridle, Borenstein is enamoured with how such artifacts capture “the trace
of interaction designers, surveillance drones, gesture recognition systems, fashion
designers, image compression techniques, artists, CCTV networks, and filmmakers all
wondering about one another without getting confirmation” (2012).

This line of thought was continued by games designer and theorist Ian Bogost, who
argued that the new aesthetic should expand its apparent "correlationalist" interest in
human relations and embrace the possibilities of an expansive more-than-human
ontology: "to my eyes, the New Aesthetic could use a dose of good, old-fashioned
twentieth century immodesty. Not naïve fascism or impulsive radicalism, but bigger
eyes, larger hopes, weirder goals" (2012). Drawing from the object-oriented ontology
position outlined in his recently published book Alien Phenomenology (2012), Bogost's
intervention argued on the terms of OOO for a consideration of relations between
things, rather than an exclusive interest in digital and networked technologies and
human sense and perception, or anthropocentric categories of beauty – for an alien
aesthetics, as it were. This, he suggested, points to the fact that NA only covers a
selective interest in the vast metaphysical dimensions of the real, a point conveyed
through a (Latourian) litany of other potential things to consider aesthetic relations
between: "airports, sandstone, koalas, climate, toaster pastries, kudzu, the
International 505 racing dinghy, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the brand name 'TaB'"
(2012). Suffice to say, OOO is interesting and raises significant controversies, but
here we are not interested in producing litanies, and hold concerns regarding the
politics of the OOO project (Berry 2012; Galloway 2012; Golumbia 2012, Parikka
2011). Indeed, this is a significant and contested discussion, only tangential to
this New Aesthetic, New Anxieties project, and therefore, perhaps, a topic for another
time.

If the New Aesthetic hit the blogosphere as a shareable concept or theory object, it
took some time for female responders to point out that the zeitgeist was the
investments of “a whole lot of men doing the looking, talking, and writing about
the New Aesthetic” (Aim 2012a). While women artists and curators contributed art
historical perspective, including Joanne McNeil of Rhizome.org (2012), and Mez
Breeze analyzed the gendered heroics of its claim to art movement status, Rahel
Aima and Madeline Ashby, respectively writer and futurist gave a basic instruction in
70's psychoanalytic feminist screen theory. In her blog post at The State, entitled
'Curation, Gender and the New Aesthetic', Aima awkwardly suggested that the
attraction of the New Aesthetic might lie in the possibility to "briefly inhabit a
(conventionally) feminised subjectivity?" (2012b). In her words,

The New Aesthetic is about being looked at by humans and by machines

— by drones, surveillance cameras, people tagging you on Facebook —
about being the object of the gaze. It’s about looking through the eyes of a
machine and seeing the machine turn its beady LEDs on you. It’s about the
dissolution of privacy and reproductive rights, and the monitoring, mapping,
and surveillance of the (re)gendered (re)racialised body, and building our
own super-pervasive panopticon. (Aima 2012)

Ashby went further, rebooting Laura Mulvey's seminal destruction of Hollywood

22
objects to point out that what was being celebrated and sentimentalized by the New
Aesthetic were fairly normative investments in the (en)gendering of control and
domination. This seemed like a rather ordinary, age-old aesthetic of "everyday
(women’s) life",

That spirit of performativity you have about your citizenship, now? That
sense that someone’s peering over your shoulder, watching everything you
do and say and think and choose? That feeling of being observed? It’s not
a new facet of life in the twenty-first century. It’s what it feels like for a girl.
(Ashbery 2012)

From here, more general reflections were made on the psycho-dynamics in screen
power, and the lack of attention to the ontological and historical differences carried
along by the New Aesthetic itself:

The fact that it’s a conversation between artists and the forces observing
them is nothing new. We’ve been through this before. We used to design
cathedrals so grand God had to notice. Now we print the pattern of faded
denim jeans on linen pants so cleverly the Internet has to notice. We
crochet masks so facial recognition-enabled cameras won’t notice...
Someone has always been watching. (Ashbery 2012)

Significantly, these perspectives suggests that the New Aesthetic not only
sentimentalizes surveillance, but much more uncannily, extends or projects
phallocentric screen relations onto the actuality of things. Of course current feminist
approaches to the cinematic gaze are more nuanced that Mulvey's radical and
polemical reduction. Spectator identifications, whether in the cinema or across multiple
forms and kinds of screens are not so clean cut. It could easily be argued though that
the resort to her work somehow mirrors the reductive assumptions of identification in
the New Aesthetic itself. But furthermore, identification is less helpful in theory than
attention to drives, attachments, habits, and especially, logics, when dealing with new
media. The New Aesthetic takes place in a post-cinematic moment, a computational
moment, as we will argue in this book. We need to take media far more seriously in
considerations of political questions. If the notion of the gaze is significant, then it
emerges from how the New Aesthetic marks out its strangeness in media and as a
theory object. Here we draw on (not only) feminist contributions to suggest that the
New Aesthetic's projective attunement speaks not to a romance not with God or the
internet, but with the bemusing inhumanity of media power.

23
NET EFFECTS

The new aesthetic episode, and the set of reactions it spawned, reveals what can
happen when an open sketchbook of ideas and experiment in transparent research is
conducted in our current network culture. In a post to the CRUMB list, Honor Harger
captured a sense of the more tragic outcomes of the debate with some sober
reflections. She highlighted, in particular, her dismay at the extreme reactions to
Bridle's Tumblr, especially the 'sneering insults' of his work. By contrast, she insists,
that this project was never a 'movement', but a personal project. It was never
concerned with media art practice, and judging it within those terms is at best
'pointless', at worst, 'unfair',

That someone's research project, undertaken in the open and

transparently, has gone so ballistic, so quickly, and with so little input or
comment from it's author, is a sign of our times, I guess. It doesn't speak
well of the future of open, intuitive, long-form modes of public research,
that's for sure. (Hoger 2012)

Clearly, net discourse currently unfolds with a degree of carelessness, a kind of

terminal case of blindness and incomprehension. This alone should make us take
pause.

Indeed, we might wonder the extent to which this outpouring was provoked by and
aimed at Sterling's post, an essay loaded with high praise, polemics and provocations
(but forgotten criticisms). There are some significant concerns here. How can a new
generation experiment and develop within a network culture characterised by such
intensity, but also competing interests, investments and agendas? The new aesthetic
might offer a topos or a common, but this space is rife with conflict. Various
accusations that Bridle presented a set of half-baked arguments that cannot
withstand rigorous analysis is somehow as obvious as it is irrelevant. Coherent theses
or complete philosophies are not usually presented in the shape of single-serving
Tumblr. But testing an idea and contrasting it with other contributors to add to it and
open it up to external input is an important aspect of network culture that should be
supported. Work in process needs to be taken as such, and as Christopher 'm00t'
Poole might put, we need to maintain spaces where people are free to make mistakes
(2010).

Discussing the recently published book Imagery in the 21st Century (2012) in a post to
the iDC list, Trebor Scholz,

At first, I asked myself, what holds the twenty chapters in this

book together. What do all the puzzle pieces add up to? An analysis
of contemporary imagery felt like an uncomfortably all-
embracing ambition. What are we talking about when we are thinking
about contemporary visuality? The advent of infographics, games,
CCTV, animated gifs, art generated by algorithms, histograms,
4D visualizations, or Instagram? Constructively, the authors reflect
on imagery not merely through the lens of a specific device, genre, social
practice, or social function, and it becomes clear that image literacy can no
longer be the exclusive domain of art historians. But are we really, as the
24
 book suggests, amidst an image revolution? ... What, then, is so subversive
or new, a Tumblr image collection might help to answer. (Schulz 2012)

While acknowledging the significance of the New Aesthetic Tumblr to convey a

different sense of visual knowledge, Schulz expands his analysis to consider a call for
new literacies for analysis, intepretation and critical reflection. This is something
crucial that we support, something that we want to develop throughout what follows.

Opening up a space of discussion in the public sphere about a new way of looking at
the world is not something that happens very often. When it did, that window of
opportunity was not a result of the efforts of hundreds of researchers in the higher
education sector - it happened because a group of designers in London that make
witty blog posts and do keynote presentations in creative industries conferences,
somehow caught the imagination of an audience. Even if the thesis was somehow
confused and confusing, this amalgam of pixelated nostalgia, drones and computer
vision stood for something strongly enough that people would be willing to listen.

So while some academics will just point at the capacity of talented designers to frame
a (possibly flawed) idea in a catchy way and dress it up with interesting images, other
thinkers and researchers in the New Media community will confess they only have
themselves to blame for their incapacity to make their work resonate out of their
sphere of influence.

It would be risky to make assumptions, but Bridle’s sudden decision to close the New
Aesthetic Tumblr on May 6th this year feels like his response to the debate sparked by
his ideas; one more sign of discomfort. And although he achieved a nice symmetry by
terminating the site exactly one year to the day it was first opened, a feeling of
incompleteness looms over the whole enterprise. His ambiguity about the future of the
New Aesthetic - “The project will continue in other forms and venues" (2012b) -
doesn’t offer the promise of a clear deliverable. The products, for now, remain
unknown.

25
 CURATORIAL READINGS

5. A BLOGPOST AS EXHIBITION
6. COLLECT, REMIX, CONTRIBUTE -> CURATE?
7. ERROR 404: NO AESTHETIC FOUND

26
27
5. A BLOGPOST AS EXHIBITION

The contemporary obsession with novelty is an obsession of high capitalist

consumerism: we need to own the newest tech gadget, dress ourselves in the latest
fashion, enjoy the freshest foraged ingredients for the new thing in molecular dining
experiences, and continuously and persistently come up with new exciting ideas to
market ourselves and our jobs. As communications guru Marshall McLuhan said in one
of his numerous probes, "At the very high speed of living, everybody needs a new
career and a new job and a totally new personality every ten years" (McLuhan 2002:
114-115).

'New' is both trendy and trending, 'new' is youthful, 'new' surprises us, 'new' is the
varnish elaborately used to shine up that what is already there, what has been lying
around in the bottom of the drawer collecting dust and what no one paid attention to...
until it becomes the latest 'new' thing. Perhaps 'new' is to modes of consumption what
'radical' has been to contemporary art over the past few decades. 'New' as a term in
contemporary art is used sparingly however, as 'new' indicates a highly significant
breaking point. In past decades contemporary art and art theory have tended to build
more on palimpsestic models, which allow for a layering of conceptual and theoretical
influences by predecessors and peers. Contemporary art therefore prefers to use the
term 'turn', which is milder and allows for baggage to be included and schlepped along.

The 'new' comes into art in a different way, in the sense that art makes us see things
'anew' and defamiliarises our perception of things. In his original blog post on 'The New
Aesthetic' of May 6th 2011 on the Really Interesting Group website Bridle intends to
make us “see the technologies we have with new wonder” (2012a). In other words,
Bridle is employing a tested curatorial strategy of selecting images in order to have
that very collection produce a different way of looking – he wants us to see with 'new'
eyes, as it were. So let us treat Bridle's original post as curated exhibition space, a
curatorial project which attempts to unearth something about contemporary visual
perception and image production.

Blog posts are rigid exhibition platforms: they are unforgivingly linear, so that the
sequence of images – whether intended or not – has to be read according to a certain
hierarchy. Bridle's New Aesthetic blog kicks off with a NASA satellite image of an
agricultural landscape (2012a). We see an abstract painterly composition,
consisting de facto of a rocky land formation with a pixelated green pattern. The origin
of this image does not seem to be of great importance, as its biography is summarised
in a minimal hyperlinked caption as “Guardian gallery of agricultural landscapes from
space”. What matters though, is the visual impact of this image. Its natural rough and
organic textures mix with unworldly patches of green, as if the latter were
photoshopped into the image. The caption suggests that what we are looking at is
real, but whether this image is real or fake is probably besides the point. What Bridle
wants us to see in this image, it appears, is its seemingly digital aesthetic. How this
image was produced however, by means of satellite technology, is not revealed in
what we see. Bridle seems to have selected the image because its graphics suggest a
pixillated version of a landscape. The technological properties that are foregrounded in

28
the image are those that can be discerned on a surface level; the technologies related
to its graphical iteration are not those that concern its creation.

In addition, we only recognise this image as beautiful, and perhaps strangely

alienating, because of its framing and conditioning as an aesthetic image. It is this
framing of the image that trigger its visual and art historical references, such as for
example aerial photography and land art. What is also interesting about this image is
that it 'works' by grace of its technological mediation: The image is captured from a
huge distance by satellite, a perspective that is foreign to us and by corollary is
capable of conjuring up an imagery that is visually and conceptually intriguing. If we
would be walking in the landscape we would not experience the same visual impact,
as we would recognise our surroundings as known and ordinary. Here Bridle has put
forward a pure surface image. Its referent in the real is of no consequence for our
aesthetic appreciation of it. In that sense, this image can be perceived as a hermetic –
whether we place it online as a jpg or print it out and hang it on the wall. Its ontology
remains the same, only its scale and mode of presentation might change.

It is all the more curious then, that Bridle’s last image posted on the blog – closing the
series of his exhibition, as it were - is photo documentation of British sculptor Cornelia
Parker’s work Embryo Firearms (1995). Parker is well-known for probing and stretching
the possibilities of the materials she works with. She destroys and explodes matter to
push it into a new form, or resuscitates discarded materials into new lives. Her work
has been described as 'brutal beauty or sweet carnage' (Hattenstone 2010). Much of
Parker's work is ephemeral and site-specific, it is always spatially embodied and
ranges from pulverised sculptural particles to giant shotguns. The materiality of things
– where it begins and where it ends – is what Parker is interested in.

Why would Bridle choose to include Parkers’ piece consisting of a pair of cast steel
Colt 45 guns in their earliest stage of production? There is no pixel fetishism or other
digital-sensibilities-penetrating-physical-surroundings that characterise the other
images in the selection. Instead, the objects are guns coming into being, halted in their
development and therefore never fully functional, perfectly polished and facing each
other as if mirrored. They are commodities that are not yet socially engaged. What is
compelling here about Parker’s colts is that they capture the promise of a product, a
Colt 45. But more specifically, the work is a referent, a gun, and the physical object
proper into one. This, indeed, makes us see things anew, as the promise of the New
Aesthetic goes and is hardly a strategy unknown to conceptual art. But what is
interesting about the references to conceptual art work on Bridle's blog is that
conceptual art, like the New Aesthetic, has paid similar heightened attention to
publicity regimes, the relationship between art, image and matter as an investment in
the actual experience of the work (see Alberro 2003).

The acknowledgement of art objects as commodities and things that have perceptual,
semiotic and material impact, together, is set out for example in Brian Jungen's recent
conceptual art practice. His work consciously toys with the complexity of the relation
between raw material, the pure commodity and the commodity-object of art. Jungen
uses plastic chairs to construct whale skeletons or Nike sneakers to make tribal
masks. His practice is all about what Jessica Morgan calls “misplaced use value”
(Morgan 2006): his objects are mass-produced consumer items, but also singular art

29
objects that keep a referent outside the sphere of art. Jungen’s objects, like Parker’s
guns, are hyphenated and accumulative objects and are always-already literate in the
strange sociality of things.

In 'The fetishism of commodities and the secret thereof', Marx shows how
commodities seem to capture social relations in their very essence:

A commodity appears, a first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily

understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing,
abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it
is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider
it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying
human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of
human labor. It is as clear as noonday that man, by his industry, changes
the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make
them useful to him. The form of wood for instance, is altered by making a
table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common,
everyday thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is
changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on
the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head,
and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful
than “table-turning” ever was. (2007: 83)

It is this uncanniness that art works exacerbate and that curators choose how to deal
with critically (this decision not fixed in advance) quite differently to designers,
especially in display decisions. Design tends towards flatter dynamics of utility, beauty
and branding that seem still able to travel well once the object is turned into a
representation only. Whether the commodification process collapses into a flat
representation online, or is halted, such as in Bridle's mood board or Parker's guns
captured by it, the different suspensions of this drama accentuate the commodity
status of the thing, fixed into surface. Critical artists differently take account of these
uncanny dynamics of commodification in their individual works. Unlike the first image in
Bridle’s collection, the photo of the art work Embryo Firearms cannot be reduced to a
flat image since the artwork actually physically exists, or "stands on the ground" in
Marx's terms (2007: 83). Its documentation on a webpage works on a different visual
and interpretative register than the physical object itself. Here it does matter whether
you are looking at a jpg file on the screen or encountering Embryo Firearms spatially,
because the difference creates very different perceptions of aesthetic encounter in
the viewer. Indeed there is limited to no "encounter" with Embryo Firearms upon
flattening. The conditions of presentation (e.g., gallery, museum, or studio) and how
the work is contextualised, installed and framed in relation to its surroundings alters
our reading and experience of the work. To stage it in space is to take in to account
the embodied and perceptual experience of its imaging and how it impresses on the
body as a proximate material-semiotic thing.

In contrast to the first image in Bridle’s collection, which seems to be able to exist
solely on the webpage because it is already a transcendental commodity, Embryo
Firearms as documentation therefore feels like it is floating in space, excised from a
larger picture, decontextualized, and even bulky in comparison with the other images,

30
which radiate a lightness of form, even those that depict images of fighter
planes. Embryo Firearms can never inhabit that lightness because it identifies
itself prima facie as a an object installed in space and time and human-scaled relation,
whilst the satellite image does not. Even though aesthetically we can read the
documentation of Embryo Firearms as an image of art, it lacks the objectness that
was precisely the inquiry of the work. So why was it taken up in the collection, and why
does it even close the series? Well, because for the New Aesthetic, the idea is that
softwarized material strives flatly in the direction of transcendental commodity status,
even when it doesn't get there. On the “mood-board for unknown products” (Bridle
2012a) Parker’s guns are unable to be truly staged as queer vascillations of
metaphysical and theological, natural and artificial, materials and labour.

31
6. COLLECT, REMIX, CONTRIBUTE -> CURATE?
Remixing and collaging elements found on the Web has been a part of net art since its
inception in the 1990s. Early works such as MTAA's Ten Digital Readymades (2000),
created by entering the term 'ready made' into a search engine and archiving those
search results, exemplified the sense that material on the web offers rich fodder for
artists to develop work, with or without heavy subsequent alteration by artists
(Kasprzak 2009). A few years later, comparable collections -or 'flea markets of
images' (Ramocki 2008) - became widely available on the web due to the growth of
uploaded content and sharing media online, as well as the ongoing evolution of search
engines. Those factors, coupled with simple website development becoming an
increasingly rapid and easy process, has produced conditions for creative expression
that ranges from 'surf clubs', group blogs where artists share the fruit of their Web
surfing and fragments of their art practices, to image collecting on the pinboard-style
photo sharing platform Pinterest. What is interesting about Ten Digital Readymades,
however, and the link it sets up between Duchamp and process, is how computation
actually serves to reinvigorate our understanding of the radical aspects of the
readymade concept.

In an essay by Matthew Fuller, reviewing net art practices that used appropriation and
remixing before the advent of social web-phenomena such as surf clubs, Tumblr, and
Pinterest, he states:

Firstly, each piece of work is not especially apart from the other works by
the artist or groups that produced it - it is part of a practice. Secondly, each
work is assembled out of parts that belong to a collectively available
resource. So this again, is something set aside from the standard issue art
modes, unique visions, talented individuals and all the rest of it. It is the
power to connect. (Fuller 2001)

Putting Fuller's quote into context, he seems to support the idea that assembling
something out of parts that 'belong to a collectively available resource' provides a
more or less direct lineage from the earliest Dadaists collage art, to net art, to surf
clubs, to Tumblr, and to Pinterest. Fuller's assertion is that this kind of online bricolage
brings us out of 'standard issue art modes' confronts the perennial battle between
low and high culture, i.e., between the talented artists and the hopeless amateurs,
since anyone can access the collective resource online, appropriate things, remix them
and start collections. The establishment side is represented in Guardian blogger
Stephen Moss's assertions that "the great majority of popular culture in the UK
is worthless, moronic, meretricious, self-serving, anti-democratic, sclerotic garbage: it's
the enemy of thought and change: it should be ignored, marginalised, trashed" (2007).
Of course, we would not deny malaise just to creative industrial pop, but we need to
acknowledge, regardless, that the lines between the production of professional
cultural workers (and commentators) and creative work produced in more economized
modes have been more complex and blurred for some time.

We want to emphasize that curating and collecting are not the same, though some
might argue from that premise. One can collect stamps, miniature trains, and art, but
curating implies a public gesture and a subject position that frames the collection and

32
intends to produce connections between the collected items. In other words, curation
is interested in producing meanings that push the collection to be more than the sum
of its parts. It calls for a positioning – be that aesthetic, thematic, technological,
political or otherwise. One could argue then that collective spaces like Tumblr and
Pinterest are curated spaces because they are public and – to a certain extent –
themed. However, do these image collections in their openness and volume tell us
more about the images we are viewing, or are they just producing more of the same?
Curating, any curator will grudgingly admit, is seldom democratic, it is based on
selection, and selection is never inclusive by default. The phenomenon of online
collection as it relates to curating is described at length in For What and For Whom?,

The larger role of the curator encompasses the creation of links to other
creative dialogues, writing and contextualising work, developing the
physical (or virtual) exhibition sequencing and flow, and perhaps most
important of all, nurturing a relationship with the practitioners who make
the work and understanding the narrative inherent in their career trajectory.
(Or, in the case of those who work with historical collections, having a
scholarly background on the movements/time periods/artists represented
in these collections). What can and will be lost in the reduction of the term
curator to mean one who clicks on a thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon is
that sense of for what and for whom. (Kasprzak 2008)

There have been attempts at open online curating. For example, the open source
software application KURATOR by programmer Grzesiek Sedek and curator Joasia
Krysa (2004), which merges a platform for source code (as art), with an open and
collaborative curatorial platform:

Designed as free software that can be further modified by users, kurator

follows the structures and protocols of conventional curating and
implements a series of algorithmic processes that partly automates these
procedures. It translates curatorial protocols into modular software
protocols, breaking down the curatorial process into a series of commands
or rules. The software opens up the curatorial process to the public by
offering a system that is open to user input — in terms of submitting
examples of source code, arranging displays, commenting on these,
adding functionality and modifications to the software itself. (KURATOR
2012)

Users can add code to the repository, tag it, browse other contributor’s comments
and submissions. In that respect its dynamics resemble more that of a social
networking space or a database than a curatorial space. Marina Vishmidt comments in
her rhizome post on Kurator that it,

Posits ‘software curating’ as a way to distribute curatorial process over

networks of people, including artists and others, and finally outwards from
the special domain of an individual. It further combats the reification of
taste by partially automating many of the traditional metiers that
distinguish the curator - selectivity being one. (Vishmidt 2005)

We must ask, though, can the attribution of meaning and criticality be automated?
33
Can this job be done at all by a machine? And can open source models just be copy-
pasted and applied to curatorial practices? Where do we locate its criticality if any?
These are questions that must be considered when we investigate online image
collecting and moving curatorial techniques to the online realm. They will not answer
themselves, nor go away anytime soon. We should encourage further
experimentation, artistic research and theorization of these topics.

34
7. ERROR 404: NO AESTHETIC FOUND

At the core of new media art is the question of how culture is embracing digital
technology. Representing digital artefacts and online behaviours in the physical world
is a recognized artistic strategy among new media artists to address this question (for
an example, Bartholl 2012). Although many new media artworks are part of or
comment on the “eruption of the digital into the physical” (Sterling 2012) that the New
Aesthetic speaks to, we have been challenged to think why many of them would be
out of place posted on the New Aesthetic Tumblr or grouped as part of that meme.

THE REPRESENTATION PROBLEM

The New Aesthetic meme lives online (Bridle 2012a, 2012b), which by default means
that any physical thing or event it embraces is by definition a digital representation of
that thing or event. This is problematic for an artwork that is conceptually grounded in
the fact that it is physical, taking place in three dimensional space and time. This
includes many new media artworks that formally fall under the New Aesthetic. Take
Aram Bartholl's artwork Maps (2006-2010) for example, posted on the New Aesthetic
Tumblr on June 2, 2011. In Maps Bartholl places actual-size Google balloons in public
spaces to investigate the aesthetic of "the red map marker of the location based
search engine Google Maps" (Bartholl 2006). Clearly, it is the sheer overwhelming
impact of a larger-than-human-sized Google Maps balloon that communicates the
awkward relative measurements of digital artefacts that we seem to accept without
question in the digital realm. This awkwardness only really becomes apparent however
when one physically encounters such an 'out-of-proportion' Google balloon. By
documenting and posting such an encounter on a Tumblr, the Google Maps balloon
is re-introduced into the digital realm in which its proportions are commonly accepted,
which consequently radically decreases the artwork's communicative power.

Even better examples of this 'representation problem' for new media artworks in the
light of the New Aesthetic exist outside of the New Aesthetics Tumblr. Take Aram
Bartholl's Dead Drops (2010-2012) project for instance, "an anonymous, offline, peer
to peer file-sharing network in public space" (Bartholl 2010). The file-sharing network
exists of USB flash drives 'embedded into walls, buildings and curbs accessible to
anybody in public space' and on which everyone is invited to drop or find files (ibid.).
The Dead Drops concept can undeniably be communicated through phot o or video
documentation, but the artwork itself can not. The artwork consists of physically
standing outside in the street with ones laptop pushed against a wall mounting the
USB drive while receiving suspicious looks of passers-by as one drops files or picks
them up. It is this embodied experience imposed by the materiality of a dead drop that
makes a user think 'Is this legal?', 'Do I owe somebody copyright?', or 'Are the lyrics to
this song perhaps too explicit?' In other words, it's the fact that Dead Drops
materializes file sharing in our daily urban environment that confronts us with the
ethics of online file sharing, which moreover happens anonymously and users
consequently feel less accountable for their actions.

35
Similarly, performative projects that (by definition) belong to the realm of the New
Aesthetic suffer this 'representation problem'. Topshot Helmet (2006/2007) by Julius
von Bismarck for instance, recreates the bird's eye (or 'topshot') perspective that is
common in the digital realm, for instance in video games or online navigation
applications such as Google Maps. It recreates this perspective by means of a head-
mounted display that depicts live video from a camera floating above the user's head
pointing downward. The artwork comments on the unnatural perspective that this
bird's eye view is to humans - it's even hard to navigate an empty room with
the Topshot Helmet on. More important, it conveys this reflection on the bird's eye
perspective common in the digital realm through the physical experience of this
perspective. Topshot Helmet, the artwork, is the embodied experience of the 'topshot'.
Any form of online documentation of the artwork is mere representation of the actual
work; something that might convey the idea behind the artwork but not do justice to
the artwork itself.

For many posts on the New Aesthetic Tumblr, the fact that Tumblr only allows for
representations of projects in the physical world is not at all problematic. A glitch
design is a glitch design when captured in the photograph of a billboard or flyer.
Similarly, a military vehicle with pixel-like camouflage does not transform its meaning
so much in the documentation of the vehicle; it is already a surface print afterall. Many
artworks that represent digital artefacts and behaviours in the offline world (and
hence thus by definition belong to the 'New Aesthetic'), however do reference strongly
differentiated experienced in the physical world. For this reason, artworks such as
Dead Drops and Topshot Helmet sit uncomfortably under the New Aesthetic meme.
The meme lives online, while these artworks live in the world, are conceptually
grounded in their materiality, and convey their concepts and material-semiotic
negotiations through embodied experiences.

BEYOND THE PIXEL SCULPTURE

Many of the posts on the New Aesthetic Tumblr are relatively straightforward physical
renditions of a digital aesthetic. Take the many pixel sculptures for example that
feature on the New Aesthetic Tumblr and those that appear in the lectures that
followed it. They seem to say not much more than something in the vein of "We look
perfectly normal on a computer screen, so what are you looking at?!" Besides perhaps
provoking awareness regarding the low resolution of the digital realm in comparison to
the world offline, these sculptures do not really affect our view on pixels, and it's safe
to say that pixel sculptures do not influence our behaviour when we engage with
pixels. Many artworks that by definition would qualify as belonging to the New
Aesthetic however do much more than that. We might ask why it is exactly those
works, that aim to affect our views and influence our behaviour, that seem to be
missing in the New Aesthetic discourse. Take Domestic Tension (2007) by Wafaa Bilal
for instance, a perfect exemplar of a 'native product of modern network
culture' (Sterling 2012), but never discussed in the light of the New Aesthetic.

In DOMESTIC TENSION, viewers can log onto the internet to contact or "shoot"
Bilal with paintball guns. Bilal's objective is to raise awareness of virtual war and

36
 privacy, or lack thereof, in the digital age. During the course of the exhibition, Bilal
will confine himself to the gallery space. Over the duration, people will have 24-
hour virtual access to the space via the Internet. They will have the ability to watch
Bilal and interact with him through a live web-cam and chat room. Should they
choose to do so, viewers will also have the option to shoot Bilal with a paintball
gun, transforming the virtual experience into a very physical one. Bilal's self
imposed confinement is designed to raise awareness about the life of the Iraqi
people and the home confinement they face due to the both the violent and the
virtual war they face on a daily basis. This sensational approach to the war is
meant to engage people who may not be willing to engage in political dialogue
through conventional means. DOMESTIC TENSION will depict the suffering of
war not through human displays of dramatic emotion, but rather through engaging
people in the sort of playful interactive video game with which they are familiar.
(Bilal 2007)

Just as pixel sculptures do, Domestic Tension takes a digital phenomenon of

affective experience and networked mediation into the physical: the opportunity to
shoot an (often anonymous) person that could be on the other side of the world; a
principle at the heart of any online first-person shooter game. Would Domestic
Tension however sit comfortably next to a pixel sculpture in the New Aesthetic
conceptual container? Arguably it wouldn’t. Domestic Tension is much more than a
physical rendition of a digital aesthetic; it has a politics of affective experience and
embodied encounter that aims to affect political sensibilities and influence behaviour.
Pixel sculptures rather lack such aims. This fundamental difference between a
politically engaged new media artwork and a pixel sculpture seems marked and
symptomatic for the New Aesthetic; the New Aesthetic claims a status as an
emergent aesthetic, but does not really aspire to any sort of active or emergent
impact. While it makes claims about the reality of the present, it does not wish to
politically affect views or induce behavioural changes in that reality, like art commonly
does. It merely documents and collects.

How can an aesthetic that is concerned with "how culture is embracing the tools of
today" (McNeil 2012) be this far removed from the material situations in which these
tools operate and seemingly steer clear of their political implications? The so-called
New Aesthetic's elision of embodied experiences and of digitality beyond surface, is
an elision of position taking through asethetics and of art's investment in behavioural
changes. It's exemplars would bear a striking resemblance to contemporary art using
new media technology if it's concept were actually politicized (see Tribe and Jana
2006). But it doesn't seem designed to do that. Perhaps this is why it features so
many weak experiments with new media art's toolset? Could the New Aesthetic
simply be a poor attempt at curating new media art online? If so, its style is far from
new and merely borrows from evolutions and throughout the history of new media art,
evolutions which have been widely discussed for some years (see, e.g., Manovich
2001; Fuller 2005; Munster 2006; Bosma 2011; Brouwer, Mulder and Spuybroek
2012). Introducing a New Aesthetic that speaks to the “eruption of the digital into the
physical” (Sterling 2012), but that does not account for embodied experiences, steers
away from this eruption's contextual dimensions and political implications. It is like
buying a domain name, but not knowing how to build a website. Sometimes when one
receives a 404 error, it's not worth taking a screenshot of it and posting on a Tumblr

37
like Screenshots of Despair. Without some analysis or comprehension of these
material and technical process of mediation, there is no aesthetic there.

38
 IRRUPTIONS

8. THE NEW AESTHETIC AS REPRESENTATION

9. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF
POSSIBILITY FOR THE NEW AESTHETIC?
10. THE NEW AESTHETIC AS MEDIATION
11. THE POLITICS OF EMERGENT AESTHETICS
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

39
40
8. THE NEW AESTHETIC AS REPRESENTATION

This chapter will look at the common conception of the new aesthetic as a form
of mere representation, and particularly how, so far, the New Aesthetic has been
presented as screenic images. It will point to the importance of the medium in
understanding both the new aesthetic as collected on Tumblr as well as the wider
question of how it is understood through this mediation. We constantly require
attentiveness with such a surface reading, as it entails a kind of flattening of the
digital. A flattening which may, or may not, have a presumed indexicality, such as time,
place and subject. We might also want to think about the metadata implications for a
digitally constructed indexicality provided by geolocation, technical specs, and so forth
embedded in the image. We can also not only stay at the level of the screen, thereby
avoiding and/or perpetuating screen essentialism. Furthermore, we have to wrestle
with questions regarding the computational while st ill having a tendency to lean on
poor (representational) tools to do so.

It is interesting to note that a feature/bug of computational systems is sometimes

thought to be due to the immaturity of the disciplines and methods, but after 40 years
of writing code/software we still suffer from the same problems – namely its
complexity and our lack of metaphorical language to describe it. Whether inscribed
within a model of procedual, functional or object-oriented structure, code is usually
bigger than a single human being can understand. Thus, in a running system, and in
escaping our comprehension, it inevitably has aporia and liminal areas that mean we
cannot truly predict, control or even understand its operation. Whilst here we haven't
space to reflect on the radical potentialities this unpredictability and risk that this
'glitch ontology' opens in control societies, it is nonetheless suggestive for political and
artistic practice.

The New Aesthetic, then, can be understood as a comportment towards "seeing"

computation, responding to it, or merely being correctly attuned to it (in a subsequent
chapter this is explored due to its potential for the passification of the user). We might
therefore ask what are that the kinds of 'things' that show up as equipment, goals,
and identities in this new aesthetic and how they are specific to computationality. As
Heidegger argues,

So it happens that we, lost as we usually are in the activities of observing and
establishing, believe we “see” many things and yet do not see what really is.
(Heidegger 1995: 60)

Temptations towards showing the images of the new aesthetic as somehow

unmediated, particularly in relation to machine, or computer produced images,
fetishizes the "thing" whilst also obscuring its mediation. The New Aesthetic, in other
words, brings these patterns to the surface, and in doing so articulates a movement
towards uncovering the "unseen", the little understood logic of computational society
and the anxieties that this introduces. Nonetheless, we should, of course, be alert to
the aporias that it thereby introduces.

Without an attentiveness to the layers of software beneath this surface interface we

41
are in danger of further 'screen essentialism'. In terms of the computational as
instantiated within computational devices (or code objects), one of the key aspects is
that the surface can remain relatively stable whilst the machinery layer(s) can undergo
frenetic and disorienting amounts of change (Berry 2012c). This frantic disorientation
at the machinery layer is therefore insulated from the user, who is provided with a
surface which can be familiar, skeuomorphic (from the Greek, skeuos - vessel or tool,
morphe - shape), representational, metonymic, figurative or extremely simplistic and
domestic. It is important to note that the surface/interface need not be visual, indeed
it may be presented as an application programming interface (API) which hides the
underlying machinery behind this relatively benign interface.

As discussed in the introduction, the scope and boundary points of the New Aesthetic
are currently being drawn, redrawn and contested. This is great: it lives, it is being
tracked and experimented with, reworked and so on. But critical attention needs to be
paid especially to the New Aesthetic's formal investments in the non-human
dimension of the computational, both in terms of a worrying (rather than
methodological) decentring of the human, but also its related problem of granting
anthropomorphized agency to code.

Indeed, this raises questions about what we might call the "thinginess" of the new
aesthetic object more generally. To a large extent this "thinginess" or perhaps the
difficulty in engaging with it has been obscured due to an over-reliance on images to
represent its sets of new aesthetic "things" that purport to be in the world. This mere
pointing to materiality (even screenic images are material in an important sense) and
assumes transparent means of communication facilitated by computational
commmunicational systems. That is, there appears to be a theory of communication
inbuilt into the new aesthetic as shown in its popular registers. We need to take
account of this.

THE REPRESENTATION PRACTICES OF THE NEW AESTHETIC

The new aesthetic is deeply influenced by and reliant on patterns and abductive
reasoning (Berry 2012a). This is a common thread that links the lists of objects that
seem to have nothing more in common than a difficulty to reconcile a tenuous
digitality, or a retro attachment towards older forms of digital rendering and
reproduction. In actuality it is no surprise that we see a return of 8-bit retro – it could
perhaps be described as the abductive aesthetic par excellence, inasmuch as it
enables an instant recognition of, and indeed serves as an important representation
for, the digital, especially as the digital becomes high-definition and less 'digital' by the
day (see Jean 2010). Differently, this is a 'down-sampled' representation of a kind of
digital past, or perhaps digital passing, given that the kinds of digital glitches, modes,
and forms that are chosen are very much historically located – especially considering
that we are moving into a high-definition world of retina displays and high-pixel density
experience (for an example, see Huff 2012).

As computation, and by definition its carriers, code and software, increasingly

withdraw into the background of our experience, we have increasingly seen this
foregrounding of representations of, and for, the digital/computational across art and

42
design. In some ways, 8-bit images are reassuring and still comprehensible as
different from and standing in opposition to the everyday world people inhabit. In other
ways, however, the glitchy, retro 8-bit esque look that we see in pixelated works are
actually distant from the capabilities of contemporary machines and their 8-bit blocky
ontologies provide only limited guidance on the way in which software now organises
and formats the our shared, and sharable, world (Berry 2011). So ironically, just as
digital technologies and software mediate our experience and engagement with the
world, often invisibly, so the 'digital' and 'software' is itself mediated and made visible
through the representational forms of pixelation and glitch.

As notions of abduction and related aesthetic styles in art and design become more
prevalent it will be interesting to see more exemplars of this form emerge and see how
we deal with them. Whilst today we tend to think of the 8-bit pixelation, satellite
photos, CCTV images, and the like, it is probable that alternative, more computational
forms will probaby take over. Perhaps skeuomorphic images will become increasingly
common? Or indeed skeuomorphic representations of older 8-bit technologies (for
example enabled by MAME and other emulators) (see MAME 2012). Conceivably, this
leads to a form of cognitive dissonance, perpetuating drives to look for pattern
aesthetics everywhere. Apophenia, the tendency to see meaningful patterns or
connections in random or meaningless data (called a type 1 error in statistics) is
definitely playing out in the New Aesthetic in this regard. We might further expect that
people are also seeking digital or abductive explanations for arts of other moments,
for visual or even non-visual experiences which may not be digital or produced through
computational means at all, a digital pareidolia.

Pareidolia involves seeing importance in vague and random phenomenon, for example
a face in a random collection of dots on paper. The term 'digital pareidolia' we coin to
gesture towards this tendency in the New Aesthetic to see digital causes for things
that happen in everyday life. Indeed, under future regimes of computationality it might
be considered stranger to believe that things might have non-digital causes. Thus
apophenia would be the norm in a highly digital computational society, perhaps even a
significant benefit to one's life chances and well-being if finding patterns becomes
increasingly lucrative. Here we might consider the growth of computational high-
frequency trading and financial systems that are trained and programmed to identify
patterns very quickly.

Software is not only necessary for representation; it is also endemic of

transformations in modes of “governing” that make governing both more personal
and impersonal, that enable both empowerment and surveillance, and indeed
make it difficult to distinguish between the two. (Chun 2011: 58)

When we speak of seeing the grain of computation, or perhaps its 'seams', what do
we mean by this and what is being articulated in particular discourses around the
representation of the new aesthetic? Here we might note that seeing the grain of
computation, is a merely representational model of understanding a media form, and
although useful in one dimension is unable to capture a range of specific medial
aspects and issues that are very important, and to which we now turn.

43
9. WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF POSSIBILITY FOR THE NEW
AESTHETIC?

We want to raise the question about the conditions of possibility for the new
aesthetic, that is, for the possibility of surfacing the digital through representational
and mediational forms. Firstly, let's look at the notion of a form of foundational
ontology that informs everyday life and thinking through a notion of computationality.
Secondly, we will examine the question of technology, understood here as the
specificity of computational technology, and its diffusion as networked, mobile, digital
technologies. Creative practices are assumed for the sake of this chapter to be ontic
dramas that take place always already within very specific informational, network and
political organizations. Whether fine art, non-profit or creative industrial, such ontic
activity displays hugely variable degrees of awareness of these conditions. If, as we
have argued, the New Aesthetic offered up a way to think about and inhabit a present
regime of computationality without explicitly and reflexively taking account of what it
is that we attend to, then let us consider the background nature of this computational
way-of-being.

COMPUTATIONALITY

In order to move beyond the vagaries of the ‘technological sublime’, we should begin
the theoretical and empirical projects that can create ‘cognitive maps’ (Jameson
1991). First we should draw attention to basic categories in what we might call
informational, or computational societies. This is helpful in enabling us to draw the
contours of what is called 'computationality', and in articulating the relationship of this
the new aesthetic. As the digital increasingly structures the contemporary world,
curiously, it also withdraws; it becomes harder and harder for us to focus upon, as it
becomes embedded, hidden, off-shored, or merely forgotten about. Part of the
challenge for citizens of a regime of computation is to bring the digital (code/software)
back into visibility for exploration, research and cultural critique. Of course reflexive
media art work, artistic and curatorial, has demonstrated significant and active
investments in this.

Computationality is a central, effective, dominant system of meanings and values

that are abstract but also organizing and lived. To take account of what
computationality is to the New Aesthetic cannot be understood at the level of mere
opinion or mere manipulation. It is related to a whole operative body of computational
practices and expectations, for example how we assign energy towards particular
projects and how we ordinarily understand the 'nature' of humans and the world. The
meanings and values that it sets up are experienced as practices which are
reciprocally confirming, repeated and predictable, at the same time as being used to
describe and understand the world itself. It is possible that software itself is the
explanatory form of explanation itself (see Chun 2011).

When the New Aesthetic, alongside similar media art practices, contributes to a sense

44
of reality, touches a growing sense or suspicion towards the digital, or gives a sense
of the limits or even the absolute, this is also because experienced reality beyond
everyday life is too difficult for most members of a society to move or understand.
What we are dealing with is a heuristic pattern for everyday life – the parameterization
of our being-in-the-world. An example of parameterization as a kind of default (digital)
grammar of everyday life would be say, that mediated through the 140 characters in
Twitter or other social media.

Computation in this sense can be considered as an ontotheology. A specific historical

epoch defined by a certain set of computational knowledges, practices, methods and
categories. Related to this is a phenomenological experience of frantic disorientation
caused by, or throught to be contributing to lived experience – which is not incidentally
an important marker of the specificity of the New Aesthetic that foregrounds or even
renders as normal the loss of control, loss of human importance or the erasure of
difference between human and non-human. Therefore new aesthetic registrations of
the computational regime involve, in an important sense, an abductive aesthetic built
on patterning and first order logics, in which computational patterns and pattern
recognition become a means of cultural expression.

Patterns are deeply imbricated with computerized recognition, repeated codes,

artifacts and structural elements that enable something to be recognised as a type of
thing (see Harvey 2011, 2012 for a visualisation of facial pattern recognition). This is
not just visual, of course. Patterns may be recognised in data sets, textual archives,
data points, distributions, non-visual sensors, physical movement or gestures, haptic
forces, and so on. Indeed, this points to the importance of information visualisation as
part of an abduction aesthetic in order to 'visualise' the patterns that are hidden in
sets of data.

Thus, computationality (as an ontotheology) instantiates a new ontological ‘epoch’ as

a new historical constellation of intelligibility. Code/software is the paradigmatic case
of computationality, and presents us with a computational 'objects' which are located
at all major junctures of modern society. To view it as an ontotheology enables us to
understand the present situation and its collections, networks, or assemblage of
'coded objects' or 'code objects'.

One of the things that the New Aesthetic strongly expresses (which indeed is not that
new in fine art or pop culture) is the concept of a 'glitch ontology'. To see the 'eruption
of the digital into the physical' (which we understand as 'iruption') everywhere, is to
acknowledge glitch as an ontological condition. Heidegger has very interestingly
conceptualised the way in which everyday objects come to presence and withdraw
from our attention over time, depending on the way in which they are used, which he
describes as Vorhandenheit (or present-at-hand) and Zuhandenheit (or ready-to-
hand). The common example Heidegger uses is that of a hammer, which observed in a
detached manner appears as 'present-at-hand', as an object decontextualised before
us. In contrast, when used by the carpenter it becomes 'ready-to-hand', that is part of
the activity, or making, of the carpenter, no longer noticed as a discrete object.

In contrast to the more subtle shifts in the vision/use of the hammer, computational
devices appear to oscillate rapidly between Vorhandenheit/ Zuhandenheit (present-

45
at-hand/ ready-to-hand) – this is a glitch ontology. Perhaps even more accurately,
computational things are constantly becoming ready-to-hand/unready-to-hand in
quick alternation. By quick this can mean happening in microseconds, milliseconds, or
seconds, repeatedly in quick succession. The upsetting of seamless user experience
through ongoing risks of, and exposure to, glitch, is an ongoing development issue
within human-computer design, which sees it as a pressing concern to be ‘fixed’ or
made invisible or seamless to the user (Winograd and Flores 1987). We want to
emphasize that this is a concept of 'glitch' that is specific to computation, as opposed
to other technical forms (Berry 2011).

Once glitch creates the conspicuousness that breaks the everyday experience of
things, and more importantly breaks the flow of things being comfortably at hand, this
is a form that Heidegger called Unreadyness-to-hand (Unzuhandenheit). Heidegger
defines three forms of unreadyness-to-hand: Obtrusiveness (Aufdringlichkeit),
Obstinacy (Aufsässigkeit), and Conspicuousness (Auffälligkeit), where the first two
are non-functioning equipment and the latter is equipment that is not functioning at
its best (see Heidegger 1978, fn 1). Importantly here, if equipment breaks you have to
think about it.

Conspicuousness, or conspicuous computation is not a sign of completely broken

equipment. Conspicuousness only ‘presents the available equipment as in a certain
unavailableness’ (Heidegger 1978: 102–3), so that as Dreyfus (2001: 71) explains, we
are momentarily startled, and then shift to a new way of coping, but which, if help is
given quickly or the situation is resolved, then ‘transparent circumspective behaviour
can be so quickly and easily restored that no new stance on the part of Dasein is
required’ (Dreyfus 2001: 72). As Heidegger puts it, it requires ‘a more precise kind of
circumspection, such as “inspecting”, checking up on what has been attained, [etc.]’
(Dreyfus 2001: 70).

In other words computation, due to its glitch ontology, continually forces a contextual
slowing-down at the level of the mode of being of the user, thus the continuity of flow
or practice is interrupted by minute pauses and breaks (which may beyond conscious
perception, as such). This is not to say that analogue technologies do not break down,
the difference is the conspicuousness of digital technologies in their everyday working,
in contrast to the obstinacy or obtrusiveness of analogue technologies, which tend to
work or not. There is also a discrete granularity of the conspicuousness of digital
technologies, which can be measured technically as seconds, milliseconds, or even
microseconds. All of these aspects of glitch ontology raise interesting questions about
our experiences of computational systems.

The New Aesthetic is interesting in this context because of its implicit investment in
representation, showing the surface of the extent to which digital media has
permeated our everyday lives. In Deleuzian terms we might think of two strata here:
the first, computationality as the plane of content/materiality; and creative practices
including the New Aesthetic as the plane of expression (Deleuze and Guattari 1987:
43). Importantly, and as Deleuze and Guattari make explicit, such a formulation is
useful because each plane does not need to have a direct connection, logic, or
resemblance to the other. Indeed, the representational plane, as it were, can be only
loosely coupled to the other.

46
Computation, understood within the context of computationality, pervades our
everyday life. It therefore becomes one particular limit (there are others of course) of
our possibilities for reason, experience and desire within this historical paradigm of
knowledge, or episteme (see Berry 2012c). One can think of creative practices as
being bounded extricably with the computational and the foundation for developing a
cognitive map (Jameson 2006: 516). The fact that abduction aesthetics are
networked, sharable, modular, 'digital', and located both in the digital and analogue
worlds is appropriate, because they follow the colonisation of the lifeworld by the
technics of computationality.

David Hockney writing about his Fresh Flowers (Grant 2010) links his artistic work to
the medial affordances of the computational device, in this case an iPad, stating
'when using his iPhone or iPad to draw, the features of the devices tend to shape his
choice of subject...The fact that it's illuminated makes you choose luminous subjects'
(Freeman 2012). Parisi and Portanova further argue for an algorithmic aesthetic with
their notion of 'soft thought':

the aesthetic of soft thought precisely implies that digital algorithms are
autonomous, conceptual modes of thinking, a thinking that is always already a
mode of feeling ordered in binary codes, and is not to be confused with sensing or
perceiving. Numerical processing is always a feeling, a simultaneously physical and
conceptual mode of feeling data, physical in the actual operations of the
hardware-software machine, conceptual in the grasp of numbers as virtualities or
potentials (Parisi and Portanova 2012).

Other researchers (Beaulieu et al 2012) have referred to 'Network Realism’ to draw

attention to some of these visual practices. Many of the artworks in this book can be
seen to fall under this category of work. Such works display similar investments in
producing visual, affective and object-based articulations of digitality and the network.

The Tumblr blog that presents the New Aesthetic to us as a stream of data – again,
significant in this reading of computationality (see also Kittler 2009) - collects digital
and pseudo-digital objects through a computational frame, and is only made possible
through new forms of computational curation tools, such as Tumblr and Pinterest
(2012). The New Aesthetic thus gives a description and a way of representing and
mediating the world in and through the digital, that is understandable as an infinite
archive (or collection). Secondly, alongside many other creative practices including art
practices that we have pointed to in this book, The New Aesthetic alternately
highlights the fact that something digital is a happening in culture – something which
we have only barely been conscious of – and also that culture is happening to the
digital. Together these aspects ontological, technical, and of course material,
contribute to what we might call the condition of possibility for emerging aesthetic
practices invested in the present, invested as these are in irupting the 'digital' into the
'real'.

More surface-level investments such as those captured in the New Aesthetic we

might say remain focussed on the aesthetic in the first instance (rather than the
ontological) and in this way perpetuate the obfuscation of the sociological and political
reality of computational conditions. This is a useful point of distinction for considering

47
the difference between aesthetic forms instantiated within the computational
condition. The point we want to make is that the collections that Bridle and Sterling in
particular are identifying are in fact more symptomatic than exemplary of a
computational paradigm in creative work, of whatever kind. Some of us think this is a
fairly obvious point to make, but it nevertheless needs this degree of explanation.
Surface digitality elides computational realities that inform aesthetic feeling, while
holding unclear or haphazard investments in such hidden or lower level realities.

48
10. THE NEW AESTHETIC AS MEDIATION

Let's explore the notion of mediation within the contours of the New Aesthetic, in
particular the computational contribution or facilitation of certain way of working,
looking, and distributing. Whilst we are aware of the limitations that the structure of
this book enforces on our discussion of mediation, and especially the difficulties of
explicating the complexities of computational media, it is clear that emerging creative
practices are problematising, in some sense, this medial dimension. Indeed, medial
change is linked to epistemic change – and here of course, we are referring to a
software condition.

Software presents a translucent interface relative to a common 'world' and so

enables engagement with a 'world', this we often call its interface. It is tempting, when
trying to understand software/code to provide analysis at the level of this surface.
However, software also possesses an opaque machinery that mediates engagement
that is not experienced directly nor through social mediations. Without an
attentiveness to the layers of software beneath this surface interface we are in
danger of 'screen essentialism'. In terms of this analytic approach, one of the key
aspects is that the surface can remain relatively stable whilst the machinery layer(s)
can undergo frenetic and disorienting amounts of change (Fuller 2003). This frantic
disorientation at the machinery layer is therefore insulated from the user, who is
provided with a surface which can be familiar, skeuomorphic (from the Greek, skeuos -
vessel or tool, morphe - shape), representational, metonymic, figurative or extremely
simplistic and domestic. It is important to note that the surface/interface need not be
visual, indeed it may be presented as an application programming interface (API)
which hides the underlying machinery behind this relatively benign interface. Here, are
useful links to many of the formulations around a notion of the New Aesthetic.

Indeed, we argue that the New Aesthetic is interesting as a kind of pointing or

gesturing towards mediation by digital processes, in some instances connecting to
claims whereby it renders human input or control unnecessary – similar to claims about
a non-human turn. This is the very act of automatic computation or a form of idealized
artificial intelligence is in some senses a technical imaginary that runs through the
Bridle/Sterling formulation. Mediation itself can be understood within a frame of
understanding that implies the transfer between two points – often linked to notions
of information theory. Guillory argues,

the enabling condition of mediation is the interposition of distance (spatial,

temporal, or even notional) between the terminal poles of the communication
process (these can be persons but also now machines, even persons and
machines). (Guillory 2010: 357)

The software that is now widely used is part of a wider constellation of software
ecologies made possible by a plethora of computational devices that facilitate the
colonisation of code into the lifeworld (see Berry 2012d). In other words, software
enables access to certain forms of mediated engagement with the world. This is
achieved via the translucent surface interface and enables a machinery to be

49
engaged which computationally interoperates with the world.

AVAILABLE COMMODITIES

In this vein we want to explore the notion of availability in relation to this idea of
surface. It is helpful here to think of the way that computationality has affordances
that contribute to the construction and distribution of a range of commodities. We
think of computationality as the very definition of the framework of possibility for
social and political life today, that is, again using computationality as an ontotheology
(see previous chapter). Here we think of a commodity as being available when it can
be used as a mere end, with the means veiled and backgrounded. This is not only in
technical devices, of course, and also includes the social labour and material required
to produce a device as such. But in the age of computationality we think it is
interesting to explore how the surface effects of a certain form of computational
machinery create the conditions both for the black boxing of technology as such, but
also for thinking about the possibility of political and social action against it. I will call
this the paradigm of availability. Upon this surface we might read and write whatever
we choose, as we are also offered a surface to which we might read the inscrutable
however we might wish.

What is striking about the paradigm of availability made possible by computationality,

is that it radically re-presents the mechanisms and structures of everyday life,
themselves reconstructed within the ontology afforded by computationality. This
moment of re-presentation is an offering of availability, understood as infinite play
and exploitability (interactivity) of a specific commodity form which we might call the
computational device. Here we think of the computational device both in terms of its
material manifestations but also as a diagram or technical imaginary. That is, it is not
only restructuring the mechanisms and structures, but the very possibility of thinking
against them. Part of the paradox of availaibility, however, is that the 'deeper'
structures are progressively hidden and offered instead through a simplified 'interface'.
In computational capitalism this affects not just the what we think of as naturally
computational, for example a laptop, but also other technical and mechanical devices
that are reconfigured through this paradigm.

50
Internals of an Apple II computer (introduced 1977) and Apple’s 2012 Retina Macbook
Pro (Begemann 2012).

Engine compartments of a 1982 Mercedes-Benz Series 190 (W-201) and a 2010

Mercedes Benz Concept Car called “Shooting Break” (Begemann 2012).

Here we see how this computational means to black-boxing the mechanism, and the
affordances that computation grants, eg. miniaturisation, concretisation, obfuscation,
and so forth, become part of the way-of-doing within consumer capitalism. The
computer becomes increasing dense and aestheticised (even internally as shown
above) and the access point is through the obligatory passage points of the interface.
Equally, the car reveals a similar logic of hiddenness and obfuscation, with the driver,
now user, given an 'interface' to the engine and associated mechanical system. These
interfaces are built on rational and directed process of reason, what we might call
'mere reason' as a subset of possible ways-of-doing or acting. This is also where the
logic of computationality and the practices of computational consumer capitalism
converge in the creation of technical devices with inbuilt obsolescence and limited
means for repair or maintainence.

51
Kant argues that ‘mere reason’ (rather than ‘pure reason’) is a programmed structure,
with in-built possibilities of "misfiring", and nothing but calculation as a way of seeing
right. The computer is a technology that caused Derrida some concern for precisely
the reason that it attempt to substitute for the flux of everyday experience an
appearance of certainty that cannot represent human experiences adequately
(Golumbia 2009: 16). “Mere” reason is not like the two major categories of cognition,
“pure” and “practical” reason, specifically because in its quest for exactness and
precision it actually eliminates the possibility of human agency in thinking or cognitive
practice.

Driven by rapid changes in technology and particularly innovation in social media, we

are seeing a transition from static information to real-time data. Real-time data
streams are new ways to consume various media forms through data stream
providers like Twitter. In fact it can be argued that Twitter is now the de facto real-
time message bus of the internet. This new way of accessing, distributing, and
communicating via the real-time stream is still playing out and raises interesting
questions about how it affects politics, economics, social, and daily life. But there’s
also the question of what does the real-time stream do to the aesthetic experience?
Particularly when the real-time mediates art or becomes a site for artistic installation
or innovation.

To pick up a theme introduced early in the book, we have continually questioned and
critiqued the behaviour gestured towards in earlier discussions of the New
Aesthetic as a way-of-seeing, or even a way-of-being. This passivity suggested in a
subjectivity linked to the New Aesthetic that elsewhere has been described by Berry
(2011) as a riparian subject or raparian user. That is a subject that is encouraged to
follow, watch, or consume streams of data without necessarily participating in any
meaningful way in the stream. Here,

riparian refer[s] to the act of watching the flow of the stream go by. But as,
Kierkegaard, writing about the rise of the mass media argued: The public is not a
people, a generation, one’s era, not a community, an association, nor these
particular persons, for all these are only what they are by virtue of what is
concrete. Not a single one of those who belong to the public has an essential
engagement with anything (Berry 2011: 144).

Above we gestured already towards the softwarization of 'close reading', and the
changing structure of a ‘preferred reader’ or subject position towards one that is
increasingly algorithmic (of course, this could be a human or non-human reader).
Indeed it is suggestive that as a result of these moves to real-time streams that we
will see the move from a linear model of narrative, exemplified by books, to a
‘dashboard of a calculation interface’ and ‘navigat ional platforms’, exemplified by new
forms of software platforms. Indeed, these platforms, and here we are thinking of a
screenic interface such as the iPad, allow the ‘reader’ to use the hand-and-eye in
haptic interfaces to develop interactive exploratory approaches towards
knowledge/information and ‘discovery’. This could, of course, still enable humanitistic
notions of ‘close reading’ but the preferred reading style would increasingly be ‘distant
reading’. Partially, or completely, mediated through computational code-based
devices. Non-linear, fragmentary, partial and pattern-matching software taking in real-

52
time streams and presenting to the user a mode of cognition that is hyper attention
based coupled with real-time navigational tools. Thus,

the riparian user is strangely connected, yet simultaneously disconnected, to the

data streams that are running past at speeds which are difficult to keep up with.
To be a member of the riparian public one must develop the ability to recognise
patterns, to discern narratives, and to aggregate the data flows. Or to use
cognitive support technologies and software to do so. The riparian citizen is
continually watching the flow of data, or delegating this ‘watching’ to a technical
device or agent to do so on their behalf. It will require new computational abilities
for them to make sense of their lives, to do their work, and to interact with both
other people and the technologies that make up the datascape of the real-time
web (Berry 2011: 144).

53
11. THE POLITICS OF EMERGENT AESTHETICS

In the well-known lecture, ‘What is Critique?’ Foucault traces "the critical attitude"
from the "high Kantian enterprise" (to know knowledge) to everyday polemics found in
governmentality. In this way, criticality is a stance that follows modernity: an act of
defiance by limiting, exiting and transforming historically constituted arrangements of
power. Foucault referred to critique in this context as “the art of not being governed,
or better the art of not being governed like that, or at that cost” (2007: 45). Expressed
as a will, this is conveyed by a suspension of judgment that drives praxis into a direct
involvement with prevailing conditions of possibility and power/knowledge, he adds,

If governmentalization is...this movement through which individuals are

subjugated in the reality of a social practice through mechanisms of power
that adhere to a truth, well, then! I will say that critique is the movement by
which the subject gives himself the right to question truth on its effects of
power and question power on its discourses of truth. (Foucault 2007: 47)

This reconfiguration of problems is suggestive of a way to suspend the riparian user

within the altered historical context of computationality and neoliberal govermentality.
Consider the practices associated with media art: hacking, free and open source
software, net criticism and so on. Consider Philip Agre's influential framework of
'critical technical practice' (1997) or, more recently, Julian Oliver, Gordan Savičić, and
Danja Vasiliev's 'Critical Engineering Manifesto',

The Critical Engineer considers any technology depended upon to be both

a challenge and a threat. The greater the dependence on a technology the
greater the need to study and expose its inner workings, regardless of
ownership or legal provision... raises awareness that with each
technological advance our techno-political literacy is challenged.
(Oliver, Savičić & Vasiliev 2011).

Such examples aim to process existing regimes precisely through their capacity to
suspend or reconfigure any 'correct' techniques and contexts for engaging with
informational infrastructures, whether commercial interfaces, platform services,
junked hardware, atmospheric sensors, network traffic or geo-tagged data. We are
suggesting that these practices work to hack the relational, affective and algorithmic
logics of neoliberal subjectivity to the extent that we begin to actively think with these
infrastructures in new ways, apply a threshold of encouragement to break privatized
senses of risk and loss, to diagram structural violences, to reconfigure at-risk
ecologies of practices, and so to foster different modes of comportment. If critique
always forms within pre-existing conditions and settings, it does so through 'voluntary
disobedience.'

There are, of course, constant and ongoing risks involved in critique, and in critical
cultural practices, since they are provoked by difficulties carried along by insecurity
and precariousness itself. Nevertheless, we should not be disheartened or
disappointed by these challenges. As Judith Butler argues in her commentary on
Foucault’s lecture, this is "a moment of ethical questioning which requires that we
54
break the habits of judgment in favor of a riskier practice that seeks to yield artistry
from constraint" (Butler 2001). The moment, or movement, of critique is not based on
correcting errors or mistakes, but on a 'virtue' of questioning the limits themselves.

Critical aesthetic practices tend to involve pulling open conductions of control,

surfacing from twisted ensembles of things, dragging their problematic configurations
into view. Such efforts have been central to media art in the past, but how can these
practices be fostered under current configurations of compulationalism and the
destructive tendencies of neoliberal governmentalit y? Can the New Aesthetic
illuminate these ecologies of practices in new ways, to light up for an instant the
investments, subjectivities and conflicts that define a critical network culture?

Ref resh

A key premise of this book has rested on a relatively uncontroversial claim that the
digital, especially software, is an increasingly important aspect of our post-Fordist
informational societies and cultural practices. We have taken a synoptic look at the
digital through the phenomenon of the New Aesthetic, the questions it raises, and the
style of comportment that it suggests. This experiment in thinking the present through
collaborative and interdisciplinary authorship has enabled us to consider the profound
ways in which computationality and neoliberal governmentality are imbricated within
emerging aesthetic forms, expressions, logics and effects. The 'deep' materiality of
the digital crystallizes particular social forms and values, but also generates new
mentalities in combination with economic forms and social relations. This notion of
computationality as ontotheology indicates the prevailing doxa of a digitally material
world. Indeed, as Marx argued,

Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature, the direct process
of the production of his life, and thereby it also lays bare the process of
production of the social relations of his life, and of the mental conceptions
that flow from these conceptions (Marx 2007: 493, footnote 4).

We are not suggesting here that excesses of instrumental reason, delegated into
machines, have created a totalitarian dystopia where the computational and the
instrumental have become synonomous. That is a reading of technology that
Heidegger criticized as a poor understanding of technology which remains "caught in
the subject/object picture" (Dreyfus 1997). In Heidegger's final analysis, the goal of
technology was "something completely different and therefore new" (1977: 5). It
involved increasingly efficient orderings of resources simply for the sake of this
ordering and it has created a world in which "everything is ordered to stand by, to be
immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further
ordering" (1977: 17). Crucially, it's at this level that we have been drawing links
between computationality, thought and comportment.

Neoliberal Re-Forms

55
We now find ourselves in a situation of increasing reliance on digital technologies of
computation and calculative rationalities. Many of these systems were initially
designed to support or aid the judgement of people in undertaking specific activities,
analyses, and decisions, but they have long since "surpassed the understanding of
their users and become indispensible to them" (Weizenbaum 1984: 236). With a lack
of adequate technical literacy, combined with processes of blackboxing, these
systems themselves resist interrogability. Accordingly, in our current dependency on
computationality, such infrastructures tend toward growth, through addition of control
at higher and higher levels of abstraction (Beniger, 1986). Indeed, as Kitchin (2011)
argues, software can tie in strongly with specific regimes of governmentality, in dense
and complicated patterns and dynamics:

Over the past two centuries a mode of governmentality has developed in

Western society that is heavily reliant on generating and monitoring
systematic information about individuals by institutions. Software-enabled
technologies qualitatively alter both the depth and the scope of this
disciplinary gaze, but also introduce new forms of governance, because
they make the systems and apparatus of governance more panoptical in
nature. At the technical level, software is producing new machine-readable
and software-sorted geographies that are radically altering how cities are
regulated… Software creates more effective systems of surveillance and
creates new capture systems that actively reshape behaviour by altering
the nature of a task. In recent years there has been much academic
attention paid to qualitative changes in surveillance technologies as they
have become digital in nature, leading to the development of a new field of
surveillance studies. That said, there is still much conceptual and empirical
work to be done to understand how forms of governance are being
transformed and the role played by software, and not simply the broader
technologies they enable. (Kitchin 2011: 949)

Neoliberalism’s deep penetration into subjectivity, or what Foucault called

subjectivation, pulls economized, 'market-civilization' thinking into social spheres in
ways that work in destructive and atomizing registers. This is one of the challenges, in
our view, marked by the New Aesthetic.

Drawing on Lauren Berlant’s conception of mediatized subjectives that attune to such

presents by finding form (2011), we have considered the New Aesthetic as just one
kind of affectively compelling genre that had success as a 'concept' for hinging
oneself to an obfuscated present. From specific conditions of possibility, it spoke of
patterns, computational regimes and economic conditions that had become very much
our own. The New Aesthetic twisted conventional anxieties; for us, the predictable
resistance seemed too staid, even for those who were ambivalent about it. This
phenomenon showed us that to think aesthetic encounters now, we need to think
differently. The New Aesthetic isolates the urgency of our need for new concepts: to
be clearer on how the dynamics of civil society have become increasingly eroded away
and are being reworked by computational technologies and neoliberal technocratic
orders.

These relate to aesthetics of comportment, to orientations with objects, relationships,

56
things and communities. Experimental art and critical projects might attempt to think
through these infrastructures by playing with and breaking the logics and medial
affordances differently. We are emphasizing the urgency precisely because all of
this plays out on the topos provided by computational technologies, on loose, hazy
neoliberalized social fabrics, which in a similar way to software, render older forms of
attachments and subject positions irrelevant. As Gelernter argues:

No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or

dangerous than 'now.' As we learn more about now, we know less about
then. The Internet increases the supply of information hugely, but the
capacity of the human mind not at all… The effect of nowness resembles
the effect of light pollution in large cities, which makes it impossible to see
the stars. A flood of information about the present shuts out the past
(Gelernter 2010).

Irrupt ions of t he Digit al int o t he Real, Economics int o ‘Cult ure’

Writing in the Dutch context, we understand the contemporary period’s inattention to

the effects on the subject of neoliberal transition as symptomatic of the success of its
ideological takeover. Emerging aesthetic forms and critical practices can raise
important questions about the autonomy and continuity of the human agent in this
present where matters of autonomy for cultural practitioners and critics are becoming
increasingly stressed and questioned.

In such contexts, moving toward a technological politics is necessary. Consider for

example that the auto-curation of the stream's processing – Tumblr blogs, Twitter
feeds, and so forth - does not just provide information to the user, but also actively
constructs, directs, and even newly creates, significant socio-cognitive conditions for
the subjectivity of the real-time stream, a kind of algorithmic humanity. This is how the
subject is captured by the New Aesthetic, whose comportment seems hooked to the
minimization of risk, and shot through with projective sentimentality. We feel
phenomena such this might, as Derrida has argued,

Oblige us more than ever to think the virtualization of space and time, the
possibility of virtual events whose movement and speed prohibit us more
than ever (more and otherwise than ever, for this is not absolutely and
thoroughly new) from opposing presence to its representation, 'real time'
to 'deferred time,' effectivity to its simulacrum, the living to the non-living,
in short, the living to the living-dead of its ghosts (Derrida 1994: 212).

Software changes the games of cultural work and production; the lesson takes a long
time to learn and is complicated by other parallel conditions. The neoliberal economy is
not just driven by software as a kind of symbolic machine but instead is made of
software, as Galloway has emphasized (2012a). It fosters in a logic of “the extraction
of value based on the encoding and processing of mathematical information” (10). But
this is not just to say that software is a kind of conceptual motor underpinning the
economy, and useful for thinking it through: “more and more, software is the thing
which is directly extracting value” (10). For Galloway, this software condition, like our

57
crisis-ridden economic condition, is impossible to "wish away;" there is contrarilly a
"special relation today between the mode of production and its mathematics"
(11). The New Aesthetic found this special relation, in its absolutely direct capturing of
its patterns, channels and economies of attention.

Implicat ions of an Apolit ical New Aest het ic

If it is not obvious by now, we have been as a collective differently innervated,

perplexed and ambivalent about this thing called the New Aesthetic. While we are
keen to distance ourselves from a possible passive reading/writing of its style, a style
that we have described as riparian, in as much as it encourages consumption of a
certain kind of digital product(ion), the New Aesthetic as a case has delivered to us
more understanding of the present condition and the possibilities of using media to
reconfigure things a little. The way that the phenomena so strongly linked
computation with consumption and aspects of the neoliberal economic reality,
enabled us to generate new insights and questions; for example, about the care for
artistic and creative work, that we have captured in the curatorial anxieties stressed in
the middle section of this book. It has felt crucial, moreover, that these complex
assocations that we have generated in proximity to the thing create reflexive
articulations. Here, we are recognizing our own potential breaks from computational
and calculative reason. As Darrow Schecter notes,

The exercise of power and the formalisation of knowledge to be intimately

bound up with the constitution of living individuals as subjects of
knowledge, that is, as citizens and populations about whom knowledge is
systematically constructed... Subjects are not born subjects so much as
they become them. In the course of becoming subjects they are classified
in innumerable ways which contribute to their social integration, even if
they are simultaneously marginalised in many cases. (Schecter 2010: 171)

Our neoliberal selves have become more strongly attached to the norms of 'market
civilization' through specific combinations of rationalities, strategies, technologies and
techniques that mobilize government at a distance, and by manipulations of power
through the economic and discursive networks of a massively deregulated and
expanding new media (Gupta and Sharma: 2006).

The most conventional anxiety around neoliberal subject formation is that this mode
of governmentality reduces citizens to consumers only, enfolding all of life and culture
to its representational practices. This is its logic of course, but it can not be ever fully
achieved. As Wendy Brown (2006) has argued, the difference of the regimes and
practices of neoliberal transition is that they emphasize market rationality as an
already-achieved state, rather than an aspiration. This gives neoliberalism a
teleological force and ordinariness that is difficult to counter, and unpack. It is
significant twist of already-realized market rationalization that has significant
ramifications not just on a theory of the subject, but following from this, on any theory
of the spectator or user of art, media, design, and culture. The New Aesthetic
acknowledges the ensconcement of neoliberalism in subjectivity, but to think
aesthetics 'now', how can we think beyond this?
58
Indeed, there are huge difficulties. To the extent that neoliberal governmentality
subordinates state power to the requirements of the marketplace, 'political problems'
become literally privatized, while citizens are simultaneously promised new levels of
freedom, consumerism, customisation, interactivity and control over their lives. This
exacerbates anxiety about whether such freedoms can be claimed or registered. In
other words, the subject is promised an unfulfilled expectation, to the extent they are
able to exert their individual agency. While the liberal subject aspired to own her labour
and was mobilized by related ideals (inverted in Marx), the neoliberal subject is tasked
not just with 'looking after themselves,' but with totally embodying their own human
capital biopolitically and over time: as gathered, contextually adaptive, and collateral.

This is of huge relevance to a politics of aesthetics, since once the subject becomes
figured as their own human capital, it erodes away the distinction between figure and
ground, production and reproduction, creating mobile, speculative identifications, such
that we have observed in the New Aesthetic. The subject's comportment towards
constant growth is both necessary and precarious, as growth is considered more
important than returns; the subject invests in opportunities, selves, presence, objects,
tools, computer learning and so on, to maximize claims on the real (see Boltanski and
Chiapello 2006).

In order to facilitate neoliberal governence, certain infrastructural and technocratic

systems have been put in place; bureaucratic structures, compatible computational
agencies and so forth. But it is clear that providing information to citizens is not
sufficient for controlling and influencing behaviour. People's ability to understand and
manipulate raw data or information is more limited in many contexts; there is a heavy
reliance on habit, understood as part of the human condition. As computational
procedures pick up more of this ordering work, goals and projects come to be co-
expressed within a computational structure: real-time streams that are procedural,
algorithmic, modular, and quantitatively expressed, are very amenable to
neoliberalism. Indeed, the identities or roles that we take on enable us to carry
ourselves computationally, through self-tracking, life-hacking, monitoring, etc. Clearly,
these also link to the representational practices of a passive New Aesthetic.

The New Aesthetic sentimentalizes some of these hard facts. Meanwhile, the
ideological encroachment of market rationalization, which the curators among us have
found it critical to think with, especially in proximity to the concept of care and artistic
labour, has significant ramifications not just on a theory of the subject, but on
approaches to critical practice around emergent aesthetic forms.

New Aest het ic: Crit ique as Pract ice

A concept often referenced from Foucault is his notion of 'problematicization.' During

a late interview with Paul Rabinow, he explained this as an act of thought involving the
process of defining a problem (Foucault: 2000). Problematization is a rare concerted
effort that occurs when confronted with ‘difficulties’ that arise from political, social
and economic processes. These difficulties sometimes catalyze thought by
interrupting its consistency; they provoke multifaceted or opposing responses, but

59
ultimately responses that together posit a constitutive context of the problematic.

Under such conditions, thought, for Foucault, is that which allows one to 'step back'
from conduct, to present conduct as an object of thought and to question its
meaning, goals and conditions: “thought is freedom in relation to what one does, the
motion by which one detaches from it, establishes it as an object, and reflects on it as
a problem” (Foucault 2000: 117). This motion of freeing up conduct is the object of
Foucault’s work, but also his practice. In other words, problematizations are sought
out and re-posited in untimely ways in the present. Here, “what is important is what
makes them simultaneously possible: it is the point in which their simultaneity is
rooted; it is the soil that can nourish them all in their diversity and sometimes in spite
of their contradictions” (Foucault 2000: 118) The re-positing of problems themselves
– an act of both discovery and creation – is the domain of critique. How does this
work? There exists a strange doubling in the notion of re-positing a problem – a
gesture of heterogenesis that cannot be secured through a set of formal criteria, nor a
morality of solutions, but always a kind of movement that grapples with its own
constitution.

We understand that emerging aesthetic and critical practices do have potential to

create such movements. They present opportunities to rethink not only the context of
media art, but a variety of situated practices, including speculative design, net
criticism, hacking, free and open source software development, locative media,
sustainable hardware and so on. This is how we have considered the New Aesthetic:
as an opportunity to rethink the relations between these contexts in the emergent
episteme of computationality. There is a desperate need to confront the political
pressures of neoliberalism manifested in these infrastructures. We agree with Hal
Foster in a recent essay, "surely now is a bad time to go post-critical" (2012). Indeed,
these are risky, dangerous and problematic times, and these are periods when critique
should thrive, but here we need to forge new alliances, invent and discover problems
of the common that nevertheless do not eliminate the fundamental differences in this
ecology of practices (Stengers 2005). Here, perhaps provocatively, we believe a great
deal could be learned from the development of the New Aesthetic not only as a mood,
but as a topic and fix for collective feeling, that temporarily mobilizes networks. Is it
possible to sustain and capture these atmospheres of debate and discussion beyond
knee-jerk reactions and opportunistic self-promotion? These are crucial questions
that the New Aesthetic invites us to consider, if only to keep a critical network culture
in place.

New Aest het ics: Pract ice as Resist ance

Any range of emerging aesthetic forms, processing these conditions, could offer
certain 'exploits' to surface the digital and its inequalities and control in different ways
(Thacker and Galloway, 2007). What we might call the 'knowledge infrastructure' is an
important possible site of resistance in itself, reinforced through the diffusion of
technologies of the information society. This can clearly be seen in the practices of the
hackers of the free software and open source movements and their critical practices
and discourses. Whilst we have not had space or time to engage with these hacking

60
practices in relation to the New Aesthetic here, it is clear that the overlaps, synergies
and connections remain relevant – here we think of open access, piracy, and glitch as
some of the possible critical movements that also have a popular following and link to
currently existing cultural practices. There are also important critiques to be
established and interventions to be made in a constantly strengthening and
contentious regime of intellectual property rights which walk hand-in-hand with the
growing institutionalisation of the informative part of the economy. It remains the case
that the onward march of copyright and patent regimes is not just overbearing, but in
some cases threatens life itself. The dimensions of a critical making-visible of
computationality, accordingly, must remain linked to an aesthetic practice,

New technologies and new ways of using information are continually being
developed and these serve to question our assumptions about copyright
and creativity. The current criminalisation of piracy, data ‘theft’ and
hacking are the latest salvos by industries trying to restrict the flow and
use of their creative work. It is interesting to note that the owners of these
creative works are seldom the creators and pressure for the extension and
strengthening of copyright comes almost exclusively from the multinational
corporations. This alone should raise questions as to who is benefiting
from the rise in intellectual property protection (Berry 2008: 28).

We might consider how creative works are increasingly distributed through

parameterization, data-pours and the 'embed' mechanism, which, of course, Tumblr
also uses. These are important dimensions of comprehension and critique (Liu 2004).
For exampe, certain national copyright regimes have been structured to create 'safe
harbours' for particular ways of using and sharing digital culture more generally. At the
level of the screenic these practices have increasingly become invisible to the user,
who remains bolstered by the ease of flow of the streams of data across the browser
onscreen, whilst computational processes mediate the 'correct' use of copyrighted
materials, display authorisations, and so forth. Needless to say, whilst also collecting
so-called 'tracking' data about how the screen and interface are used through the use
of compactants and related technologies (Berry, 2012a).

The New Aest het ic and Everyday Lif e

In so far as neoliberal governmentality also subordinates state power to the

requirements of the marketplace, political problems turn to be re-presented or cast in
market terms. If the New Aesthetic concerns the ubiquity of digital and networked
systems, then think about how computation has challenged and reconfigured the
ways in which citizens and subjects now understand themselves, for example: (1)
Education – How well educated and literate or people in relation to the digital
structure of the contemporary world. How active are they in their participation in the
politics of digital technology, (2) Health - What typically is the condition of people’s
physical strength and health, additionally their mental and physical skills for
development and coping? (3) How well acquainted are people with the arts in digital
culture and how proficient are they in artistic practices and their relation to them; and
lastly (4) Conviviality - How compassionate are people privately as citizens of

61
‘informational societies’? How devoted are they to helping others who suffer
deprivation and hardship? How conciliatory are they towards their opponents and
enemies in network cultures (flame wars, etc.)?

Clearly too, the New Aesthetic as the surface manifestation of the computational
device, its politics, has been useful for gaining only so many hooks on the
comprehension of the present and the possible forms of practice and critique towards
this condition. We considered firstly that the New Aesthetic is an ideological
manifestation of a computational ontotheology being instantiated in a number of
medial moments (technology, politics, social movements, the environment, the state).
We also wished to deconstruct its attractive manifestation of the commodity form as
ends without means, in effect an example of commodity fetishism. Finally, our critique
implies a new form of literacy, which elsewhere Berry (2012c) has called 'iteracy,' able
to understand and intervene directly in the technological system we inhabit.

Cognitively, it has been argued that streams are also suited to a type of reading called
‘distant reading’ as opposed to the ‘close reading’ of the humanities (Moretti 2007).
This ‘close reading’ has created a certain type of subject: narrativised, linear, what
McLuhan called 'typographic man' (1962). At present, there is a paradoxical
relationship between the close reading currently taught in educational institutions and
the distant reading required for algorithmic approaches to information. To illustrate,
books are a great example of a media form that uses typographic devices for aiding
cognition for ‘close’ reading: chapters, paragraphs, serif fonts, avoiding textual 'rivers'
and white space. Most notably, these were instantiated into professional typographic
practices that are themselves now under stress from computational algorithmic
approaches to typesetting and production. Close reading devices required a deep
sense of awareness in relation to the reader as a particular conscious and active
subject: autonomous, linear, narrativised, and capable of feats of memory and
cognitive processing. Devices, meanwhile, were associated with a constellation of
practices that were surrounded around the concept of the author.

We want to extend this observation and consider how neoliberalism and computation
complement each other, but where nonetheless this complementarity opens folds for
critically thinking through the issues and questions that are raised both by the new
aesthetic and the new anxieties it appears to introduce. Crucially, Foucault's
perspective on criticality, introduced at the start of this chapter, suggests the
possibility of a subject manifested within arrangements of power, whilst nonetheless
capable of drawing limits, capable of being a line-of-flight within computationality.
Here, as Schecter notes,

Critical thinking can deconstruct the visible harmony between casual

seeing and instrumental reason... in contrast with monolithic appearances,
surfaces are characterised by strata and folds that can inflect power to
create new truths, desires and forms of experience (Schecter 2010: 175).

This link between perception (not just visuality) and power raises the question of an
aesthetic itself deployed towards intelligibility. Tumblrs, and related collection-oriented
computational systems certainly contribute to visualizing forms of understanding,
through the generation of geometric and photographic truths manifested in painted

62
screens and surfaces. However, there is still important critical and creative work to be
done to fully confront this reality of 21st century visual culture, one that is
computationally mediated and saturated with consumerism and markets. Indeed, we
would argue that the question remains not one of finding the representational New
Aesthetic, but the conscious and active cultivation of new aesthetics (plural).

63
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADILKNO (The Foundation for the Advancement of Illegal Knowledge) (1998) The
Media Archive – World Edition, trans. Laura Martz and Sakhra –l’Assal / Ziekend
Zoeltjes Produkties, Los Angeles: Semiotext(e);
http://thing.desk.nl/bilwet/adilkno/TheMediaArchive/

Agre, P. (1997) 'Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to

Reform AI', in G. Bowker, L. Gasser, L. Star and B. Turner (eds) Bridging the Great
Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work, Mahwah, N.J.:
Erlbaum, pp. 131-157.

Aime, R. (2012a) 'Desiring Machines', The New Inquiry,

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/desiring-machines/

_____. (2012b) 'Curation, Gender, and the New Aesthetic', The

State,http://www.thestate.ae/curation-gender-the-new-aesthetic/

Alberro, A. Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Andreessen, M. (2011) 'Why Software Is Eating The World', Wall Street Journal,
August 20, 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.ht
ml# articleTabs%3Darticle

Arvidsson, A. (2005) 'Brands: A Critical Perspective', Journal of Consumer Culture 5.2:

235-258.

Ashbery, M. (2012) 'The New Aesthetics of the Male Gaze', Madeline Ashby,
http://madelineashby.com/?p=1198

Badiou, A. (2009) The Logics of Worlds: Being and Event, 2, trans. Alberto Toscano,
London: Continuum.

Bartholl, A. (2006) 'Maps', http://datenform.de/mapeng.html

_____. (2010) 'Dead Drops', http://deaddrops.com/

_____. (2012) The Speed Book, Berlin: Gestalten-Verlag.

Beaulieu, A. and de Rijcke, S. (2012) Network Realism,

http://networkrealism.wordpress.com/

Beniger, J. R. (1986) The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of

the Information Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bergemann, O. (2012) 'Progress', http://oleb.net/blog/2012/06/progress/

Berlant, L. (2011) Cruel Optimism, Durham NC: Duke University Press.

64
Berry, D. M. (2008) Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source,
London: Pluto.

_____. (2011) The Philosophy of Software: Code and Mediation in the Digital Age,
London: Palgrave.

_____. (2012a) 'Abduction Aesthetic: Computationality and the New Aesthetic',

Stunlaw, http://stunlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/abduction-aesthetic-
computationality.html

_____. (2012b) 'Computationality and the New Aesthetic', Imperica,

http://www.imperica.com/viewsreviews/david-m-berry-computationality-and-the-new-
aesthetic

_____. (2012c) Understanding Digital Humanities, London: Palgrave.

_____. (2012d) 'The Uses of Object Orientated Ontology', Stunlaw,

http://stunlaw.blogspot.nl/2012/05/uses-of-object-oriented-ontology.html

Bhattacharya, P. and Gavrilova, M. (2008) 'Density-Based Clustering

Based on Topological Properties of the Data Set', in Gavrilova, M. (ed.) Generalized
Voronoi Diagram: A Geometry-Based Approach to Computational Intelligence,
Springer.

Bilal, W. (2007) 'Domestic Tension', http://wafaabilal.com/html/domesticTension.html

Bishop, C, (2006) 'The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontent', Artforum,
http://www.artforum.com/inprint/id=10274

Bogost, I. (2008) 'The Phenomenology of Videogames', in Günzel, S., Liebe, M., and
Mersch D., (eds.) Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games
2008, Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, pp. 22-43; http://pub.ub.uni-
potsdam.de/volltexte/2008/2454/

_____. (2012a) Alien Phenomenology: Or What It's Like to Be a Thing, Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

_____. (2012b) 'The New Aesthetic Needs to Get Weirder, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-new-aesthetic-needs-to-
get-weirder/255838/

Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism, London: Verso.

Borenstein, G. (2012) 'What's it like to be a 21C Thing?', The Creators Project,

http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/in-response-to-bruce-sterlings-essay-on-the-new-
aesthetic# 4

Bosma, J. (2011) Nettitudes: Let's Talk Net Art, Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Breeze, M. 'Reflections on the _New Aesthetic_', Nettime,

http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1204/msg00016.html

65
Bridle, J. (2011a) 'The New Aesthetic', http://www.riglondon.com/blog/2011/05/06/the-
new-aesthetic/

_____. (2011b) The New Aesthetic, http://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com/

_____. (2011c) 'Waving at the Machines', Web Directions South 2011, December 5,
Sydney, http://booktwo.org/notebook/waving-at-machines/

Brouwer, J., Mulder, A., Spuybroek, L. (2012) Vital Beauty: Reclaiming Aesthetics in the
Tangle of Technology and Nature. Rotterdam: V2_ / NAi Publishers. (pp. 120 - 129)

Butler, J. (2001) 'What is Critique? An Essay on Foucault’s Virtue', transversal,

http://eipcp.net/transversal/0806/butler/en

Chun, W. (2011) Programmed Visions: Software and Memory, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

David, C. (1997) 'DX and New Media',

http://documenta12.de/archiv/dx/lists/debate/0001.html

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi,

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

_____. What Is Philosophy? (1995) trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell, New
York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, J. (1994) Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, & the
New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf, London: Routledge.

Dreyfus, H. (1997) 'Highway Bridges and Feasts:฀Heidegger and Borgmann on How to

Affirm Technology', http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/dreyfus.html

_____. (2001) Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time,

Division I, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dodge, M. and Kitchin, R. (2011) Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Ellis, E. (2011) 'The New Aesthetic', http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=12811

Exinfoam (2012) 'Hello, QR', http://exinfoam.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/hello-qr/

Fernandez, P. (2012) 'The New Aesthetic: A Response', Plummer

Fernandez http://plummerfernandez.tumblr.com/post/21026026010/new-aesthetic

Foucault, M. (2000) ‘Polemics, Politics and Problematicizations’, in Ethics: Subjectivity

and Truth – Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Volume 1, ed. Paul Rabinow,
trans. Lydia Davis, London: Penguin, pp. 111-119.

Foucault, M. (2007) 'What is Critique?', in The Politics of Truth, trans. Lysa Hochroth,
Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), pp. 41-81.

66
Foucault, M. (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-
1979, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, M. (2001) 'Commonality, Pixel Property, Seduction: As If', Pixel Plunder,

http://www.year01.com/plunder/essay.html

_____. (2003) Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software, New York:
Autonomedia.

_____. (2005) Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Technoculture. Cambridge MA:

MIT Press.

Fuller, M. and Goffey, A. (2010) ‘On the Usefulness of Anxiety: Two Evil Media
Stratagems’, in Sarai Reader 08: Fear, Delhi: Sarai Media Collective,
http://www.sarai.net/publications/readers/08-fear

Galloway, A. R. (2012a) French Theory Today: An Introduction to Possible Futures,

New York: TPSNY/Erudio Editions.

_____. (2012b) 'A Response to Graham Harman's "Marginalia of Radical Thinking"', An

und für sich, http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-
marginalia-on-radical-thinking/

Galloway, A. R. and Thacker, E. (2007) The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Gelernter, D. (2010) 'Time to Start Taking the Internet Seriously', Edge,

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gelernter10/gelernter10_index.html

Golumbia, D. (2009) The Cultural Logic of Computation, Harvard: Harvard University

Press.

_____. (2012) 'Taking Care of OOO/SR and the Generations', Uncomputing,

http://www.uncomputing.org/?p=137

Grant, C. (2010) 'David Hockney's instant iPad art', BBC,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11666162

Grau, O. (ed.) (2011) Imagery in the 21st Century, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gupta, A. and Sharma, A. (2006) 'Globalization and Postcolonial States', Cultural

Anthropology 47.2: 277-307.

Haraway, D. (2004) 'Otherwordly Conversations; Terrian Topics; Local Terms', in The

Haraway Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 125-150.

Harvey, A. (2011) 'OpenCV Face Detection: Visualized', http://vimeo.com/12774628

_____. (2012) 'CV Dazzle: Camouflage from Computer Vision', http://cvdazzle.com/

Harvey, D. (2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

67
Heidegger, M. (1977) The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans.
William Lovitt, New York: Harper & Row.

_____. (1978) Being and Time. London: Wiley–Blackwell.

_____. (1995) Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected Problems of Logic, Indiana

University Press.

Hansen, M. (2004) New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hattenstone, S. (2010) 'Cornelia Parker: A History of Violence', The Guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/may/25/cornelia-parker-interview

Honor, H. (2012), 'Re: RES: belatedly new', CRUMB, https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-

bin/webadmin?A2=NEW-MEDIA-CURATING;3996293f.120

Huff, J. (2012) 'Beyond the Surface: 15 Years of Desktop Aesthetics', Rhizome,

http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/mar/14/beyond-surface-15-years-desktop-aesthetics/

Jackson, R. (2012) 'The Banality of The New Aesthetic', Furtherfield,

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/banality-new-aesthetic

Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism: The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham,

NC: Duke University Press.

Jean, P. (2010) 'Pixels', http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcv6dv_pixels-by-patrick-

jean_creation

Kaganskiy, J. (2012) 'In Response To Bruce Sterling's "Essay On The New Aesthetic"',
Creators Project, http://www.thecreatorsproject.com/blog/in-response-to-bruce-
sterlings-essay-on-the-new-aesthetic

Kasprzak, M. (2008) 'For What and For Whom',

Curating.info, http://curating.info/archives/205-For-What-and-For-Whom.html

_____. (2009) 'Surf Clubs', CIAC Electronic Magazine No.

33, http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_33/spotlight.htm

Kitchin, R. (2011) 'The Programmable City', Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 38: 945-951.

Kittler, F. (2009) 'Towards an Ontology of the Media', Theory, Culture & Society 26(2–
3): 23–31.

KURATOR (2012), softwareKURATOR, accessed 21/06/2012,

http://www.kurator.org/projects/softwarekurator/

Latour, B. (2011), 'Waiting for Gaia: Composing the Common World through Art and
Politics', http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/124-GAIA-LONDON-
SPEAP_0.pdf

Liu, A. (2004) 'Transcendental Data: Toward A Cultural History and Aesthetics of the

68
New Encoded Discourse', Critical Inquiry 31: 49-84.

Lovink, G. (2012) Networks Without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media, Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Manovich, L. (1996) 'The Death of Computer

Art', http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/death.html

_____. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marx, K. (2007) Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, London: Penguin.

McLuhan, M. (1964) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

McLuhan, M. and Carson, D. (2002) The Book of Probes. Berkeley, CA: Gingko Press.

McNeil, J. (2012) 'The New Aesthetic: Seeing Like Digital Devices', Joanne
McNeil, http://joannemcneil.com/index.php?/talks-and-such/new-aesthetic-at-sxsw-
2012/

Menkman, R. (2011) The Glitch Moment(um), Amsterdam: Institute of Network

Cultures.

Moretti, F. (2007) Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History, London:
Verso.

Morgan, J. (2006) 'Brian Jungen’s Other Works', in de Boer, S., Schafhausen, N., and
Gray, Z. (eds) Brian Jungen: Source Book 1/2006. Rotterdam: Witte de With, pp. 37-
46.

Moss, S. (2007) 'The Death of the Cultural Elite', The Guardian,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/artblog/2007/dec/20/thedeathoftheculturalelit

Munster, A. (2006) Materializing New Media: Embodiment in Information Aesthetics,

Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.

Oliver, J.; Savičić, G. and Vasiliev, D. (2011) The Critical Engineering Manifesto,
http://criticalengineering.org/

Owens, T. (2012) 'The New Aesthetic and the Artifactual Digital Object', Trevor
Owens, http://www.trevorowens.org/2012/04/the-new-aesthetic-and-the-artifactual-
digital-object/

Parisi, L. and Portanova, J. (2012) 'Soft thought (in architecture and choreography)',
Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies 1,
http://computationalculture.net/article/soft-thought

Parikka, J. (2011) 'OOQ - Object-Orientated-Questions', Machinology,

http://jussiparikka.net/2011/12/21/ooq-object-oriented-questions/

Paul, C. 'Re: [-empyre-] Welcome to empyre Week 4:Rethinking Curatorial Options:

69
Globally', empyre, http://www.mail-
archive.com/[email protected]/msg04100.html

Poole, C. (aka m00t) (2010) 'The Case for Anonymity Online', TED Talks,
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online.ht
ml

Ramocki, M. (2008) Surfing Clubs: organized notes and comments,

http://ramocki.net/surfing-clubs.html

Rogoff, I. (2008) 'Turning', e-flux journal, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/turning/

Schecter, D. (2010) The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas,

New York: Continuum.

Scholz, T. (2012), 'New Literacies for the New Aesthetic',

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iq3BjgG_BfN2EJE2lFgeGM26kJXOkKIItBoMb6F
8VJI/edit?pli=1

Sloan, R. (2011) 'The New Aesthetic', Snark Market, http://snarkmarket.com/2011/6913

Stengers, I. (2005) ‘Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices’, Cultural Studies

Review 11.1: 183-196.

Sterling, B. (2012a) 'Tech Art: Algorithm Criticism', Beyond the Beyond,

http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/02/tech-art-algorithm-criticism/

_____. (2012b) 'An Essay on the New Aesthetic', Beyond the Beyond,
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/04/an-essay-on-the-new-aesthetic/

_____. (2012c) 'Generation Generator', Beyond the

Beyond, http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/04/generation-generator-
new-aesthetic/

Tiqqun (2000) Théorie du Bloom, Paris: éditions La Fabrique, 2000; translation

available, http://zinelibrary.info/files/newer%20Bloom%20II.pdf

Tribe, B. and Jana, R. (2006) New Media Art, Cologne: Taschen Verlag.

Vishmidt, M. (2005) 'Kurating By Numbers', Rhizome,

http://rhizome.org/editorial/2005/jun/10/kurating-by-numbers/

Wark, M. (2012) 'The # tumblresque is not John Berger's Ways of Seeing but sprays of
seeing', (@mckenziewark),
https://twitter.com/mckenziewark/status/194073846423371777

Watz, M. (2012a) 'The Algorithm Thought Police', Marius Watz - Thoughts on Code
and Art, http://mwatz.tumblr.com/post/17552814317/the-algorithm-thought-police

_____. (2012b) 'The Problem with Perpetual Newness', The Creators Project,
http://www.thecreatorsproject.com/blog/in-response-to-bruce-sterlings-essay-on-the-
new-aesthetic# 3
70
Weizenbaum, J. (1984) Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to
Calculation, London: Penguin Books.

Winograd, and Flores (1987) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New

Foundation for Design, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

71
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
By its very nature, a booksprint is an intense experience: three and a half days of
intense writing and collaborative thinking. To pull something like this off requires a lot
of help on many levels.

First and foremost, thanks to Adam Hyde for his guidance, support and facilitation
over the three and a half days. His expert facilitation and the Booktype software
made this book possible.

We would like to thank the wonderful staff and associates of V2_ Institute for the
Unstable Media, Rotterdam. There are almost too many too list, but Arie Altena, Joris
van Ballegooijen, Sofia Bustorff, Roxanne Duarte da Cruz, and Wilco Tuinman
deserve special mention. Also thanks to our designer Arjen de Jong of BURO duplex
for the front cover of this book and also for generating the designs for the booksprint
event.

The exact shape of this book was not clear at the start: the initial provocation to the
authors was entitled Fiddling While Rome Burns? and centred around beauty,
aesthetics, and economic crisis. It was wide open at the beginning but once we were
all in the same room, quickly the phenomenon of the New Aesthetic became central to
our discussions. We wish to extend thanks to James Bridle for starting the Tumblr and
initiating debate around the New Aesthetic.

The initial responses to James Bridle's presentation of the New Aesthetic were also of
course very interesting. We were inspired by Bruce Sterling, Marius Watz, Mez
Breeze, Christiane Paul, and many, many others.

72
MADE WIT H BOOKI

Visit http://software.booki.cc