New visions, new ecologies: On materialities and atmospheres in contemporary photography

References

1. Bare, B., Farazollahi, B. and Tunge, C. (eds) (2020), Why Photography?, Milan: Skira Editore.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Betancourt, M. (2016), Glitch Art in Theory and Practice: Critical Failures and Post-Digital Aesthetics, New York: Taylor & Francis.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Blalock, L., Kierulf, I., Sholis, B., Strand, N. and Sæther, S. Ø. (2016), ‘The flexible image’, Objektiv, February, p. 1.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Blom, I. (2019), ‘“And follow it”: Straight lines and infrastructural sensibilities’, Critical Inquiry, 45:4, pp. 859–83.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bozak, N. (2012), The Cinematic Footprint. Lights, Camera, Natural Resources, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cornford, S. (2023), ‘Inverting resolution: Accounting for the planetary cost of earth observation’, Journal of Visual Culture, 22:1, pp. 93–110.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dewdney, A. (2021), Forget Photography, Cambridge: Goldsmiths Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dewdney, A. and Sluis, K. (eds) (2022), The Networked Image in Post-Digital Culture, Milton: Taylor & Francis.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Ekman, U. (ed.) (2012), Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Gabrys, J. (2013), Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gabrys, J. (2016), Program Earth: Environmental Sensing Technology and the Making of a Computational Planet, vol. 49, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gabrys, J. (2019), ‘Sensors and sensing practices: Reworking experience across entities, environments, and technologies’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44:5, pp. 723–36.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Hansen, M. N. B. (2012), ‘Ubiquitous sensation or the autonomy of the peripheral: Towards an atmospheric, impersonal and microtemporal media’, in U. Ekman (ed.), Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 63–88.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Hansen, M. N. B. (2015), Feed-Forward: On the Future of Twenty-First-Century Media, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hoelzl, I. and Marie, R. (2020), ‘No image, no cry’, General Humanity, 1 January, https://generalhumanity.org/2020/01/01/no-image-no-cry-by-ingrid-hoelzl/. Accessed 12 September 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Horn, E. (2018), ‘Air as medium’, Grey Room, 73: Fall, pp. 6–25.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Jue, M. (2020), Wild Blue Media: Thinking through Seawater, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kelly, C. (2023), ‘Dirt(y) media: Dirt in ecological media art practices’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 26:1, pp. 31–46.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kemper, J. (2023), ‘Glitch, the post-digital aesthetic of failure and twenty-first-century media’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 26:1, pp. 47–63.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Kuc, K. and Zylinska, J. (2016), Photomediations: A Reader, London: Open Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lāce, I., Shadid, R. and Sæther, S. Ø. (2023), ‘New visions 2023’, in S. Ø. Sæther (ed.), New Visions, Milan: Mousse Publishing, pp. 6–13.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mattern, S. (2015), Deep Mapping the Media City, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. McCormack, D. P. (2017), ‘Elemental infrastructures for atmospheric media: On stratospheric variations, value and the commons’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35:3, pp. 418–37.
    [Google Scholar]
24. McCormack, D. P. (2018), Atmospheric Things: On the Allure of Elemental Envelopment, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. McKay, C., Plouviez, A. and Moschovi, A. (2013), ‘Are we all photographers now? Exhibiting and commissioning photography in the age of web 2.0’, in C. McKay, A. Plouviez and A. Moschovi (eds), The Versatile Image: Photography, Digital Technologies and the Internet, Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 127–46.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Menkman, R. (2011), The Glitch Moment(um), vol. 4, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Newhall, B. (1941), ‘The photography of Moholy-Nagy’, The Kenyon Review, 3:3, pp. 344–51.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Paldam, C. S. and Wamberg, J. (eds) (2015), Art, Technology and Nature: Renaissance to Postmodernity, Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Parikka, J. (2015), A Geology of Media, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Parikka, J. and Hertz, G. (2021), ‘A geology of media’, CCCBLAB, 23 February, https://lab.cccb.org/en/a-geology-of-media/. Accessed 22 August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Parks, L. and Starosielski, N. (2015), Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Peters, J. D. (2015), The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pold, S. B. and Andersen, C. U. (2015), ‘How to experience and relate to climate change: The role of digital climate art’, in C. S. Paldam and J. Wamberg (eds) ‘Art, Technology and Nature’: Renaissance to Postmodernity, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 163–72.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Rubinstein, D. and Sluis, K. (2008), ‘A life more photographic: Mapping the networked image’, Photographies, 1:1, pp. 9–28.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Schuppli, S. (2020), Material Witness: Media, Forensics, Evidence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Škarnulytė, Emilija (2023), RAKHNE, Vilnius: self-released.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Somaini, A. (2016), ‘Walter Benjamin’s media theory: The medium and the apparat’, Grey Room, 62: Winter, pp. 6–41.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Somaini, A. (2020), ‘“The surface becomes a part of the atmosphere”: Light as medium in László Moholy-Nagy’s aesthetics of dematerialization’, Screen, 61:2, pp. 288–95.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Somaini, A. (2023), ‘Toward dematerialization: Light, medium, environment’, Critical Inquiry, 49:3, pp. 384–405.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Starosielski, N. (2015), ‘Fixed flow: Underseas cables as media infrastructure’, in L. Parks and N. Starosielski (eds), Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Starosielski, N. (2016), ‘Pipeline ecologies: Rural entanglements of fiber-optic cables’, in N. Starosielski and J. Walker (eds), Sustainable Media: Critical Approaches to Media and Environment, New York: Routledge, pp. 38–55.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Starosielski, N. (2019), ‘The elements of media studies’, Media+ Environment, 1:1, n.pag.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Sæther, S. Ø. (2020), ‘New visions’, in B. Bare, B. Farazollahi and C. Tunge (eds), Why Photography?, Milan: Skira Editore, pp. 8–31.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Vasylchenko, Lesia (2023), Sensing the Near Real Time (SNRT), Oslo: self-released.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Virag, Istvan (2022), e-mail to author, 3 November.
46. Virag, Istvan (2023), Pixel Pitch vol. 4, Oslo: Owned by artist.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Zylinska, J. (2016), ‘The creative power of nonhuman photography’, in K. Kuc and J. Zylinska (eds), Photomediations: A Reader, London: Open Humanities Press, pp. 203–24.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Zylinska, J. (2017), Nonhuman Photography, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Zylinska, J. (2020), AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams, London: Open Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Zylinska, J. (2023), The Perception Machine: Our Photographic Future between the Eye and AI, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]