anne-françoise schmid, on contemporary objects – discourse
anne-françoise schmid, on contemporary objects
2025 · 392 wordsif holistics can only create problems and not solve any, then its programmatic-practical advantage can't be recognized beyond it being a type of mutating cancer of badiouian oversaturation.
prompt interdisciplinarity → contemporary objects · turn integrativity → standpoint theory of art · residue platformless aesthetic object
- prompt
- interdisciplinarity → contemporary objects
- turn
- integrativity → standpoint theory of art
- residue
- platformless aesthetic object
- scale
- source → 392 words
in the final speech-text morph, anne is cutting both through a boring interpretation of interdisciplinarity as an open holistic process - into a much more fun closed dilemma of losing the priority of interpretation over wild objects as the mystery of the complexified entity (morton's hyperobject, which in anne's case is rather her collaborator - legay's work), whilst also cutting through the previous technological saturation present throughout the simulation-orgy of the roundtable itself. however, it still feels like a spiral, unlike the first few texts, much less rounded-out - whilst still nonetheless successfully enough returning to and slightly expanding her point.
anne's detourement into integrative processes feel more positivist and balanced on top of fisher's consistent cultural nihilism (even if in this very text it fails for him). aside from the fact she's too worried about what science has to say about the situation, given they are frenchies and maybe feel they must worry about anthropology as world-leaders, she does offer an interesting phenomenon in integrativity by itself, which would feel still underwhelming, if it wasnt for the fact that she tackles an interesting aesthetic dilemma which is worth spending the remainder of the counter on.
if the aesthetic object is imperceptible, in the sense that it's impossible to tell which aspects of which disciplines integrate into it, intersect it, or what types of varieties or nuances go into viewing it, this isn't just the type of contemporary art that's a heated cultural topic but also means that the aesthetic object itself has no foundational platform, or in other terms no criteria that require it to be any one certain way, which is another way to explain how anything can be an art object, but in this case not in regards to its constitutions but its references and standpoints. this creates a type of standpoint theory of art that only further causes holistic confusion. anne's initial attempt to create controversy around scientific objects as both infinite multiplication, infinite aims (quest for lowest denominators) and the death of specialized knowledge as a subject-capacity, in an attmept for a non-standard epistemic account, kind of only further muddies the water. and why the impulse for demanding that holism demonstrates itself? if holistics can only create problems and not solve any, then its programmatic-practical advantage can't be recognized beyond it being a type of mutating cancer of badiouian oversaturation.