Advertisement

Subjectivity

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 65–81 | Cite as

The subject of circulation: on the digital subject’s technical individuations

  • Scott WarkEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The concept of the digital subject proposes that online subjectivity is a mediated construct. This article extends this concept by arguing that online subjectivity is not a property of human users, but of digital subjects enacted in circulating data. It develops the digital subject by, first, using Phillip Agre’s concept of “grammars of action” to argue that computational architectures exclude humans from the position of the user; and, second, using Gilbert Simondon’s and Yuk Hui’s philosophies of technology to posit the digital subject as a determinate technical entity that, as per Hui’s reworking of Simondon, inhabits a “digital milieu”. Online, this digital subject inverts the human–technology relationship. It individuates by entering circulation, excluding us from individuating whilst individuating us in turn. This article expands upon this claim by analysing projects by Amalia Ulman and Zach Blas and their thematisation of visibility, identity and authenticity in online subjectivity.

Keywords

Subjectivity Digital Media Circulation Individuation Simondon Post-internet art 

Notes

References

  1. Agre, P. 1994. Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacy. The Information Society 10 (2): 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, C.U., and S.B. Pold. 2018. The Metainterface: The Art of Platforms, Cities, and Clouds. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardini, T. 2000. Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blas, Zach. 2013–2016. Face Cages [Installation]. Various Locations.Google Scholar
  5. Blas, Z. 2015. Contra-Internet Aesthetics. In You Are Here: Art After the Internet, ed. O. Kholeif, 86–97. Cornerhouse and SPACE: Manchester and London.Google Scholar
  6. Bratton, B. 2015. The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Bucher, T. 2012. Want to be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society 14 (7): 1164–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucher, T. 2015. Networking, or What the Social Means in Social Media. Social Media + Society 1: 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. Callus, I., and S. Herbrechter. 2012. Introduction: Posthumanist Subjectivities, or, Coming After the Subject…. Subjectivity 5 (3): 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canguilhem, G. (2008) The living and its milieu. In: Knowledge of Life. New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 98–120.Google Scholar
  11. Cramer, F., and M. Fuller. 2008. Interface. In Software Studies: A Lexicon, 149–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dean, A. 2016. Closing the Loop. The New Inquiry, 1 March. https://thenewinquiry.com/closing-the-loop/. Accessed 10 September 2017.
  13. Gerlitz, C. 2017. Data point critique. In The Datafied Society: Studying Culture Through Data, ed. M.T. Schäfer and K. Van Es, 241–244. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillespie, T. 2017. Algorithmically Recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s santorum Problem. Information, Communication & Society 20 (1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goriunova, O. In press. The digital subject: People as data persons. Theory, Culture & Society.Google Scholar
  16. Gronlund, M. 2016. Contemporary Art and Digital Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Helmond, A. 2015. The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready. Social Media + Society 1 (2): 1–11.Google Scholar
  18. Hookway, B. 2014. Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hui, Y. 2016. On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hui, Y. 2017. Preface: The time of execution. In DATA Browser 06: Executing Practices, ed. H. Pritchard, E. Snodgrass, and M. Tyzlik-Carver, 23–32. New York: AUTONOMEDIA.Google Scholar
  21. Kember, S., and J. Zylinska. 2012. Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinsey, C. 2016. The Instagram artist who fooled thousands. BBC Culture, March 7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20160307-the-instagram-artist-who-fooled-thousands. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
  23. Kittler, F. (1999) Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Translated by G. Winthrop-Young and M. Wutz. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. Lialina, O. 2012. Turing Complete User. Contemporary Home Computing 14. http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/.
  25. Lialina, O. 2017. Not Art&Tech. In Across & Beyond—A Transmediale Reader on Post-digital Practices, Concepts and Institutions, ed. R. Bishop et al., 135–147. Berlin: Sternberg Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mackenzie, A. 2013. Programming Subjects in the Regime of Anticipation: Software Studies and Subjectivity. Subjectivity 6 (4): 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marwick, A.E., and D. Boyd. 2011. I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience. New Media & Society 13 (1): 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papacharissi, Z. 2011. Conclusion: A Networked Self. In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. Z. Papacharissi, 304–318. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, W. 2015. This is Why We can’t have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Quaintance, M. 2015. Right Shift: On the End of Post-internet Art. Art Monthly, p. 387, June. http://www.artmonthly.co.uk/magazine/site/article/right-shift-by-morgan-quaintance-june-2015. Accessed 10 October 2015.
  31. Shaviro, S. 2014. Non-phenomenological Thought. Speculations V: 40–56.Google Scholar
  32. Simondon, G. 1992. The Genesis of the Individual. In Incorporations, ed. J. Crary and S. Kwinter, 296–319. Cambridge, MA: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  33. Simondon, G. 2017. On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects (C. Malaspina and J. Rogrove, Trans.). Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Stiegler, B. 1998. Technics and Time: The Fault of Epimetheus (R. Beardsworth and G. Collins, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stiegler, B. 2014. Symbolic Misery, Vol. 1: The Hyperindustrial Epoch (B. Norman, Trans.). London: Polity.Google Scholar
  36. Straube, T. 2016. Stacked Spaces: Mapping Digital Infrastructures. Big Data & Society 3: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toscano, A. 2006. The Theatre of Production: Philosophy and Individuation Between Kant and Deleuze. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ulman, A. 2014. Excellences and Perfections [Digital performance]. Instagram; Various locations.Google Scholar
  39. Wark, S., and M. Wark. In press. Circulation and Its Discontents. In Post Memes: Seizing the Memes of Production, eds. A. Brown and F. Russell. Santa Barbara: Punctum Books.Google Scholar
  40. Wiley, S.B.C., and J. Elam. 2018. Synthetic Subjectivation: Technical Media and the Composition of Posthuman Subjects. Subjectivity 11 (3): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, Social SciencesUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations