Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Technoetic Arts
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Women in Art and Science
  • ISSN: 1477-965X
  • E-ISSN: 1758-9533

Abstract

The archive produces a linear time that reaches towards ‘what could be’ by asserting ‘what has been’, providing us reassurance of our existence through the assertion of a reliably past. But the Anthropocene is an era of uncontained material ramifications, where the past juts into the future and temporality warps as change accelerates unexpectedly. As an ecological and geologic epoch, documentation of the Anthropocene inherently has a relationship to natural history museums and archives. These institutions, however, troublingly rest on what Elaine Graham calls ‘ontological hygiene’ – the separateness of the human subject from ‘nature’. The Anthropocene however, challenges the western post-Enlightenment binary of man vs. nature, as it (supposedly) naturalizes humans into an earth systems force. As such, documentation of this epoch might resist ontological sanitation. This article outlines an artistic research practice to create artefacts of the Anthropocene – one that invites material idiosyncrasies, objects-in-becoming, ephemerality, and decay. I suggest that artistic ‘anarchices’ prioritize process over objects, and resist linear and static representation in lieu of material, embodied and sensory artefacts. These include relational encounters with waste materials, reworked forms of ‘geology’, edible artefacts and multimedia works at landfills and feral sites. The anarchives are interpolated by a rejection of hegemonic logic, positivism and ‘objective’ truths about environmental phenomena; Situated, ambiguous and material knowledges are inwrought into the so-called Anthropocene (and any alternatives to this term). By focusing on waste as an analytical category, I explore some of the ontological breakdowns present in the Anthropocene and question how to unorder systems and disturb materiality.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Fellowship
© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00114_1
2024-01-24
2024-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrash, Merritt (1974), ‘Institute on industrial archaeology’, Journal of Field Archaeology, 1:3&4, pp. 237–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barad, Karen (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barad, Karen (2014), ‘Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart’, Parallax, 20:3, pp. 168–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baudrillard, Jean (1983), Simulations (trans. P. Foss, P. Patton and P. Beitchman), New York: Semiotext(e).
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett, Carys E., Thomas, Richard, Williams, Mark, Zalasiewicz, Jan, Edgeworth, Matt, Miller, Holly, Coles, Ben, Foster, Alison, Burton, Emily J., and Marume, Upenyu (2018), ‘The broiler chicken as a signal of a human reconfigured biosphere’, Royal Society Open Science, 5:12, p. 180325.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Corcoran, Patricia L., Moore, Charles J. and Jazvac, Kelly (2014), ‘An Anthropogenic marker horizon in the future rock record’, GSA Today, 24:6, pp. 4–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Crutzen, Paul J. and Stoermer, Eugene F. (2000), ‘The “Anthropocene”’, IGBP Newsletter, 41 pp. 17–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter (1992), ‘The image of objectivity’, Representations, 40, pp. 81–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Davis, Heather (2015), ‘Toxic progeny: The plastisphere and other queer futures’, philoSOPHIA, 5:2, pp. 231–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis, Heather (2022), Plastic Matter, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis, Janae, Moulton, Alex A., Van Sant, Levi and Williams, Brian (2019), ‘Anthropocene, Capitalocene, … Plantationocene?: A manifesto for ecological justice in an age of global crises’, Geography Compass, 13:5, p. e12438.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Derrida, Jacques (1995), Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dewey, John (1934), Art as Experience, New York: Putnam.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Douglas, Ian, Anderson, P. M. L., Goode, David, Houck, Michael C., Maddox, David, Nagendra, Harini and Yok Tan, Puay (eds) (2020), The Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Douglas, Mary (2013), Purity and Danger, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ‘Epoch’ (2009), Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/epoch-geologic-time. Accessed 12 November 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster, Hal (2004), ‘An archival impulse’, October, 110:1004, pp. 3–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gieryn, Thomas F. (1983), ’Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, 48:6, pp. 781–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Golinski, Jan (1998), Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Graham, Elaine L. (2002), Representations of the Post-human: Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Guntau, Martin (1996), ‘The natural history of the earth’, in N. Jardine, J. A. Secord and E. C. Spary (eds), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Haraway, Donna (2016), Staying with the Trouble, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Helman, Cecil G. (2005), ‘Cultural aspects of time and ageing: Time is not the same in every culture and every circumstance; our views of aging also differ’, EMBO Reports, 6:S1, pp. S54–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Higgins, Hannah (2002), Fluxus Experience, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hird, Myra J. (2017), ‘Waste, environmental politics and dis/engaged publics’, Theory, Culture & Society, 34:2&3, pp. 187–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Irons, Ellie (2022), ‘Lawn (re)disturbance laboratory’, Next Epoch Seed Library, https://nextepochseedlibrary.com/lawn/#nature-lab. Accessed 12 November 2022.
  27. Kim, Ji-Su, Lee, Hee-Jee, Kim, Seung-Kyu and Kim, Hyun-Jung (2018), ‘Global pattern of microplastics (Mps) in commercial food-grade salts: Sea salt as an indicator of seawater Mp pollution’, Environmental Science & Technology, 52:21, pp. 12819–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kracauer, Siegfried (1966), ‘Time and history’, History and Theory, 6, pp. 65–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Law, John (2002), ‘Aesthetics’, in Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 115–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Liboiron, Max (2021), Pollution Is Colonialism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. MacBride, Samantha (2011), Recycling Reconsidered: The Present Failure and Future Promise of Environmental Action in the United States, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Malm, Andreas and Hornborg, Alf (2014), ‘The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative’, Anthropocene Review, 1:1, pp. 62–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mbembe, Achille (2001), On the Postcolony, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Morton, Timothy (2013), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Morton, Timothy (2021), All Art Is Ecological, London: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. National Park Service (2021), ‘Dead Horse Bay environmental cleanup project’, US Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/gate/learn/management/dead-horse-bay-environmental-cleanup-project.htm. Accessed 9 November 2022.
  37. Purdy, Jedediah (2015), After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Rovelli, Carlo, Segre, Erica and Carnell, Simon (2018), The Order of Time, New York: Riverhead Books New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schaffer, Guy (2014), ‘Camp as a politics of waste’, Discard Studies Compendium, https://discardstudies.com/discard-studies-compendium/#Camp. Accessed 15 December 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Springgay, Stephanie, Truman, Anise and Maclean, Sara (2020), ‘Socially engaged art, experimental pedagogies, and anarchiving as research-creation’, Qualitative Inquiry, 26:7, pp. 897–907.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Stewart, Kathleen (2007), Ordinary Affects, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Thoma, Myriam V., Rohleder, Nicolas and Rohner, Shauna (2021), ‘Clinical ecopsychology: The mental health impacts and underlying pathways of the climate and environmental crisis’, Front Psychiatry, 12, p. 675936.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Trischler, Helmuth (2016), ‘The Anthropocene’, N.T.M., 24:3, pp. 309–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Deger, Jennifer, Saxena, Alder Keleman and Zhou, Feifei (2020), Feral Atlas: The More-Than-Human Anthropocene, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Turner, Bethaney (2018), Taste, Waste and the New Materiality of Food, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wallace-Wells, David (2019), The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming, New York: Tim Duggan Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Whitaker, Katie (1996), ‘The culture of curiosity’, in N. Jardine, J. A. Secord and E. C. Spary (eds), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wist, Allie E. S. (2022), ‘Sensory knowledge for changing landscapes’, APRIA Journal, https://apria.artez.nl/sensory-knowledge-for-changing-landscapes/.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Yusoff, Kathryn (2018), A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Zielinski, Siegfried and Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey (2015), ‘Anarcheology for anarchives: Why do we need – especially for the arts – a complementary concept to the archive?’, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2:1, pp. 116–25.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00114_1
Loading
Anarchiving the Anthropocene: Waste and relationality
Technoetic Arts 21, 265 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/tear_00114_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00114_1
/content/journals/10.1386/tear_00114_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): affect; ambiguity; discard studies; embodiment; food; natural history archives; new materialism; research–creation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error