New materials, new materialism? To what extent is it possible to detect resolutely “neomaterialist” approaches in art, which has always engaged with aspects of materiality and objectness? Can a theoretical shift also be identified in conjunction with the ongoing interrogation of objectness, the status of art’s specific objectivity?
How might it be possible to describe this shift, even if it should prove impossible to derive a new “ism” from this development? The last few years have seen increased attention devoted to this kind of neo-materialist, realistic or object-oriented approach, at least in the world of theory.
While there may be a broad spectrum of reasons for this phenomenon, a shared point of departure can indubitably be identified in the fact that unreserved trust is no longer placed in the “immaterial” (or “dematerialisation”), long one of the main hallmarks of (post-)conceptual art. On many fronts the counter-argument has been put forward that no phenomenon, however “immaterial” it may be, can survive without having a material basis, at least to some minimal degree.
Nor is that all: precisely in pushing conceptual (or semiotic) connections, the shaping of new material circumstances might, conversely, be fostered, as evidenced by the increasingly omnipresent dissemination of semio- or info-capitalism.
All these, sometimes diverging, neo-materialist theories are also linked by their efforts to depart radically from the paradigm of the linguistic turn. Whilst this historical turning point constituted a highly legitimate and necessary renunciation of old-style materialism, nowadays it seems that the pendulum has swung back in the other direction, also in response to the inflationary spread of “turns” of this sort.
Even the realm of digital culture, the quintessence of a realm rooted in information and
symbolic representation, has recently seen a growing focus on the characteristics of “digital materials” or rather on the ensuing “new materiality”; a more comprehensively conceived, media-related materiality that allegedly characterises this culture in its entirety, at least more accurately than the familiar accolades, such as ephemerality, volatility or indeed immateriality.
This edition explores the fundamental traits, the sphere of application and the tenability of such attempts at repositioning. Rosi Braidotti, for example, unfurls a broader field of references, in which neomaterialism has always been viewed as already forming part of post-humanism. The latter term describes a mode of thinking that extends beyond the “anthropos”–i.e. the human subject as the sole point of reference–and is directed to asserting the equal worth of all life (zoe). Braidotti addresses the specific, more concrete implications that stem from this practice, along with the difficulties that arise in putting this thinking into practice in the light of the overarching global capitalist ideology of networks.
One tangible impact of this ideology–and the kind of “dirty” materialities it generates –is explored by Yvonne Volkart. Her piece hones in on the waste from our high-tech culture, which does not simply vanish but mostly ends up in monstrous landfills in countries we used to refer to as the “Third World”. Volkart considers to what extent this techno-waste can be viewed not simply as an epitome of new materiality but can also function as a material basis for critical art projects. Understood in these terms the object-world always has a specific resistivity and stubbornness to it, and this forms the point of departure for Marina Vishmidt’s theoretical reflections.
Vishmidt sees the new materialism assuming its specific contours above all in the way in which the aesthetic of non-identity (in Adorno’s familiar notion) is extended to more speculative contexts that also incorporate “relational” materials. She highlights an ideal-typical manifestation of this in Grace Schwindt’s performative film-based art.
This type of re-focussing on material questions and aspects of materiality is addressed in many essays in this edition (for example with reference to the art practices of Simon Denny or Kerstin Brätsch and Debo Eilers). A series of theoretical interventions or objections to predominant theoretical approaches rounds off this spectrum. Suhail Malik pre-emptively expresses resistance to speculative realism being taken over by a seemingly hegemonic neo-materialism. In contrast. Joshua Simon and Gerald Raunig strive to make headway concerning thinking on the “dividual” (in contrast to the individual of modernity and the modern age) in the light of contemporary economic circumstances or, in other words, against the backdrop of free-market capitalism. Finally Lev Manovich localises today’s cultural industry primarily in data flows and their circulation–a new form of materiality, which, to cite Manovich’s provocative argument, can only be achieved by media analysis that is as ideology-neutral as possible.
Dietrich Heißenbüttel builds a bridge to current developments concerning migration and refugee movements. His inventory of a diverse range of art projects tackling this topic leads to the insight that new materialities of the body, in some cases not even conceptualised yet, are also at stake in this context.
Coming at the issues from a wide range of different angles, the essays in this edition tackle a common nexus of questions that is likely to concern us for some time, pondering the extent to which idealistic, discursive or primarily symbolic conceptual elements can ever be entirely overcome in approaches with a materialist thrust. They also however raise a perhaps even more fascinating question concerning the degree to which art and theory are able to enter into new, as yet unimagined interconnections.