Contemporary Art in The Anthropocene

Contemporary Art in the Anthropocene:
a posthuman approach of the human and animal
Case studies of Terike Haapoja, Thomas Thwaites and Pierre Huyghe
Student: Marloe Mens

Student number: 10219307
Supervisor: dhr. Prof. dr. E.A. de Jong
Second reader: mw. dr. M.I.D. van Rijsingen
Word amount [25.119]
Like the earthworm that eats its way through the soil, the humans worked through the world,
processing everything into products of their own culture. But what they could not see was that
they were followed by eyes, eyes everywhere.1
1
Haapoja and Gustafsson 2015: online access.
1
Abstract
This thesis explores how contemporary artists reflect or respond to the Anthropocene Era in the last
decade and focuses primarily upon the human-animal relationship within this question. A broad
theoretical framework on posthuman philosophy that consists out of both the work of Bruno Latour,
Cary Wolfe and Erica Fudge examines the challenged human-animal relationship in the Anthropocene
and relates to topics as ethical, political and social equality. The posthuman philosophy departs from
the notion that the anthropocentric worldview is no longer tenable in our contemporary society due to
their claim that the human being is responsible for the environmental destruction the world is facing
nowadays. Breaking down dichotomies of the subject-object, human-animal and nature-culture
binaries, these attacks have a huge influence on conventional meaning of cultural concepts as art,
exhibition and artistic practice. The second part of the theoretical framework shows that the artistic
practice in the Anthropocene is no longer subject-oriented but object-oriented and strongly intersects
with other disciplines as science and philosophical theory. The third part of this thesis consists out of
three case studies that serve to test the theoretical framework and examine what notions are visible
within contemporary art. The Museum of the History of the Other (2013) by Terike Haapoja and Laura
Gustafsson, Untilled (2012) by Pierre Huyghe and GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a
Human (2016) are analyzed. Bringing both philosophy, art theory and art together, this thesis argues
that the intersection between humanities and environmental issues is a valuable contribution to the
environmental debate and supports a search for a sustainable world wherein both human, animal and
other nonhuman entities can flourish and strengthen each other.
Keywords
Animals, Anthropocene Era, Contemporary Art, Nonhuman Entities, Posthumanism.
2
Content
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................... 5
Animals, Art and the Anthropocene: Problems and Issues..................................................................... 6
Structure and justification 9
1. A posthuman framework on the ‘human’ and ‘animal’ .................................................................... 12
1.1 Bruno Latour – The Parliament of Things 13
1.1.2. The Modern Constitution and its critique 13
1.1.2.2 The Parliament of Things 16
1.2 Cary Wolfe – No language, no subjectivity 16
1.3 Erica Fudge – On Animal Studies 20
1.4 Conclusion 23
2. The role of art in the Anthropocene: non-fixed boundaries .............................................................. 24
2.1 The Nature Tendency: Jeffrey Kastner 25
2.2 The Animal Tendency: Filipa Ramos 26
2.3 Art in the Anthropocene: Davis and Turpin 27
2.4 Art and research: Alice Smits 29
2.5 Art as the surplus: Nicolas Bourriaud 30
2.6 On Design I: Nigel Cross 31
2.7 On Design II: Kayla Anderson 32
2.8 Conclusion 33
3. Case one: History according to Cattle .............................................................................................. 35
3.1.1 Terike Haapoja 36
3.1.2 Laura Gustafsson 37
3.2.1 The History of Others 37
3.2.2 The Museum of the History of the Cattle 38
3.3 Conclusion 43
Images 44
4. Case two: A non-human centered exhibition .................................................................................... 47
4.1 Pierre Huyghe 48
4.2 Untilled 49
4.3 Conclusion 54
Images 56
5. Case three: Becoming a non-human animal ..................................................................................... 59
5.1 Thomas Thwaites 60
5.2 The GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human 60
5.3 Conclusion 66
Images 68
3
Concluding reflections .......................................................................................................................... 71
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 76
List of Images ....................................................................................................................................... 80
4
Acknowledgments
This thesis is the final product of my master in Modern and Contemporary Art History. It explores the
respondent or reflection of contemporary artists to the Anthropocene Era and the attack on the
anthropocentric worldview it brings forth. It centers around the subject of the animal and examines
how contemporary art can contribute to a less-anthropocentric worldview that is – as argued –
desperately needed.
Bringing together both philosophy, art theory, art and the undercurrent topic of the
environmental issue, this thesis conflates all my personal interests. During my studies in Art History I
have always struggled finding ways to combine both my cultural as my political and social interests.
Especially interested in the environment and the sustainable movement, I could not find the
intersection between the arts and ecology I was so eagerly looking for. I would therefore firstly like to
thank Miriam van Rijsingen who, maybe unconsciously, brought me to find this intersection with her
inspiring classes on posthumanism, New Materialism and O.O.O. It is thanks to her courses that I
found a path within my master program that was both challenging, informative and so unexpectedly
inspiring.
Moreover, I could not have written this thesis without the supervision of Erik de Jong. His
enthusiasm and support for this subject have motivated me tremendously to pursue and conclude this
research. His guidance, considerations and kindness inspired me to think beyond my worldview and
rethink my ideas on nature, culture and nonhuman entities. Foremost though, I am grateful for his
positive approach towards the challenged notion of nature today, that regained my hope for a better
future.
Furthermore, I could not have found my way through this thesis without the support of those
around me. Special thanks to Manzar Samii, for her supportive and generous comments; to Jonny
Bruce and Ann Doherety for their critical editing skills. To Kiki Muyres, who inspired me with her
ideas on the central role of nonhuman entities and her love for the nonhumans around her. Foremost, I
thank my mother for her constant support in finding my way; and my father whose voice still inspires
me to think beyond conventions.
5
Animals, Art and the Anthropocene: Problems and Issues
Image 1. Olafur Eliasson, Ice Watch. 2015. Temporal installation consisting of twelve icebergs from the waters
surrounding Greenland. Each iceberg is more than twenty meters circumference. Paris, Place du Panthéon.
In November 2015, the Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson and geologist Minik Rosing boarded a ship
leaving the coast of Greenland. In a nearby fjord, they collected a dozen icebergs which they then
transported all the way to the Place du Pantheon in Paris. Here, Eliasson and Rosing placed the
icebergs in a large circle that then formed the installation Ice Watch (Image 1). The meaning of the
title is twofold; the ice can firstly be watched, while it slowly melts and disappears. Secondly, the
twelve icebergs were placed in the form of a watch, reinforcing the notion of time within this process
of melting. The timing of the installation was not accidental. During the two weeks that the icebergs
decorated the Place du Pantheon, Paris was in the spotlight as the host of the COP21, or the ‘2015
United Nations Climate Change Conference.’2 This conference brought together all of the world’s
leaders in order to pursue an agreement on an international climate policy. The central aim was to
reach a unilateral policy that could redeem the destructive development of climate change, focusing
on how humanity could change its actions to secure a safe environment for future generations. Ice
Watch is therefore not only an artwork, but also a call – or cry – for action.3
The intersection of art and ecology is not only performed by Eliasson. It appears that there is a
tendency toward such intersections from within the cultural field. In this thesis, I look into this notable
tendency and examine the role of the arts in relation to the destructive behavior of the human towards
the environment. The introduction of the ‘Anthropocene’ seems to have catalyzed this specific
cultural interest and will therefore function as the main frame of this thesis. This concept was
2
The validity of the agreement has been violated by the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump. In June
2017, he withdrew the United States of America from the agreement.
3
Zarin 2015: online access.
6
introduced in 2002 by the Dutch chemist Paul J. Crutzen. It defines the new and current geological
epoch, an epoch that centers around the new, cene, human, antropos. The introduction of this term
signifies man’s official transition from the Holocene Epoch into the Anthropocene Epoch. The
Holocene Epoch describes approximately the last 11,700 years on our planet, a time that originated
with the end of the last major ice age. In general, the Holocene Epoch is described as a warmer period,
acknowledging the influence humanity had on this development. According to Crutzen however, the
consequences of human activity, such as climate change and deforestation, have become so severe
that they are now irreversible. This leads to the notion that the human being is consciously destroying
the earth, transforming the human into a geological force. The contemporary epoch therefore centers
around the human – Anthropocene Epoch – and implies that the environmental issues we are facing
today are a product of our own making. The urgency of acting thus becomes so demanding that it
seems as if it might already be too late.4
While the truthfulness and the start date of the Anthropocene Epoch are still under debate, the
concept has traveled to other academic fields including the social sciences and humanities.
Additionally, contemporary art historians are contributing to the upcoming interdisciplinary field,
with publications like Art in the Anthropocene (2016) by Heather Davis and Etienne Turpin (edit.)
and Textures of the Anthropocene: Grain Vapor Ray (2015), a collection of essays that explore the
Anthropocene hypothesis and the implications it has for the sciences and arts.5 It is exactly this timely
intersection – art and art history in the Anthropocene Epoch – that forms the overarching framework
for this thesis. As Davis and Turpin demonstrate in the introduction of their publication, contemporary
art, such as Ice Watch, plays an important role in how we, humans, come to encounter the
Anthropocene. They argue, amongst other things, that an artwork is capable of communication
difficult information and knowledge to a broader audience.6
In this thesis however, I will argue that the visualization and sharing of knowledge about
environmental issues is not enough to create the necessary change. This does not suggest that works
such as Ice Watch are not to be applauded, but rather that, in order to save our planet, a more
structural change is necessary within human thinking. The introduction of the Anthropocene shows
that the environmental issue is a product by humans, meaning that in order to solve the issue, it
becomes important to question and examine the underlying chain of thought that has led to such
destructive activities. Moreover, assuming we live in the Anthropocene Era, a question arises
regarding the identity of the human. Whilst the human has been perceived as the most successful
species on this planet and is therefore thought of to exist separate from other natural species, it now
4
Davis and Turpin 2016: 2.
5
The publication Textures of the Anthropocene: Grain Vapor Ray finds its origins in the two-year research project by the
Haus der Kulturen der Welt (HKW) in Berlin The Anthropocene Project (2013/2014). | Klingan, Katrin, Ashkan
Sepahvand, Christoph Rosol, Bernd M. Scherer. Textures of the Anthropocene: Grain Vapor Ray [edit.] Berlin: Revolver
Publishing, 2014.
6
7
becomes clear that they have transformed into a geological force. What then does this blurring of the
human-nature separation means for concepts as ‘humans’, ‘nature’ and ‘culture’? The present-day
philosophy posthumanism departs from both these two perspectives and will therefore be used as the
core theory for this thesis. To subsequently examine how contemporary artists respond to or reflect on
the human-nature relationship in the Anthropocene Epoch, I will discuss multiple cases comprising
contemporary artworks, linking the theory to the current art practice. Completing my research, I argue
that the intertwining between the environmental issues and the academic field of humanities is crucial,
showing that the critical approach that signifies the humanities is well-suited to examine – and
perhaps even change – the way we think of and relate to nature.
The posthuman discourse comprises a broad range of philosophers who challenge the existing
concept of the human in our contemporary society – a concept they argue to be defined by the
seventeenth century philosophical framework of humanism. ‘Post’ in this case does not refer to
‘after,’ as in a chronological order, but rather as in ‘after,’ as in thinking beyond the borders of
humanism. In humanistic philosophy, the concepts of the subject and the object are ontologically
separated. Core thinkers such as René Descartes (1596-1650) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
distinguished the subject, the human, from the object, the nonhuman, which inevitably led to the
dichotomy between human-nature or human-nonhuman. Posthuman philosophers argue that this
separation has led to anthropocentrism and is responsible for human exceptionalism: the human is
considered superior to all other species on our planet, legitimizing dominant behavior towards
nonhuman species.7 A result of humanist philosophy is hence the mindset that dominates Western
society which presumes nature and the environment to be less important entities, leading to ecological
destruction and unethical use of natural resources and animals. To solve the environmental issue,
posthuman scholars argue that the human-nonhuman dichotomy must be challenged and the idea of
human exceptionalism destabilized. As the American scholar and posthumanist Rosi Braidotti so
eloquently summarized: ‘[…] we cannot solve the problems in the same language we use to create
them in the first place.’8
A part of the posthuman discourse focuses specifically upon problematizing the distinction
between the human and the nonhuman animal. These scholars depart from the notion that the
exclusion of the animal from the human realm has led to a society that is built upon the systematic use
of the productive capacities of animals, solely recognizing animals as a resource to fulfill human
needs. Posthumanists argue that this exclusion limits the ability to acknowledge the multi-dimensional
relationship between human and nonhuman actors and the fact that the human only constitutes a
minor subset of all living species.9 To narrow down my field of research, I have chosen to focus upon
7
Chiew 2014: 2.
8
Braidotti in the lecture ‘Memoirs of a Posthumanist’ at Yale’s Whitney Humanities Centre (USA) for the Tanner Lectures
on Human Values. Online video, 2017.
9
Pederson 2011: 69.
8
the animal and the role it takes in the current art practice. Whilst the subject of the animal is not new
in the arts, it is interesting to examine how contemporary artists deal with the animal within the
Anthropocene Era. This brings me to my main question:
How do contemporary artists in the Anthropocene Epoch respond/reflect upon the human-
animal relationship in the posthuman discourse?
In this thesis I primarily aim to understand what the theoretical tendency – posthumanism – means for
the artistic practice in the Anthropocene, whereby I focus specifically upon the role of the animal in
the current art practice. Secondly, I aim to show how art and design can contribute to the ecological
issue and hope to stimulate further interdisciplinary research upon this topic.
Structure and justification

This thesis is made up of two parts: a theoretical framework and analyses of contemporary artworks.
The theoretical framework helps me to understand the human-animal relationship in the
Anthropocene Era and what this discussion means for the contemporary art practice. It will give me
the tools and concepts to analyze the artworks discussed in the second part, which both function to
visualize the theory as well as test the theory. I have chosen to analyze artworks that all included the
subject of the animal in a perspicuous way and were created by three different artists: the Finish duo
Terika Haapoja and Laura Gustafsson, the British designer Thomas Thwaites and the French artist
Pierre Huyghe. The theoretical framework will comprise the first two chapters, followed by three
chapters that all include one thorough analyzes of an artwork. In the sixth and final chapter I will
conclude my findings and form an answer to my main question. All images that I refer to are
incorporated at the end of each chapter.
In the first chapter I will focus upon the posthuman approach to the human-animal
relationship in the Anthropocene Era. I will examine theories of three different scholars, aiming to
cover multiple approaches to this theme in the cultural debate. As an introduction to the chapter I will
start with the publication We Have Never Been Modern by Bruno Latour (1991, translated in 1993),
focusing specifically upon the last chapter ‘A Parliament of Things’. Although the book of Latour was
published long before the introduction of the Anthropocene Epoch by Crutzen and does not link
specifically to the term of posthumanism, I believe Latour is one of the progenitors of the posthuman
thought. He was one of the first that began to think beyond humanism and who showed how the
modern strain of thought is to be held responsible for the destructive human behavior. I have chosen
to focus upon the last chapter of We Have Never Been Modern since it poignantly proposes a new
political structure that does include both humans and nonhumans, a proposal that still holds its
validity nowadays.
To subsequently link Latour’s work to the posthuman philosophy, I will secondly elaborate
on the written works by the American scholar Cary Wolfe, a leading scholar in the posthuman and
9
cultural debate. His book What is Posthumanism? (2011) clearly sets out the definition of
posthumanism and links animal studies to the philosophical strain. An interesting aspect in Wolfe’s
work is that he not only elaborates on the unethical use of animals, but also broadens his arguments to
touch upon social and racial inequality. For this reason, I find his work to have enormous value both
for the social, political and environmental debate. I have deliberately chosen not to discuss any works
that have been written intermediate between Latour and Wolfe, such as that of Donna Haraway, so I
can create a framework that encompasses multiple approaches to the human-animal relationship and
spreads out over multiple years.
To conclude the first chapter, I will examine Animal (2013) by the British scholar Erica Fudge
who specializes in Animal Studies in the Medieval period. Her work takes a more practical approach
and focuses upon the academic field of humanities itself, criticizing the conventional methods and all
it means for the way we come to understand the animal, the human and nature. Since I practice as an
art-historian, I find it important to understand what my academic approach tenors and what the
Anthropocene and all it embeds means for this field of research.
The second chapter will consist of an elaboration on the contemporary art practice within the
Anthropocene Era, linking the theory from the first chapter to current art practice. Since the
foundation of the modern art practice is under attack, such as the subject-object, nature-culture and
human-animal dichotomy, it becomes crucial to examine what the attack on art’s foundation means
for current artistic practice. How do artists create in a period wherein humans destructive force
becomes more and more visible? How do artists relate themselves to nonhuman entities when these
turn out not to be excluded from the human realm, but might be more part of their identity then they
have ever thought before? What do modern ideas on materiality, the role of the beholder and the
categorizing into mediums still mean in the Anthropocene Era in which everything seems to be
loosely defined? By discussing multiple art critics, scholars and curators, I aim to set out how people
in the field relate to the Anthropocene and what is means for current art practice.
The third, fourth and fifth chapter each encompass an analysis of a case study I have chosen.
Because I examine current art practice in the Anthropocene in this thesis, I selected three artworks
that are all created after 2010. Each work relates to the human-animal relationship and centers the
non-human animal in some way. To discuss a broad scale of artworks and understand the tendency in
the current art practice, I chose artworks that each explore different questions and all approach the
subject from a different angle and artistic medium. The order of the analyzes is therefore not arranged
chronologically, but is based upon a logic I find in the content and significance of the artworks. The
structure of each chapter is alike, consisting of an introduction of the artist(s) and their oeuvre,
followed by a formal description of the work and concluding with an analysis using the theoretical
framework found in chapter 1 and 2.
The third chapter elaborates on the artwork by Finish duo Terike Haapoja and Laura Gustafsson
The Museum of the History of the Cattle (2013). I discuss this case firstly since it strongly relates to
10
theory and therefore forms a logic bridge between the theoretical and analytical part of this thesis.
This – temporal – museum centers around the nonhuman entity of the cattle and aims to recreate
history in a non-anthropocentric manner, framing not the animal, but the human as the other. Using
the traditional format of the exhibition as its base, this work simultaneously invokes questions about
the tenability of such traditional ways of presenting history.
The fourth chapter picks up Untilled (2012) by Pierre Huyghe, a site-specific ‘situation’ that was
installed during dOCUMENTA (13). Likewise to the work of Haapoja and Gustafsson, this
installation resembles the traditional concept of an exhibition, although in a very different manner.
Untilled combines inanimate and animate beings, such as plants, trees and non-human animals. With
the creation of a site where not humans but non-humans take the central position, the work of Huyghe
is seriously interesting to discuss in light of posthuman philosophy as the criticism in the current
cultural sphere on the dominant position of the human.
The fifth and last chapter comprises an analysis of GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being
a Human (2016), a work of design by Thomas Thwaites. Even though Thwaites executed the project a
few years prior to 2016, the publishing of a book with the same title as the project made it possible for
Thwaites to share the project with the public. The book documents the project by combining texts by
Thwaites and very beautiful photos by photographer Tim Bowditch. In the project, as the book,
Thwaites explores how to transform into a goat, by not only looking like one, but actually living as
and with goats. He designs an exoskeleton that imitates that of a goat and thereafter leaves to the Alps
on a short ‘holiday’. The work is relevant as my concluding analysis since it is multi-disciplinary and
relates both to design, visual arts and performance. Henceforth, it poses questions not only on the
divisionary boundaries between humans and non-human animals, but also on those that separate
artistic mediums.
In the conclusion, all discussed artworks and theories on the human-animal relationship are
brought together. I hope to create a consistent answer to the main question, and simultaneously show
in what ways nature and art can be intertwined in the Anthropocene in such a way that both strengthen
one and other.
11
1. A posthuman framework on the ‘human’ and ‘animal’
12
This chapter comprises the first part of the theoretical framework of this thesis. To understand how art
can contribute to the awareness and comprehending of the ecological crisis, I will explore the
posthuman approach on the human-animal dichotomy and how this philosophy lays bare the
foundation of man’s thinking that has led to this specific crisis. Elaborating on the philosophy of
Bruno Latour, Cary Wolfe and Erica Fudge, this chapter does not summarize their thinking but rather
shines light on aspects that expound the reasons for their criticism and the arisen of the posthuman
philosophy.
1.1 Bruno Latour – The Parliament of Things

‘The Parliament of Things’ is the last and concluding paragraph in Latour’s publication We Have
Never Been Modern (1991)10. In the antecedent paragraphs of his book, Latour criticizes the
contemporary, or, as he classifies it, the ‘modern’ Parliament, leading to his proposal of a new form of
parliament: The Parliament of Things. Although Latour does not specify this, it is plausible that this
parliament is a, like the parliaments we known in the Western society, political, national and
democratic. The proposed parliament will, in contradiction to the modern parliament and our existing
parliament, not only represent humans, but also things. As Latour argues, the modern parliament
excludes the rights of things, objects and nonhumans, as it only centers around the human. This
anthropocentric parliament, however, does not correspond to the practical way in which we, the
human, currently live.11 If we want a faithful parliament – a parliament that is based upon a truthful
construction – a structural change needs to occur. Nonetheless, Latour’s proposal is not fully
complete, but rather a call for others to complete the proposal and find a way to execute the new
construction.12 It therefore remains unclear how exactly the parliament should function, but it does
become clear how the contemporary form of parliament does not function.
1.1.2. The Modern Constitution and its critique

Latour appoints the structure of the parliament in the western democracy as a modern parliament, a
nomination which indicates that this form of politics arose with modernity. While Latour does not
specify the time frame of this period, he plausibly refers to the general notion of modernity which
originates in the Enlightenment period. To clarify what he considers ‘modern’, Latour inserts the
concept of the ‘modern Constitution’. This Constitution, deliberately spelled with a capital C to
distinguish this concept from a political constitution, is, unlike a political constitution, not a registered
construction of rules and definitions, but does ‘define[..] humans and nonhumans, their properties and
their relations, their abilities and their groupings.’13 Hence, the Constitution is a framework that
dictates the concept of the human and lays out the structure of society and its politics. In contradiction
10
Latour 1993: 142-145.
11
Lash 1999, online access.
12
Latour 1993: 145.
13
Latour 1993: 15.
13
to a political constitution the modern Constitution is not based upon a written source, but is created by
human beings. It is therefore impossible to define exactly who is responsible for the creation of the
modern Constitution.14
Latour’s modern Constitution is based upon four ‘guarantees’, four components that construct
the Constitution. Each guarantee refers to an ontological realm: the object, the subject, language and
being. Since my theoretical framework focuses upon the non-human (object) and human (subject), I
will therefore only elaborate on the first two guarantees. The first guarantee relates to the idea that
within modernism, nature is considered transcendental. It brings forth the idea that nature exists
universally in time and space and exists outside the realm of the human being. This means that within
the modern Constitution, nature is considered objectively true and relates the realm of nature to the
nonhuman, such as animals, objects, things and scientific facts. From this perspective, scientists are
the spokespeople of nature and objects and therefore only deal with the truth.15 The second guarantee
states that society is a social construct and therefore solely deals with the human. It relates only to the
subject and is, in contradiction to nature, immanent. Concepts such as culture and politics are seen
within this sphere, meaning that artists and politicians are considered the spokesmen for subjective
facts.16 Thus, the first two guarantees ontologically separate the subject-object, nature-culture and the
human-nonhuman.
However, according to Latour, this dichotomy is paradoxical and based upon a false assumption,
rather than being considered a valid foundation. If we look at the first guarantee – nature is
transcendent and therefore scientific facts are truthful – Latour argues that this assumption is not as
solid as is surmised. Considering scientists are humans and perform their research in a constructed
environment like the laboratory, scientific facts and theories are not solely a particle of the realm of
nature, but also partly social constructs. Science is therefore not completely transcendental, but
simultaneously immanent. The second guarantee – society is a social construct– is challenged by
Latour on the notion that society not only relates to the human being, but is simultaneously enrolled
with nonhumans, such as objects, things and animals. While humanism implies the idea that the
human and society exist isolated from the nonhuman, Latour demonstrates how the existence of
humanity is inherent to the sphere of the nonhuman. Society is hence partly immanent and
transcendent. Even though the modernists might have realized this paradox, they did not act upon it,
but rather tried to keep it ‘Totally Separated’. Only with this mindset were the modernists able to
organize the world around them and fortify the human identity.17
14
In his publication, We Have Never Been Modern, Latour focuses upon the political philosopher Thomas Hobbs and the
Irish philosopher and scientist Robert Boyle as the two main actors for the creation of humanism. The famous debate
between the two philosophers/scientists is considered the origin of the modern Constitution.
15
Latour 1993: 32, Lash 1999: online access.
16
Latour 1993: 31-32.
17
Latour 1993: 32.
14
Latour thus argues that the modern Constitution is based upon a false separation. Secondarily,
he also argues that this Constitution makes it impossible to deal with things that seem to fall beyond
the dichotomized classification of nature and society. To exemplify this, Latour refers to events that
took place in 1989. While this year is known for the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was also the year that
multiple conferences were held on the topic of the state of the Earth. Shocking scientific facts showed
the existence of a huge hole in the ozone layer, a worrisome development for humanity. The data
revealed that the hole in the ozone layer was a product of human activity, and therefore should
logically be placed within the binary side of Society. But, Latour says, the hole in the ozone also
relates to Nature, since the hole itself is not literally manmade, but created by Nature itself.18 This
means that the hole in the ozone layer cannot be solely classified as nature, or society, but relates to
both spheres. Following this line of thought, it can be stated that the existence of the hole in the ozone
layer violates the binary opposition that the modern Constitution asserts. Latour defines these
unclassifiable objects as hybrids, or quasi-objects.19
Since the modern Constitution is founded upon the nature/society dichotomy, it is unable to
acknowledge the existence of these hybrids and quasi-objects. The strict separation therefore permits
the hybrids and quasi-objects to proliferate. The modern Constitution thus creates a huge paradox: the
dualism that has allowed the proliferation of hybrids simultaneously violates its existence.20 The time
has come, argues Latour, that these hybrids, these quasi-objects, should no longer be denied in their
existence. Since the existence of hybrids and quasi-objects is not new, but has always been ignored,
we should recognize ‘that we have never been modern’.21
Forasmuch as the hybrid belongs to both the realm of nature and society, and therefore to both
the realm of the object and subject, it is unfaithful to exclude these objects from the right – and
political discourse. Latour clarifies this statement by using the concept of “quasi-object”, which is a
kind of hybrid. This concept was introduced by the French philosopher Michel Serres.22 A quasi-
object, like a hybrid, moves both within the realm of nature, as well as the realm of society. However,
in contradiction to the example of the ozone hole, a quasi-object is always made out of materialistic
matter. In the academic field of the social sciences, researchers consider the object to be a shapeless
matter which is only significant due to the human being, a presumption that acknowledges the object
as a white screen that reflects the needs of society. In the exact sciences however, the object plays a
contradictory role since it is believed to be a thing that contains a form of agency and is therefore
capable of affecting its surroundings. The quasi-object contains both qualities.
To exemplify the quasi-object, Serres analyzes a football. A football could be seen as shapeless
matter that only becomes significant when used by humans in a football game. At the same time, the
18
Latour 1993: 6, 8.
19
For hybrid see Latour 1993: 10-11 for his explanation on quasi-objects see: Latour 1993: 51-54.
20
Lash 1999, online access.
21
Latour 1993: 10, 46-48.
22
Latour 1993: 51. Michel Serres introduced the term in The Parasite (1982).
15
football can be seen as an actor: without the football on the field, the people would not move as they
would with the football. On the one hand, the football can be considered an object, while on the other
hand, it can be considered an actor, a subject in the field.23 It is therefore unfair to exclude the quasi-
object from the rights discourse, since it so clearly belongs to the realm of society.
1.1.2.2 The Parliament of Things

To summarize, the problematic aspect of the modern parliament is that, firstly, it is based upon a false
separation, and secondarily excludes hybrids, leading to their proliferation. This leads to the denial of
the rights of the quasi-object, such as the animal, since modernists are not able to think beyond the
object/subject dichotomy. It is thus important to restructure the politics within our society and reform
the parliament, so that the parliament becomes a truthful representation of our planet and society.
Latour defines the Parliament of Things as follows:
Natures are present, but with their representatives, scientists who speak in their name.
Societies are present, but with the objects that have been serving as their ballast from time
immemorial. Let one of the representatives talk, for instance, about the ozone hole, another
represent the Monsanto chemical industry, a third the workers of the same chemical industry,
another the voters of New Hampshire, a fifth the meteorology of the polar regions, let still
another speak in the name of the State; what does it matter, so long as they are all talking
about the same thing, about a quasi-object they have all created, the object-discourse-nature-
society whose new properties astound us all and whose network extends from my refrigerator
to the Antarctic by way of chemistry, law, the State, the economy, and satellites.24
Latour calls for a construction that would include not only the human in the parliament, but also the
(nonhuman) animal. Since the animal is not able to communicate with the human in the same
language, they could not have a spokesman who could speak profoundly about their needs. While this
sounds profoundly difficult, Latour emphasizes that since half of our politics is constructed in science
and technology and half of our politics is constructed in society, we simply must patch the two halves
together.25 If we choose not to take action and do not include the nonhuman into the parliament, the
hybrids and quasi-objects will keep growing and challenge our planet and existence. Besides this, it is
unfair to keep pursuing only the rights of the human, since our existence is intertwined with the
nonhuman, such as the animal, and should therefore not be pushed out of our realm.
1.2 Cary Wolfe – No language, no subjectivity

The vantage point of Wolfe on the human-animal relationship is, in contradiction to Latours position,
solely philosophical and focuses upon ethical questions raised from his criticism on humanism. With
his publication What is Posthumanism? Wolfe aims to create a posthuman ethical discourse. Hereby
he concentrates mainly on the role of the animal. Even though Wolfe admires the ambitions and
23
Serres 1982: 224-234.
24
Latour 1993: 144.
25
Latour 1993: 144.
16
values of humanism and applauds important developments like universal human rights and social
equality, he argues that these exact ambitions are being undermined by the humanist philosophical
framework.26 Therefore he considers it important to find a way to think beyond humanism and
‘develop a theoretical and philosophical approach responsive to our changing understanding of
ourselves and our world.’27
Wolfe explains that the ethical discourse in humanism is grounded upon the ontological
definition of the human, based on human qualities, such as language, consciousness, reason and
28
reflection. By defining the human, humanism ontologically separates the human from the
nonhuman, such as the animal, since these species do not contain the qualities ascribed to the human.
According to Wolfe, this separation led to the ascribing of rights and values based upon the
classification in species, such as ‘human’ or ‘animal’. 29 ‘Speciesism’, a concept often used by animal
right activists, defines the species based rights discourse and led to the determination of what is
‘human’ and should therefore be treated that way, and what is a less desirable way of ‘life’ and
therefore does not necessarily deserve the same rights as the human.30 Speciesism therefore
legitimizes the use of violence against the ‘less’ desirable form of subjectivity, such as the animal.
The posthuman ethics Wolfe aims to reach is ‘one which will cut across species barriers and mobilize
a fundamental shift in our understanding of discrimination practices and moral responsibility.’31
What is interesting in Wolfe’s criticism on speciesism is that he argues this legitimized violence
in humanism is species-specific in its logic, by separating the human from the nonhuman, but not in
its effects, since this species-specific rights discourse has been used to legitimately oppress both the
human and the nonhuman. 32 Wolfe explains:
‘As long as you take it for granted that it’s O.K. to commit violence against animals simply
because of their biological designation, then that same logic will be available to you to
commit violence against any other being, of whatever species, human or not, that you can
characterize as a “lower” or more “primitive” form of life.’ […] That’s why the discourse of
animalization is so powerful, because it uses a biological or racial taxonomy to institute an
ethical divide between who is “killable but not murderable,” those who are “properly” human
and those who aren’t.’ 33
The separation and conceptualization of the ‘human’ and the ‘animal’ thus led to the legitimization of
violence, racism and discrimination, against both human and animal. While most people in our society
will argue they do not agree with animal cruelty, their disagreement will be based on the fact that they
consider the animal as a diminished version of the human. Thus, as long as the animal is considered
26
Wolfe 2010: 16-17.
27
Back of book cover What is Posthumanism? 2010.
28
Wolfe 2010: 15.
29
Chiew 2014: 4.
30
Wolfe in Lennard, Wolfe 2017: online access.
31
Chiew 2014: 3.
32
Chiew 2014: 4.
33
17
an organism that possesses ‘various characteristics such as the capacity to experience suffering —
and not just brute physical suffering but emotional duress as well — that we human beings possess
more fully’, the human will ‘end up reinstating a normative form of the moral-subject-as-human that
we wanted to move beyond in the first place.’34 In consequence, a posthuman ethics needs to think
beyond the human/animal dichotomy and needs to find a new vocabulary that makes it able to value
the animal in its own right, in its differences and uniqueness.35
Wolfe’s main entry point for critique on the humanist assumption that animals are less ‘normal’
then the human subject regards the assumption of language. In the humanist strain of thought,
language is a specific human quality that is not possessed by animals. The dichotomy between the
human and animal is partly based upon the notion that the animal lacks the element of subjectivity
since they cannot speak for themselves. 36 Language is thus considered to correlate to subjectivity.37
Wolfe emphasizes a shift from the focus on human capacities to define the human and argues that
especially language fails to determine the boundaries between the human and the animal.38 To
criticize the notion of language as the ontological foundation of the human Wolfe relies on the theory
of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) and the French philosopher Jacques Derrida
(1930-2004).
The humanist strain of thought hence considers the human as an isolated operator from the
nonhuman since the animal is not able to communicate with the human through language. Niklas
Luhmann opposes this assumption and shows that language is not equal to the idea of communication,
an approach that differs strongly from traditional sociology. In classical sociology, a researcher
considers the basic elements of a social system to be ‘persons’. With his ‘social system theory’,
Luhmann however created a communication scheme that demonstrated that the human not only
communicates with other humans, but also with the nonhuman.39 Simplified, he thought of the basic
elements of the social system, for example a society, not as persons, but as ‘communication’. the basic
elements of any social system, for example a society, are not considered persons or actions but
‘communication’. Luhmann’s social system theory therefore creates a system that functions as a web
of relationships wherein no hierarchy exists between the communicating actors.40 From this
perspective, communication is not limited to the notion of human language, but covers all kinds of
communication, such as body language or even the exchange of materials within the cell system of a
plant. The system theory of Luhmann is, unlike the humanist philosophy, not interested in old
biologist taxonomies, but transcends this specific-species classification.41 According to Wolfe, the
34
35
36
Chiew 2014: 57.
37
Chiew 2014: 7.
38
Bolton 2014: 53.
39
Ratelle 2011: 149.
40
Seidl 2004: 7-9.
41
Chiew 2014: 5.
18
system theory has ‘given us a language where we can now describe much more intricately and
robustly how human beings – not just their minds but their bodies, their micro biomes, their modes of
communication and so on – are enmeshed in and interact with the nonhuman world.’42
With his reliance on Luhmann, Wolfe hence aims to demonstrate how both human and animal
rely on each other in daily life and therefore define each other. With his second use of the theory
derived by Derrida, Wolfe fortifies the relationship between the human and animal and argues that
there is a second resemblance between humans and animals that are normally disavowed by humanist
philosophers. According to Derrida, as described in his famous essay The Animal That Therefore I
am, the philosophical distinction of the human and the animal is founded upon the concept of the
animal as the Other.43 However, this Other does not contain a face, but is merely that, that we –
humans – are not. Within humanism, the Animal solely plays the role of defining the human but has
never been defined in its own rights, an action that led to the prioritization of the human.44 Only when
we know ‘I’, our human subjectivity, are we able to master over the ‘Other’, the animal.45 This
‘Other’ simultaneously leaves the animal undefined and suggests the vision that the Animal is like a
Unified Other, as if all animal species are the same, even though most people would agree that a
bacteria differs ontologically from a giraffe.
A second point Derrida argues is that the separation of the animal from the human denied the
notion that both the human and animal share an embodied finitude. This firstly means that human and
animal are capable of experiencing and learning both with their rational minds as through their bodies.
This presumption is strongly denied by humanist philosophy, since it solely takes rationality as the
ontological foundation of the human. Embodied finitude secondly means that both human and animal
are mortal and therefore physically (and mentally) vulnerable, a statement that amplifies the
resemblance between the human and animal body.46
By using both Luhmann and Derrida, Wolfe shows that ‘the identity of the human species is not
unified or self-present, but thoroughly implicated in the phenomenology and ontology of other
nonhuman entities.47 Although humanism does not recognize the destruction of the animal as an
attack on the ontology of the human, Wolfe shows that it indeed does. This implies, however, not that
the human and the animal are the same and therefore deserve an equal treatment. Rather, Wolfe aims
to illustrate that the humanist philosophy is a ‘woefully inadequate philosophical tool to make sense
of the amazing diversity of different forms of life on the planet, how they experience the world, and
how they should be treated.’48 The rights and ethical discourse should move beyond the human/animal
42
Cary Wolfe in Lennard, Wolfe 2017: online access.
43
Derrida, Jacques [trans. David Wills], ‘The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow), Critical Inquiry Vol.28, No.2
(2002): 369-418.
44
Fudge in The Eighteenth Century 2011: 95.
45
Bolton 2014: 54.
46
Wolfe 2010: 80, Wolfe 2009: 570.
47
Chiew 2014: 2.
48
19
distinction and describe the human as a human animal, and the animal, as nonhuman animal. These
concepts acknowledge the embodiment of both the human and the nonhuman and demonstrate the
similarly and possible communication with the animal, resulting in the changing ethical relationship.49
With the focus on the embodied finitude, Wolfe destructs the definition of the human as the
knowing subject and the foundation of its definition by human qualities, such as self-definition and
language. Wolfe’s posthuman ethics aims to create a framework that validates the animal in its own
rights and not because it is a lesser version of the human. The line of thought in posthuman ethics
therefore becomes trans-species and throws out the humanist ontological distinction between the
human and the nonhuman. It attributes the differences between all species and acknowledges every
single one in its own rights, while leaving from the conception that the animal-human relation is
founded upon a shared vulnerability.50
1.3 Erica Fudge – On Animal Studies

The third and last author I wish to discuss in this chapter is Erica Fudge, whereby I focus upon her
publication Animal (2002) and her role in the emerging field of Animal Studies. Fudge’s theory stands
in contradiction to the theories of Latour and Wolfe since it is not primarily philosophical or
theoretical. She practices a more pragmatic field of research into the human-animal relation in western
art history, whereby she focuses mainly on Early Modern Literature. Her field Animal Studies departs
from the notion that understanding the role of the animal within cultural products from the past can
help us to create a better understanding of our current concept of the human-animal relationship.
Whereas Fudge’s theory does not specifically discuss the concept of posthuman philosophy, her work
does show strong links to this strain of thought. Besides this, Animal is not to be seen as a reflection
of the entire field of animal studies, but rather reflects a small part, also defined as ‘critical animal
studies’.51
Animal studies and critical animal studies share a cross-disciplinary approach to the (historical)
study of human-animal relationships. Both acknowledge the shared human/animal embodied finitude,
criticize speciesism and attack the subject/object boundaries.52 Some scholars within the field of
animal studies move within the realm of humanism, while Fudge clearly moves within posthumanism.
For example, a scholar in the field of animal studies who focuses on the animal in Medieval literature,
will approach the animal from an anthropocentric view. He or she considers the animal a blank field
onto which the life of the human is projected; the animal is a mere representation of the human self
and is regarded as an object.53 A disjunctive approach is achieved by critical animal studies, which
acknowledges that the animal is not solely an object but that it is a subject containing agency. Thus,
49
Pedersen 2011: 69.
50
Bolton 2014: 55, Chiew 2014: 4, Lennard, Wolfe 2017: online access.
51
Pederson 2011: 66.
52
Pedersen 2011: 67.
53
Fudge 2014: 2.
20
the animal is an actor that can act, and is therefore able to change things.54 Critical animal studies and
posthumanism both challenge the anthropocentrism of humanism and align the ‘critique of the idea of
human supremacy and its disastrous implications for nonhuman animals’.55
Before returning to Fudge’s notion of agency, it is important to clarify the cause for her ‘critical’
approach. According to Fudge, the relationship between the human and the animal in our society is
illogic. ‘We live with animals, we recognize them, we even name some of them, but at the same time
we use them as if they were inanimate, as if they were objects. The illogic of this relationship is one
that, on a day-to-day basis, we choose to evade, even refuse to acknowledge as present.’ 56 Animals
are both tied-to and separated from the human. However, this dualism is not acknowledged in the
humanist philosophy and simultaneously not in our western society. Whilst animals are present all our
lives, they are frequently treated as if they are not animals but merely objects.
Fudge explains in Animal that the reason for the objectification of the animal is to be found in
fear: the fear that there might be a kinship between us – the human – and them – the animal. The
ontological separation of the animal from the human created the idea that the animal is nonhuman and
therefore a threat to the identity of the human.57 Following, the human acted superior towards the
nonhuman in order to annihilate this fear. ‘Master – control, domination – is the means by which we
annihilate fear’, states Fudge.58 The human-animal relationship is thus defined by a power structure
that simultaneously ignores certain aspects of the relationship. Again, this can be exemplified when
focusing on language. According to Fudge, language has been regarded as the domain of the human
and therefore defines the difference between the human and the animal based upon the ability to
communicate. This logic however disregards the fact that animals do communicate with each other,
only not with human language, but with sounds, actions and their bodies. Besides this, the idea that
human language is equal to communication, neglects the fact that maybe animals do not understand
us, but that humans also do not understand their language, like the barking of a dog. The humanist
logic regarding language, founding the separation of the animal from the human, therefore seems
illogic.
Fudge argues that the humanist strain of thought always dictates the animal as the other, an
object, a representation of the human, but never lets an animal be experienced as an animal. This
intellectual legacy is visible in human language itself, which only delivers handles to speak about the
animal as a mini version of the human and hence makes it impossible to describe the animal as an
animal.59 By examining historical sources, Fudge aims to show this contradiction and ‘present[s] the
54
Fudge 2014: 2.
55
Pedersen 2011: 69.
56
Fudge 2002: 8.
57
Fudge 2002: 8.
58
Fudge 2002: 8.
59
Fudge 2002: 12.
21
need to rethink our relationship with animals.’60 She consciously focuses upon Early Modern
Literature because the Early Modern Period is a time when ‘many key aspects of the modern world
begin to emerge – in terms of our conceptions of science, selfhood, global politics.’61 In the end,
Fudge’s main goal is to contribute to the creation of a new language to talk about the animal as
animal, and not merely as ‘nearly-humans.’62
With a critical position in the field of animal studies, Fudge deliberately occupies a new position
within the field of historical studies. In general, historians trace moments of change in order to create
a linear perspective of the development within history. The actors that create these changes are always
considered humans. Fudge however contradicts this assumption by implying that not only the human
but also the animal should be considered an actor. If we pursue this thinking, we can indeed conclude
that animals affect society. They ‘impact the way in which humans live, think, and represent the
world. […] They created significant shifts in human thinking and thus human history.’63 This does
however not imply that the animal has to be self-aware to create this change but rather shows that
64
agency can exist separated from thought. It is thus unfaithful when history is solely
65
anthropocentric.
With Animal, Fudge shows that the field of critical animal studies is crucial if we want to gain
more understanding on the human-animal relationship. She explains:
‘[Animal studies] asks our students and our readers to think about things that might otherwise
go unthought […], to think about what it means to be a human being; about how that human
being has been constructed in history; about how that construction of the human that we live
with now might impact upon the world we live in, the people we live alongside, and so on.’ 66
It becomes clear that by studying the animal, the human is simultaneously a subject of research. With
her publication, Fudge intends to show that both concepts are not natural but rather a social and
cultural construct. ‘The Animal’ is therefore a concept that not only denies the multiplicity of animal
species, as Wolfe argued, it also denies the multiplicity of relations that exist between the human and
the animal. While the new language on the human-animal relationship still has to be created, Fudge’s
theory ‘challenge[s] the meaning of such extinctions as we continue to encounter them in the future.’67
Not only does Fudge aim to change the field of animal studies from an anthropocentric worldview to a
posthuman view, she also pleads for the introduction of the animal as a subject within the humanities
to challenge the notion of the human and its activities. ‘I wonder if the Humanities is still the
Humanities after the entry of animals.’68
60
Fudge 2002: 9.
61
Fudge 2002: 95.
62
Fudge 2002: 158.
63
Ibid.
64
Fudge 2014: 2.
65
Fudge 2014: 3.
66
67
Fudge 2014: 3.
68
22
1.4 Conclusion
In this chapter I examined three theories that all strongly relate to the posthuman philosophy and its
approach to the human-animal relationship. While each author focuses on different aspects and uses
different terminology, the core of their arguments consists out of an attack on the humanist
dichotomized thinking in subject-object boundaries. Not only has this strain of thought led to
(environmental) destruction, it is also based upon a false foundation. By challenging the borders of
both the concepts of the human and the animal, posthumanism argues that the identity of the human is
not unified but thoroughly inherent to the phenomenology and ontology of the nonhuman animal.69 It
poses an alternative to the concept of the human as a fixed, autonomous and unique subject, in the
form of a postmodern human concept that is understood as ‘local, fluid, contingent; contesting
familiar hierarchies.’70 Yet, what does this fluid approach means for the current artistic practice? To
understand the way artists deal with the posthuman notion on the animal, I will examine in the next
chapter how posthumanism and the entering into the Anthropocene is becoming visible within the
artistic practice and its theory.
69
Pedersen 2011: 72.
70
Pedersen 2011: 72
23
2. The role of art in the Anthropocene: non-fixed boundaries
24
In the first part of this theoretical framework I created handles to examine the human-animal
relationship and their changing concepts in the Anthropocene Era. To create a theoretical framework
that can help me find an answer to my main question, which relates this specific changing field to the
contemporary art practice, it is necessary to specifically focus upon the artistic practice in the
Anthropocene Era. If the traditional base for art-making – defined by modernist thinking in binary
oppositions – is no longer tenable, what does this mean for the contemporary art practice? What
effect, for example, does the disappearing of the subject-object dichotomy has on the modern
concepts of the artist, the beholder and the artistic process? If the borders that dictate the division into
different mediums and disciplines are under attack, what then does this mean for the identity of each
of these classifications? Can we still speak about divisionary mediums as ‘art’, ‘science’ and ‘design’?
And, most important, if the culture-nature classification is no longer dichotomized, what then exactly
is the role of art in the Anthropocene Era?
In this chapter I will extend the theoretical framework formed in chapter 1 by exploring these
questions. I will make use of a variety of scholars and art critics, whereby I focus upon discerning the
leading arguments and topics in the cultural debate regarding the role and meaning of art in the
Anthropocene. I will look for tendencies, concepts and examples that can help me analyze my case
studies.
2.1 The Nature Tendency: Jeffrey Kastner

In 2012, Jeffrey Kastner published a book under his editorial leadership called Nature. This book is
part of the Documents of Contemporary Art series71 that examines how scholars, critics, curators and
artists deal with, and define certain topics or themes. In the introduction of the book, ‘Art in the Age
of the Anthropocene’, Kastner explains the following:
Just as forward-looking scientists increasingly acknowledge the wide and complex range of
interdependencies between the world that made us and the world that we have made […], so
too will the artistic avant-garde continue to develop new tools and strategies that unsettle
conventional wisdom about our relationships with and within nature.72
Kastner hence relates the development in scientific research – leading to the concept of the
Anthropocene Era – to the development in the art world regarding new perspectives on conventional
concepts as nature and culture. While artists in the modern Western society used to consider
themselves separate from the realm of the natural, they now create artworks that rethink and redefine
their relation to nature.73 Artists in the Anthropocene thus break – or at least the avant-garde – with
conventional ideas on the nature-culture relationship by challenging the existing concepts with their
artworks. The produced artworks in this case serve as tools in order to do so. Whilst artists do not –
71
All published by the Whitechapel Gallery in London.
72
Kastner 2012: 17.
73
Kastner 2012: 13.
25
like scientists – focus upon creating truthful facts and data, they act, like scientists, as researchers and
experimenters. According to Kastner, this new mode of working by artists does not understand the
relationship between nature and culture as separated, but rather as dialectical, as two concepts actively
engaged with one and other.74 He thus considers artists as potential mediators between the two worlds
of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, whereby they use the medium of art to represent and rethink ‘nature’.75
While the defining of the described tendency in contemporary art practices becomes clear
throughout the book of Nature, the direction of content however seems not to correspond with the
posthuman discourse. Kastner appears to hold on onto conservative notions of ‘culture’ and ‘nature’.
He reasons that artists mediate between these two concepts in order to redefine nature, a point of view
that strengthens the division between the two concepts and merely amplifies the modern idea that art
solely belongs to the realm of culture, separated from the realm of nature. Besides this, Kastner’s
approach also ignores the fact that when nature is no longer experienced as subservient to culture, it
becomes illogic to assume that artists only redefine nature, without being redefined themselves by
thinking and exploring nature. The concept of mediation then might be insufficient to capture this
relationship since artists in this case rather work together with nature then mediate between the two
realms. If we now leave from this thought but do hold on to Kastner’s idea of the role of art to rethink
nature – and now also the other way around – what then does this rethink exactly means?
Posthumanism, as became clear in chapter 1, is characterized by the deconstruction of traditional
concepts. Yet, their philosophy is still searching for new, tenable concepts and theories to use in the
Anthropocene Era. It therefore seems applicable that the role of the artist is to contribute to this
search, not by thinking on, but with nature. Art, in this case, becomes a tool to research, experiment
and exchange strains of thoughts, creating a space where not only the artist, but also the beholder can
examine and experience what the Anthropocene Era means for humanity and the arts. The ascribing of
this mediating role by Kastner to only the avant-garde seems therefore illogic, since this statement
implies that there are existing boundaries that can be broken, ignoring the idea that within the
Anthropocene, all boundaries are already blurred.
2.2 The Animal Tendency: Filipa Ramos

While Kastner might fail in breaking open the traditional construction on art and nature, his
introduction does visualize the interdisciplinary tendency in the cultural debate regarding the
(re)new(ed) focus upon nature. In the following edition by the Documents of Contemporary Art,
Animals (2016), moving the focus from ‘nature’ to the ‘animal’, Filipa Ramos likewise shows the
interdisciplinary tendency in contemporary art. In the introduction ‘Art across Species and Beings’,
Ramos locates the subject of the animal at the core of an intersection of different disciplinary terrains,
whereby the humanities, sciences, technology and ethics cross each other in the vector of
74
Kastner 2012: 17.
75
Kastner 2012: 17.
26
contemporary art. This contemporary and interdisciplinary approach leads, according to Ramos, to a
new art practice that strongly differs from the traditional and modern one. With this new approach,
artists contribute to the expansion of the significance of the ‘animal’, leading to ‘the possibility for
humans to engage with non-human species on another level’, while ‘contributing to a renewed
empathy, attention and awareness towards other species.’76
Art, thus, following Ramos notions, has the possibility to transform our thinking.77 She states:
‘Art thinks, and invites us to think, the other, and does this in ways that are other. Artistic
formulations establish peculiar ways of communicating that rely on spontaneous generation,
improvisation, and appearances that manifest themselves in events that often have the
capacity to provide new meanings and forms of relating to those – humans and animals –
around us.’78
Ramos points out that the role of art lies partly in communication, a statement that aligns with
Kastner’s idea of art as a tool for mediation. The artistic practice is described as a spontaneous
practice, indicating that artists do not create by given rules, but are rather free to experiment. Art,
therefore, creates a platform to experiment, test and invent new methodologies that can contribute to
finding tenable concepts and theories in the Anthropocene Era. The position of an artist is not strictly
bounded, but rather based upon moveable, questionable and vague borders. This is contradictory to
other disciplines, such as science, politics and philosophy, in which participants are seemingly
dictated by disciplinary frames and instructions. Because of their position, artists can invite us to
change our constructed thinking and motivate to create new systems that go beyond our own thinking.
However, Ramos does not pursue the question of how this new artistic process must look like, but
does succeed in setting out what the role of art is in the Anthropocene, poignantly placing art as the
vanguard in transforming our contemporary thinking.
2.3 Art in the Anthropocene: Davis and Turpin

Both Kastner and Ramos focus upon the nature-culture and human-animal relationship, without
however framing their thoughts directly to the idea of the Anthropocene. A publication that does
specifically examine art in the Anthropocene Era is Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among
Aesthetics, Politics, Environments and Epistemologies by Heather Davis and Etienne Turpin (2015).
Similar to the publication of Kastner and Ramos, this book is an aggregation of multiple texts that are
arranged and introduced by the editing authors. In their introduction, ‘Art & Death: Lives Between the
Fifth Assessment & the Sixth Extinction’, Davis and Turpin expound on the definition of the
Anthropocene and how they experience the role of art in this new era. The focus point of the book is
the following question: ‘[Since] art is now a practice condemned to a hololithic earth – that is, to a
76
Ramos 2016: 13/14.
77
Ramos 2016: 20.
78
Ramos 2016: 14.
27
world “going to pieces” as a literal sediment of human activity – how can aesthetic practices address
the social and political spheres that are being set in stone?’79 The starting point of the research is
however not finding a final answer, but rather aims to create a platform for further speculations and
action.
‘Art’, according to Davis and Turpin, is a vehicle of aesthesis; the vehicle of the perception of
the external world by the human senses. The aesthetic practice is approached as a way of expressing
the sensorial experience, rather than the more well-known of finding formal beauty.80 Davis and
Turpin discern the relationship between Art and the Anthropocene to occur on three different scales.
Firstly, they state that the Anthropocene is primarily a sensorial phenomenon in which we experience
‘living’ in an increasingly diminished and toxic world. Whilst the concept has a scientific origin –
based upon data and facts – the concept is not focused upon knowing, but rather upon experience and
feeling. Art, in this case, functions as an expression of the bodily experience, whereby Davis and
Turpin move the shift from rationality to sensibility.81 By focusing upon the senses, they
simultaneously suggest that art in not only enhanced by the human eye, but rather by all our senses.
This idea not only attacks the dominant role of rationality, but also the modern system regarding
knowledge and understanding. Because if rationality is not the leading factor, how then can we
understand art? How are we to write about art? What does this mean for art history, a discipline that is
bound on provable arguments? In line with the posthuman philosophy, Davis and Turpin undermine
the leading role of the subject-object dichotomy and transform art into something that is not only to be
known, but rather to be experienced.
Secondly, Davis and Turpin argue that the way we come to understand the Anthropocene has
been framed through modes of the visual. Making use of visuals is a satisfactory way of making
difficult data and facts more understandable for a larger audience. The way certain knowledge is
visualized, plays an important role in dictating how people become to understand the Anthropocene
Era.82 Art, in this case, is understood as something visual and figurative, amplifying the notion that art
is capable of communication and mediating. Thirdly, Davis and Turpin surmise that art can ‘provide a
polyarchic site of experimentation for living in a damaged world […] and a non-moral form of
address that offers a range of discursive, visual, and sensual strategies that are not confined by the
regimes of scientific objectivity, political moralism, or psychological depression.’83 Art, according to
Davis and Turpin, is thus not confined to rules and is therefore able to create a platform for artists to
experiment and think beyond the conventional strain of thought.
79
80
With this definition, Davis and Turpin turn back to the Greek definition of the word that translates as a ‘world of
experience’.
81
82
Davis and Turpin 2015: 3-4.
83
28
The idea of art as a medium to experiment seems to form the red line in all discussed
publications. It is however striking that Davis and Turpin experience the art in the Anthropocene as a
‘non-moral form of address.’ Regarding the fact that the Anthropocene is strongly intertwined with
notions of destruction, dominance and inequality, it seems illogic to suggest that art in the era is in
any way non-moral. Is it then possible that art in the Anthropocene is non-moral? When looking for a
new artistic practice, does this not always imply a criticism on traditional uses and the inherent
dangers? And if art can be non-moral, what then does the idea of ‘morality’ still means?
2.4 Art and research: Alice Smits

Both Kastner, Davis and Turpin state that art in the Anthropocene becomes a space of
experimentation, whereby concepts of nature, culture and all they embody can be researched,
questioned and redefined. Independent from written and unwritten rules that dictate the academic
world, the artist has the time and space to be critical, experiment and explore the Anthropocene to the
fullest. The resulting artwork can be seen as an expression, visualizing and framing of the artist's
thoughts and knowledge, and functions as a catalyst for the beholder to follow the same line of
thought. This conclusion is underpinned by the Dutch Art Historian Alice Smits, who states in a short
article Moederschip Aarde (2015) that more and more contemporary artists dedicate their work to
‘artistic research’, wherein they collaborate with people from other disciplines. Whereas art had lost
its touch to the debates in society, it has now found its way back by moving and working abreast to
the natural sciences. According to Smits, artists nowadays create new hybrid practices, whereby their
role as a ‘storyteller’ – a subject dictating the story of nonhuman entities – transforms into a position
whereby the artist rather creates a space to live with other entities, object, technologies and materials,
and thus leaves all entities to tell their own story.84
Smits argues that this new mode of artistic practice is crucial. Entering the Anthropocene Era
means that we need to rethink and redefine the Western knowledge system – how do we know, how
do we understand? – if we want it to include both human and nonhuman entities.85 She states: ‘ [..] it
is the free imagination of art as a sensitive, aesthetic and performative form of knowledge that can
teach us how to deal with this seemingly impossible challenge.’86 In line with Davis and Turpin who
claim that the Anthropocene is a sensorial phenomenon, Smits suggests that the ways we understand
or gain knowledge is not primarily founded on rational perception, but is also partly based upon
bodily and sensorial perception. Therefore, art in the Anthropocene Era not only captures and
visualizes knowledge, but also produces forms of knowledge beyond the humanist line of thought.
84
Smits 2015: online access. The concept of ‘storyteller’ refers to the essay The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of
Nikolai Leskov (original publication 1936, English translation 1968) by French philosopher Walter Benjamin.
85
Smits 2015: online access.
86
Smits 2015: online access. Free translation by author.
29
2.5 Art as the surplus: Nicolas Bourriaud
It becomes clear that the art in the Anthropocene is losing its set boundaries, a development that
brings up the question what then still defines art. With the subject-object and nature-culture
dichotomy under attack, what is the difference then between a not-art object and an art object? What
is then the difference between a product produced by nature, or an artwork using natural resources
produced by an artist? Nicolas Bourriaud, a French art critic and curator, elaborates on this question in
his lecture Art in the Anthropocene: Humans, Objects and Translations (2015).87 According to
Bourriaud, the 21st century is defined as a time where the subject-object dichotomy is shattered, a line
of thought he – like the posthumanist discourse – considers the basis for the Western society.
Henceforth, the contemporary cultural debate is turning its focus to things, turning away from the
anthropocentric focus upon the human. The most important development within the contemporary arts
is then the acknowledgment of the object as an entity with agency, leading to the assumption that art
no longer serves to ‘present something to someone’, but rather is about ‘presenting someone to
something.’88 In this case, the beholder no longer fulfills the role of a passive participant, but is
designated with the role of an active witness. Not only do visitors simply look at something – an
object separated from their own realms – but they engage with the object. This active role
simultaneously means that language is losing its dominant position in the approach on art, making
space for an experience of art through bodily senses; something that leads to a possible feeling of
empathy with the non-human.
The shift in contemporary art towards a less anthropocentric worldview, does however not imply
that the subject-object division is to be blurred completely. Even though Bourriaud stands in the
middle of the cultural debate regarding ‘Art in the Anthropocene’, he simultaneously considers the
movement to be a destructive force for the existence of ‘art’. He states that art cannot exist without
‘correlationism’, a concept that has been introduced by the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux.
This concept signifies the claim that within the Western philosophy, ‘being’ cannot be imagined apart
from the subject, language or power.89 Meillassoux fights this claim within his philosophy, a mode of
thought Bourriaud endorses – except when it comes to art. According to Bourriaud, art, as a very
human activity, would be destroyed if the correlation between subject and object is completely
detached.
According to Bourriaud, art is then defined by the fact that it is the ‘surplus of our relationship
with the world’, a something someone adds to the world. This ‘plus 1’ is exactly what separates the
art object from the everyday object. The creation of an artwork is, conforming to Bourriaud’s idea, a
87
Online video clip on YouTube, pubslihed by CCATelAvivIsrael, 2015.
88
Bourriaud in online video clip on YouTube, published by CCATelAvivIsrael, 2015.
89
This claim characterizes the philosophical movement of Speculative Realism that was founded by Quentin Meillassoux,
Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton Grant and Alberto Toscano during a conference at Goldsmith University in London in 2007.
The movement is defined by a shared resistance of the human finitude inspired by the philosophical tradition of Immanual
Kant. Nicolas Bourriaud relates himself and his thinking strongly to this movement.
30
unique action that turns ‘something’ into a ‘work of art’. The precondition of the artwork therefore
lies in the need to explain the artwork. When someone encounters an artwork, she or he has the urge
to explain the object. This in contradiction to an encountering with an everyday object, whose
existence is taken for granted. The significance of the artwork is however not set, but revitalizes and
changed constantly.
Whereas artists in the Anthropocene Era thus blur the conventional dualistic concepts, it is
however impossible to completely turn away from an object-subject distinction without destroying art.
Bourriaud expands the concept of the ‘subject’ to the non-human sphere, inherently meaning a loss of
the monopoly of the gaze for the human without losing the human gaze completely. The space of the
Anthropocene is therefore, according to Bourriaud, characterized by promiscuity, a ‘bringing together
of all ranges, spheres and forms of life in a space that is devoid [..] of fixed boundaries’.90
2.6 On Design I: Nigel Cross

Having discussed the above authors, it becomes clear that with the introduction of the Anthropocene,
a mayor shift is taking place. Searching for new concepts and theories, the focus on the finalization of
the art process is turning towards the process itself, accepting cross-over activities from other
disciplines such as experimentation and research. Artists, therefore, seem to redefine their discipline
by doing. But if artists are becoming researchers and can experiment, are they then also not designing
certain solutions for their research? And if they are, what happens to the strictly separated medium of
art and design? I wonder, can artist be designers, or designer’s artists?
In accordance with the previous discussed focus upon research and the artistic process, a
tendency has risen whereby theoreticians and scholars examine rather the design process itself, trying
to understand what design and designing means in the contemporary world. Since design is
traditionally seen as a craftsmanship, whereby the design of the product is distinguished from the
actual crafting of the product, design theory has been rather poor in examining the ways people
design.91 The research on the nature of design ability has therefore been slow, but has currently gained
a point of focus in academic research. In Design Thinking (2011), Nigel Cross states:
‘Design ability has been regarded as something that perhaps many people possess to some
degree, but only a few people have a particularly strong design ‘gift’. Only now, there are
growing bodies of knowledge about the nature of designing, and about the core features or
aspects of design ability.92
Acknowledging the ability to design as a gift, rather than a skill, the nature of design has never really
been examined. In his book, Cross aims to change this tendency and examines the ways designers
90
91
Cross 2011: 3.
92
Cross 2011: 4.
31
think and work, an act he defines as the ‘designerly’ ways of thinking.93 To do so, he makes use of
already existing research and his own experiences as an architect and industrial designer.94
Throughout the book, it is argued that the normative approach on design as an activity that creates a
straightforward ‘answer’ to the ‘problem’ is conservative and leads to an exclusion of works of design
that do not comply to this classification. According to Cross, a designer rather develops the problem
and the solution together: a designer ‘shift[s] and transfer[s] thought between the required purpose or
function of some activity and appropriate forms for an object to satisfy that purpose. The concept for a
solution therefore cannot solely be derived directly from the problem statement, the designer should
bring something to it.’95
By deconstructing the act of designing, Cross lays bare the basic needs for design and argues that
design is not ‘problem-focused’, but rather ‘solution-focused’. The final product of a design process
does not always have to be an answer to the prior problem. It can also find its validation in the
creation of a possible solution for an already existing, but not yet significant problem. The design, in
this case, can both answer and indicate the problem.96 Design, in Cross’s vision, is not just the
creating of a solution, but also includes research, theory and experimentation. Without fully pursuing
this link, Cross breaks downs the barriers between contemporary art and design, underpinning the
notion that the traditional boundaries between the cultural mediums are breaking down.
2.7 On Design II: Kayla Anderson

The book of Cross, however, does not directly question the relationship between design and the
Anthropocene Era. In the article, Ethics, Ecology, and the Future: Art and Design Face the
Anthropocene (2015), Kayla Anderson elaborates on this relationship and focuses on the question
what forms of design are suited to address the Anthropocene. Hereby, she presumes the theory of
Davis and Turpin that art can narrate how the Anthropocene is encountered. The narratives that design
and art create are, according the Anderson, incredibly important in how we recognize, address and
respond to the Anthropocene. It is therefore crucial to have a critical approach towards these artworks,
since inaccurate created narratives can be rather destructive than constructive. Henceforth, Anderson
distinguishes two forms of artworks and classifies them by their de- or constructive outcomes.
According to Anderson, artworks that simulate action and encourage the visitor to do something,
mostly contain a destructive outcome, since they further reinforce an attitude of human dominance
over the planet. These artworks seem to frame the Anthropocene as a romanticized ruin that is easily
‘saved’ without any actual threat to humanity. They suggest that it is us that can save the planet,
93
Cross 2011: 6.
94
Cross 2011: 1-2.
95
Cross 2011: 16.
96
Cross 2011: 148.
32
approaching the human as the savior, ignoring that fact that the human created the problem in the first
place.97
Art that does have the potential to be constructive, mostly consists out of initiatives that
stimulate critical thinking.98 Pursuant to Anderson, conceptual or speculative design can foster the
needed critical thinking about how humanity relates to technology, science, politics, social issues and
the ecological state of the earth. She states: ‘[..] unlike mainstream design, which is supposed to
affirm the status quo and be easily assimilated, critical, conceptual and speculative design raises
awareness, exposes assumptions, sparks debate and provokes action against cultural norms.’99
Anderson appends on her claim and states that these forms of design are mainly created by people that
do not solely move within the set boundaries of design, but strongly touch upon the realm of the art.
Their work is not only focused upon finding and creating a solution, but is also validated by a more
autonomous existence. Working in between the two disciplines, designers are able to create works
that are not a simple solution to the problem, but rather a proposition that can ‘challenge heroic,
solutionist and masculinist narratives of the Anthropocene, provoking critical thought.100 Instead of
focusing on solutions, these works suggest that everyday life as we know it could be different, that
things can and are different than we ever have thought before. Design in the Anthropocene, in this
case, ‘can act as platforms for critical and non-instrumental thinking, as they allow a space for
envisioning radical futures.’101
2.8 Conclusion
In this chapter I focused upon theories regarding Art in the Anthropocene and pursued the posthuman
philosophy in the more practical field of art theory. It can be concluded that the concepts of ‘art’ and
‘design’ are no longer defined by clear and distinct boundaries, but rather by non-fixed boundaries.
The artist does not move within one single realm or discipline, but moves fluidly through other,
untraditional ones. Art in the Anthropocene therefore seems to find itself within a sphere of
experimentation, whereby the artist holds the leading position in the search for new and tenable
concepts, theories and artistic procedures. Because of this non-attachment to fixed boundaries, art
creates a platform for artists to think outside borders, search for future propositions or pursue
intensely what it means to be a human in our destructive world.
The role of art in the Anthropocene therefore becomes one of fostering critical thought: the
beholder is confronted with a strain of thought that lies beyond the western worldview, not dictated by
the subject-object dichotomy, but rather by open and fluid boundaries. Art therefore mediates between
this new and fluid thinking, stimulating the beholder to rethink and redefine its worldview and all
97
Anderson 2015: 340.
98
Anderson 2015: 339.
99
Anderson 2015: 341.
100
Anderson 2015: 339.
101
Anderson 2015: 346.
33
assumptions it embeds. The artist therefore becomes hybrid, working in-between, taking on the
position of a researcher, explorer, examining possibilities and searching for what lies beyond our
modern notion of the human, the animal and all other forms of life. Whilst a new framework has not
yet been created, the Anthropocene is characterized by a critical view on traditions, a critical view on
ourselves, in search for a better and more tenable future. In the following case studies, I will examine
how contemporary artists explore and examine the Anthropocene, and conjecture about the
consequences it comprises for their artistic practice, and artistic practice as such.
34
c
Image 2. Terika Haapoja and Laura Gustaffson. The Museum of the History of the Cattle. 2013. Installation,
detail of entrance to the Museum of the History of the Cattle. Cash register and text signs, written by Terika
Haapoja and Laura Gustaffson. Photograph by Noora Geagea.
3. Case one: History according to Cattle

Terike Haapoja & Laura Gustafsson
The Museum of the History of the Cattle (2013)
‘The countless realms of non-human experience outside the hermetic realm of human language were
[..] consigned to silence.’102
102
Gustafsson and Haapoja 2015: 107.
35
The following chapter is an analysis of The Museum of the History of the Cattle; a large-scale
installation by the Finish visual artist Terike Haapoja and writer Laura Gustafsson. Since it is
embedded in both theory and artistic practice, this artwork functions as a bridge between the
previously discussed theoretical framework and the analytical part of this thesis. With analyzing this
work, I discuss how artists move between the realm of research, philosophy and art, and how their
work can explore alternative worldviews.
3.1.1 Terike Haapoja

Terike Haapoja (1974) is a Finnish visual artist based in New York City. She holds a master’s degree
in visual and performance arts (Academy of Fine Arts in Finland and Theatre Academy of Finland) as
well as a doctorate in Artistic Research (Elomedia Research School; Academy of Fine Arts in
Finland). Her oeuvre can be described as an interdisciplinary art practice where the visual arts and
sciences are intertwined. In her personal artist statement Haapoja writes that ‘my work manifests
mostly in large scale installations, exhibitions and conceptual projects, sides with extensive research,
writings and publications, and [is] often realized through working with other people.’103 She states that
her exhibitions and artworks are merely ‘the tip of an iceberg of [my] artistic practice;’ the foot of the
iceberg formed by (scientific) research.104
According to Haapoja, the central topic of her artistic practice is to be found in the question of
the “other:”
‘In the time of climate crisis and deepening economic inequality it is ever more important to
investigate the structures of exclusion and abuse built into our systems of knowledge and
governance. Much of my work grow[s] out of this ethical demand: the question of the animal
in the society, our relationship to the non-human world in general, the mechanisms of
othering and more recently the question of what have we become as humans, as subjects, in a
deeply narcissistic society.’ 105
Hence, the ‘othering’ of the nonhuman is inherent to the concept of the human; a concept that needs to
be questioned and reimagined. While posthuman theory aims to challenge these concepts with
theoretical criticism, Haapoja, as a visual artist, uses art as her tool. Her interest in the other is not
only driven by political motives, but also by private factors. Politically motivated since she is moved
by the urge to create change in a time of crises; privately moved because she is ‘personally intrigued
by the strangeness and unfamiliarity of the world that surrounds us,’ a world full of others and
strangers she wishes to investigate. Per these motivations, each artwork by Haapoja becomes a space
of both ‘communication and wondering.’106
103
Haapoja in ‘Artist Statement’: online access.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
36
3.1.2 Laura Gustafsson
Laura Gustafsson (1983) is a Finish author and playwright based in Helsinki. She graduated with her
MA from the Theatre Academy in Finland. She has published three books, Huorasatu (2011; “Whore
Story”), Anomalia (2013, “Anomaly”) and Korpisoturi (2016; “Forest Warrior”). Both Huorasatu and
Anomalia were originally written as plays. Themes central to Gustafsson’s work include equality,
transgression, animals, and gender. Like Haapoja, Gustaffson finds her motivation in the political
sphere. She has a strong ‘desire to change the world,’ which is primarily motivated by animal
cruelty.107 While this topic holds a central position in all three of her publications, Gustafsson does not
aim to create propagandistic literature. An equally important motivation for Gustafsson is her personal
pursuit to ‘communicate with others,’ both human and nonhuman. She considers art her tool to
achieve this communication; to eventually create a space of imagination where empathy and
communication between nonhumans and humans can flourish. She is also moved by intrinsic
motivations: ‘it’s maybe also about sharing my fears and dreams with others, so I wouldn't have to be
alone with them.’108 Her fears mostly grow from political and environmental threats, such as climate
change and the rising of sea levels.
Both Haapoja and Gustafsson are motivated by personal and political interests. They use art as a tool
to communicate knowledge and information, simultaneously creating spaces where people can
wander and imagine different worlds. In this way, they are able to turn the marginalized into the
mainstream.109
3.2.1 The History of Others

The History of Others is a long-term art and research project that originated in 2012. In the opening
statement on the homonymous website, Haapoja and Gustafsson state that:
‘[The History of Others] focuses on the problems that arise from [the] anthropocentric world
view, and seeks[..] to open paths for more inclusive notions of society. By imagining histories
according to other species, looking at how language enables othering, or mapping out the long
history of dehumanization, History of Others brings forth questions regarding the impact of
biotechnologies, industrialization or systems of knowledge production such as museums on
the lives of humans and other animals.’110
Summarized, the project examines how our western history could be re-written with a less
anthropocentric worldview; a history that dehumanizes society and includes the history of the ‘other.’
As art historian Tom Jeffreys states: ‘it thus aims not only to point out the extent to which animals
107
As cited in private email with author, 12 June 2017.
108
Ibid.
109
Gustafsson and Haapoja in online video interview with Baltic Circle, 2015.
110
Gustafsson and Haapoja in About on online website History of Others, 2013.
37
have been excluded from the writing of history, but also begin to rewrite it from their perspective.’111
Therefore, The History of the Other visualizes the untold realities of other species. The research that is
conducted in pursuit of this reality is achieved with interviews and collaborations with professionals
from the academic fields of ethology, cognitive sciences, activism, and art and culture practitioners.
The results of this research are not manifested solely in objects, but in exhibitions, publications,
performances, interventions, and seminars as well.
Until now, the manifestation of the project has been threefold. The first part of the project is The
Museum of the History of Cattle in 2013. The second project, The Trial, originated in 2014 in Helsinki
and could be described as a participatory performance on the legal personhood of non-human animals,
with a specific focus on the wolf. The trial was based upon a real trial, in which three men were
accused of killing a wolf, a protected and sacred species in Finland. The third project is the large-scale
installation The Museum of Nonhumanity, which was created in 2016. This project follows the layout
of the first project, but focuses upon the nonhuman object in contradiction to the central position of
the nonhuman animal in The Museum of the History of the Cattle. With each project a book is
published including visual components, research, and writing by Haapoja and Gustafsson.
3.2.2 The Museum of the History of the Cattle

As previously mentioned, the Museum of the History of Cattle is the first manifestation of the ongoing
project of the History of Others. The installation, which occupies a surface of two hundred fifty
square meters, takes the form of an ethnographic museum, exhibiting the shared history between
cattle and humans. The installation is (like an ethnographic museum) constructed by displaying
objects accompanied by explanatory texts. However, in contradiction to a traditional institution such
as the museum, the installation attempts to show the history from the perspective of a nonhuman
species: the cattle. Haapoja states:
‘For thousands of years history has been written from the perspective of a small minority,
humans. Still, the world has always been shared by numerous species. For the first time in
history a non-human form of life will have their own museum, an institution that makes their
experience of this shared reality visible.’112
The emphasis in this installation thus lies upon the shared reality between the human and the animal.
In order to show the process of the shared reality between the human and the cattle, the museum is
divided into three different eras: The Time Before History, The Historical Time, and The Ahistorical
Time. These three eras denote the periods before, during, and after the historical appearance of human
civilization.
The first period, The Time Before History (image 3), defines the period before the emergence
of the human. The Auroch – the ancestor of domesticated cattle – came to life and expanded
111
Jeffreys 2014: online access.
112
Gustafsson and Haapoja 2015: 2-3.
38
throughout large areas on the planet. They lived freely and were hunted by other animals, but existed
in such large numbers that damaging their population was essentially impossible. The first room in the
museum exhibits this period and displays multiple objects, such as an example of the edible
vegetation of this period and a replica of the hooves of the Auroch (image 3 and 4).
The second period begins with the emergence of the human – contemporaneous with the
beginning of the Holocene Era – and correlates with the domestication of the Auroch. The arrival of
the human also defines the origins of the written word, leading to documentation of the past and the
creation of the concept of history. Gustafsson and Haapoja explain this the following:
‘In the early ages we lived in the world knowing it was only for us on loan. Everything
passed, and we accepted it. As we did not possess things, we did not have a word for owning.
We were poor in words for things: our vocabulary was verb-based, built from the doings of
ourselves and of our companion beings. But after joining the flow of human history there was
not much to do and the native names we knew were lost; soon we did not have a name for
who we were. In replacement we got a name given to us by the human. That name rendered
us objects, subjected to the other’s doing. Our world had been reversed: around us, everything
remained – it was we who passed on, eternally.’113
The passage from the first to the second period is henceforth defined by the transformation of the
Auroch into modern cattle, a transition that prompts the objectification of the cattle, resulting in a loss
of individualism and self-determination. In the time of this transition, the human forced the Auroch to
live side-by-side with their own new species, forcing them into a new way of living. ‘[They] shared
with humans not only their homes, but also their technology, the pursuit of the ideal body, and
ultimately, death.’114 The second period is thus designated The Historical Time since it was during
this period that the concept of history originated. Because the domestication of the Auroch made the
transition from hunter-gatherer society into an agricultural society possible, this transition is the
underlying foundation for the written word, and subsequently, history. Without the Auroch, history
would not have been possible.115
The objects shown in the second room are objects that, accompanied by text, explain how the
cattle came to live under the culture and power structure of the human being, which led to a loss of
their own culture and habits. The visitor encounters a statue of a human, accompanied by a text on
this ‘companion species,’ explaining the features and characteristics of the human (image 5). Also on
display are objects related to breeding, a technological creation by humans to design the world around
them with their subjective standards of beauty, quality, and functionality. The idea that the world and
one’s environment is controllable is unique to the human being, and this is a notion they quickly
imposed on the cattle. In this section of the exhibition, the visitor comes across objects such as the
hand of an inseminator, the outfit of the inseminator, lubricant, and the syringe that was used in the
113
114
115
39
process. On the wall, Haapoja and Gustafsson created the family tree of the Auroch, an image that
visualizes humanity’s impact upon the existence of cattle.
The third period, The Ahistorical Time, does not acknowledge the shared reality between the
cattle and the human. This period starts with the beginning of the industrial era, during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, when western society was transformed from an agricultural society into an
industrialized society. This transition was dictated by the reorganization of the economy, an economy
that is based upon manufacturing and property. The core motivations for these changes were human
idealized concepts such as progress and efficiency. Industrialization transformed cattle from a
domesticated species that lived alongside the human, into a mere source for human products, such as
milk and meat. Due to the invention of the factory, an increasing number of cattle products became
available cheaply and in huge quantities, a development which led to human expansion and the
generation of wealth beyond imagination. Here, in this period and time, all history, time, and culture
are lost. Again, I quote:
‘Stuck in the industrial process we would live in collective isolation, cut off from all relations
that could anchor us to time, history, culture. For how could we have culture, if culture was
the transforming of things into objects? How could we have history, if history was the
weaving together of times from the present moment into the past with a chain of words? We
did not even have time – the only time we had was clock-time, ticking away in unison,
counting. All we had was destiny, as unchangeable as the rotation of the sun in the sky, and
even that we did not possess before it took us.’116
The period of industrialization subsuming our contemporary society is thus defined as Ahistorical.
This period is completely dominated by the human, such that, as the Anthropocene expands, cattle are
merely acknowledged as a productive machine. This assumption means that the cattle is removed
from its own history, culture, and heritage. As text signs in the installation explain, the factory became
a space where the passing on of heritage was made impossible. The act of doing was reduced into
merely standing, a domination that made the conservation of culture impossible.
Objects on display in the third and final space are objects that are usually found in cattle
processing factories, such as yellow ear tags and iron chains (image 6, 7). All objects are placed in a
horizontal line on the wall, under which explanatory texts are placed that describe human reasoning
for the existence and uses of these objects (image 8). In this way, the objects visualize the correlation
between the ahistorical existence of the cattle and the neoliberal system of this Ahistorical period, a
system in which concepts such as the standardization of work, mass production, and the consumer
play a central role. Besides this, developments such as the Occupy Movement, surplus value, waste,
and slavery are mentioned.
116
40
***
Looking thoroughly at the work of Haapoja and Gustafsson, their collaboration and artistic practice
stand out clearly. Departing from two different backgrounds, the visual arts and linguistics, they bring
together two different disciplines in their work and move in-between the two different mediums.
Gustafsson seems to have been responsible for the creation of the textual parts, whilst Haapoja seems
to have focused upon the visual and curating aspects. Besides their close collaboration, they have
reached out to scientists and scholars to collect data and information on the history, behavior and role
of the cattle in our western society. As Smits argues in her discussed article Moedership Aarde,
Haapoja and Gustafsson act in line with the current tendency wherein artists dedicate their work to
‘artistic research’, collaborating with people from other disciplines and moving both in the sciences
and cultural field. The Museum of the History of the Cattle does not illustrate their research progress
specifically, but is clearly a product of a cross-disciplinary approach on the history of the cattle. By
using this artistic approach, Haapoja and Gustafsson both stretch the boundaries of both art and the
artist, a notion that seems to be the core characteristic of art in the Anthropocene.
Moving to the installation itself, it becomes clear that The Museum of the History of the Cattle
aims to illustrate the narrative of the ascension of the human, and how this development corresponds
to the repression of the nonhuman animal. Not only does the installation visualize the dominant
behavior of the human, it also poignantly demonstrates how the flourishing wealth of the human in
modern society has been strongly dependent upon the existence of the cattle. Grouping the exhibition
in three different time periods, Haapoja and Gustafsson create a chronological narrative that illustrates
how this dominant-based society came into being. Walking from the first to the second section, the
visitor for example moves from a period wherein the cattle was an autonomous organism into a period
wherein the cattle started to be completely controlled by the human being. By telling the story of the
cattle through the eyes of the cattle itself, Haapoja and Gustafsson create a non- anthropocentric
history, simultaneously criticizing the anthropocentric worldview of the western society. In line with
Wolfe’s arguments in What is Posthumanism?, Haapoja and Gustafsson show that the objectifying of
the cattle has only led to a flourishing wealth for humanity, since it correlates to oppression,
dominance and violent behavior towards the nonhuman. The visitor is therefore invited to rethink the
historical narrative, and places its focus upon the nonhuman animal, instead of on the human
presence.
The notion of history also brings us to the theory of Fudge found in Animal. The installation of
Haapoja and Gustafsson does not treat the cattle as the ‘Other’ – a faceless and uniform organism that
does not possesses any power – but rather as actors, as organisms that move as subjects through this
world and are able to act, change and put others into movement. Instead of writing history with
humans as the acting subjects, Haapoja and Gustafsson re-write our history, placing the cattle in this
exact position. It therefore becomes clear that the cattle is not only moved by the human, but also
41
moves the human. Whilst the cattle might not be aware of their significant role in human history, they
do act as subjects containing agency, a position they regain in The Museum of the History of the
Cattle. In their installation, Haapoja and Gustafsson hence amplify Fudge’s plea in Animal that it is
time to rethink our relationship with animals, so they can be experienced not as mere mirrors that
reflect humanity, but as animals. As Haapoja herself states: ‘[..] exclusion is always lurking in the
shadows of democracy. We are forced to recognize the agency of nonhuman life.’117
The installation of Haapoja and Gustafsson thus provides information of the life of the cattle
outside the normative, human-dominated, anthropocentric society. But because human language is
used to speak for others, this inherently denotes a power structure. How then, does the severe input of
language in this work relate to their criticism on the anthropocentric society? It must firstly be
amplified that Haapoja and Gustafsson acknowledge this paradox and do not claim that their version
of the history of the cattle is the exact way the cattle had experienced their lives. They do not pretend
to speak the truth, but rather ‘attempt to imagine and give shape to the space that lacks their voice, the
space from which they, even now, witness our world.’118 In order to call attention to the exclusive
forces that are inherent to human-centered history, Haapoja and Gustafsson need to use the language
of the organisms that are held responsible for the anthropocentric worldview: the human. However, by
using language as if the cattle spoke for themselves, the duo thus invite the visitor into an experience
wherein not they, but the others dominate.
The idea of art as an experience is a recurring notion when discussing Art in the
Anthropocene. Like Davis and Turpin argue in Art in the Anthropocene, living in the Anthropocene
is a mere sensorial phenomenon, meaning that art in this era is not just encountered as rational, but
rater experienced with all senses. Haapoja and Gustafsson seem to have departed from this notion,
believing that experiencing is also a way to understand, gain knowledge or be stimulated to think
differently. As Smits illustrates in Moedership Aarde, art in the Anthropocene create a space where
the artist no longer fulfills the role of a storyteller, but rather invites the visitor to live with other
entities, leaving them to tell their own story. The Museum of the History of the Other therefore seems
to welcome the visitor into an experience where they can rethink and redefine their history, their
position within the world and their behavior towards the cattle.
It has been shown by the discussed authors in chapter 2 that a non-anthropocentric worldview
goes hand in hand with a stretch and blurring of conventional boundaries. As I argued previously,
Haapoja and Gustafsson move beyond the boundaries of art by working across- and between
disciplines. Besides this, Haapoja and Gustafsson also consciously address the anthropocentric
worldview that forms the foundation of the museum as an institution. They do this by reinventing the
traditional ethnographic museum as a non-anthropocentric institution. They state: ‘[…] subversively
117
Haapoja in online video clip from Creative Time, 2016.
118
Gustafsson and Haapoja in ‘Introduction: How to write the history according to cattle’ on website History of Others,
2013.
42
borrowing the conventions of traditional museums of cultural history, [our installation] questions
existing codes of recording history and their inherent anthropocentric bias.’119 Likewise, Haapoja and
Gustafsson deliberately create their installation outside the literal borders of a museum, making it a
temporal and movable exhibition. The Museum of the History of the Cattle is therefore not only an
attack upon the anthropocentric line of thought that dictates our western society, it also attacks the
conventional uses in art by stretching the borders of existing institutions, literally and figuratively.
3.3 Conclusion
Whilst Haapoja and Gustafsson do not claim that their installation is a truthful one or should be
considered the new way of illustrating history, their installation questions conventional boundaries
and invites the visitor to think and search for what lies beyond the borders that have defined their
thinking. Their work cannot only be described as artistic research, but also sincerely searches and
examines new ways of narrating history that do include the nonhuman animal. It proposes new forms
of time, history and culture, concepts that are normatively dominated by the human but now seems to
be dictated by the cattle itself. Therefore, their work can be understood as an experiment rather than a
complete proposal for a museum in the Anthropocene, communicating posthuman theory to a larger
audience. The most important role of the installation is that it invites viewers to imagine and think
beyond the human-centered self-image, encouraging to experience the nonhuman animal as an animal,
not just as a lesser version of human beings. Acknowledging the deeply rooted humanist strain of
thought, Haapoja and Gustafsson show how imagination is one of the first steps to create a more
balanced, faithful and ethical worldview.
119
43
Images
Image 3. Terika Haapoja and Laura Gustafsson. The Museum of the History of the Cattle. 2013. Two hundred
fifty m2. Installation, objects, text signs, photographs and plants. Courtesy of the artists. Photograph by Noora
Geagea.
Overview of the first area ‘The Time before History’. On the left vegetation from the indigenous grazing
Auroch, accompanied on the right by a photograph of their environment. In the glass case in the middle, replicas
of Ancient Auroch hoof, six hundred-twenty-seven years ago.
Image 4. Terika Haapoja and Laura Gustaffson. The Museum of the History of the Cattle. 2013. Two hundred
Geagea.
Detail of a replica of ancient Auroch hoof, prints in clay.
44
Geagea.
Companion species, such as the human, accompanied by a text on the homo sapiens.
Geagea.
Wall in the last space The Ahistorical Time. Objects accompanied with explanatory texts on the human
reasoning on these objects.
45
Geagea.
Detail of ear tags, used for cattle. Shown in the part ‘The Ashistorical Time’.
Geagea.
Example of a text sign in the space ‘The Ahistorical Time’, on ‘mass production’.
46
Image 9. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Animals, plants, objects and minerals. Dimensions variable. Courtesy
of the artist, Marian Goodman, New York/Paris and Esther Schipper, Berlin. Photograph: Pierre Huyghe.
4. Case two: A non-human centered exhibition

Pierre Huyghes
Untilled (2012)
‘[..] the purpose of art is that it increases the prisons of what is.’120
120
47
The following chapter comprehends an analysis of Untilled, a site specific ‘work’ that Pierre Huyghe
created for the dOCUMENTA(13)at the Karlsaue Park compost facility in Kassel in 2012. This work
is relevant to discuss here since it creates a site where no longer humans but nonhumans have the
leading role. It treats questions on the agency of nonhuman animals, the tenability of the dichotomized
nature-culture relationship and what it means for the artistic practice when this dividing line becomes
unclear.
4.1 Pierre Huyghe

Pierre Huyghe (1962) is a French artist currently based in both Paris and New York. He graduated
from the École Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs in Paris. Huyghe’s artistic practice is
multivalent and not limited to a single medium. His work comprises a variety of media such as film,
photography, installation, sculpture, drawing and living systems.121 With his projects, Huyghe aims to
broaden the definition of contemporary art and he consistently creates work outside the structures of
the museum and the gallery. He considers his project rather “situations” than finished artworks and
ventures into unexplored territories by collaborating with experts from different fields, such as
science, literature, philosophy, archaeology and history.122 With a focus on both research and artistic
practice, Huyghe fulfills the role of an “artiste-chercheur”; an artist that consistently searches to
deepen his knowledge regarding broader issues.123 In line with his broad approach on contemporary
art, Huyghe does not specify his artworks and avoids terminology used in institutional art practices,
such as “work” and “exhibition”.124 However for the purpose of clarity I will hold onto this
terminology.
Huyghe often creates site-specific manipulated ecosystems. These systems develop in real
time according to loosely delineated conditions set up by Huyghe and are exhibited through
installation, performance and film. These projects integrate installation, performance and film.
Untilled (2011-2012) is the most well-known example where Huyghe used living systems, but the
project is not singular and rather represents a continuation of Huyghe’s research into ecosystems. In
2001, although unrealized, Huyghe designed the concept of a theme park for the Compagnie des Indes
Spice Museum. The design incorporated both vegetal and architectural elements to present a park that,
according to Huyghe, ‘provides an account of the colonizing energies and the geographical
propagation of the Compagnie des Indes.’125 Seven years later Huyghe explored the relation between
ecology and architecture further in A Forest of Lines. This project transformed the concert hall of the
Sydney Opera House into a fog-filled arboretum for the period of twenty-four hours. In 2010 Huyghe
continued to explore plant-based systems taking over the gardening duties at Madrid’s Crystal Palace
121
Rafael 2013: 12, Nathan 2013: online access.
122
Baudin 2014: 5.
123
Ibid.
124
Rafael 2013: 12.
125
Lavigne 2014: 94.
48
for the Reina Sofia in his project La Saison des fêtes (The Season of Festivities). He planted a huge
variety of plants that are associated with festivities and celebrations around the world. Between 2014-
2015 Huyghe received wider recognition with a travelling retrospective that was exhibited in multiple
cities, including Paris and Los Angeles.126
4.2 Untilled
Untilled is a site-specific ‘situation’ installed on the compost heap in the Karlsaue park in Kassel, a
regular location for dOCUMENTA.127 Huyghe creates the conditions for a garden on this specific site
by bringing together a diverse selection of inanimate elements and living organisms. In this way,
Huyghe ‘situates’ the site for the garden’s natural expansion without his interference. The title
‘Untilled’ refers to land that is left uncultivated, a term that accurately captures the project since the
site appears to be neglected, like an overgrown lot.128
The garden reveals itself once a visitor enters the compost facility, a location that is quite
hidden in the park and not easy to find. Within the ‘situated’ garden, Huyghe places inanimate objects
besides the animate organisms. For example, in the corner of the garden the visitor encounters a stack
of concrete slabs. The stack is surrounded by pieces of broken asphalt, piles of dirt and cobblestones.
This part of the garden is described as “the city” (image 10). Other inanimate objects Huyghe spreads
out on the grounds of Untilled are intended as “markers”. These objects derive from various points in
history and mark certain developments from the history of dOCUMENTA. For instance, a nearly two-
meter-long concrete bench, lying on its side with a painted top magenta surface (image 11), is a
reference to the artwork by Dominique Gonzales-Foerster Park: A Plan for Escape that was shown at
dOCUMENTA 11 in 2002. A little further, one confronts a female nude sculpture whose head is
covered with a beehive. The nude is a replica of a sculpture from the 1930s by the German artist Max
Weber (image 12). The bees pollinate the plants that are planted in the garden, which are specifically
chosen based on the effects that they have on the human body: medicinal, aphrodisiac, or mind-
altering, such as the well-known soft drugs marihuana (image 13).129 Besides these markers, Huyghe
places a dead and uprooted oak that recalled the 7,000 oaks trees that were planted by Joseph Beuys in
1982 for dOCUMENTA 7 (7000 Eichen). An anthill is placed near the foot of the oak tree. The ants
disperse the seeds of plants that surrounded the tree, a process which is called myrmecochory.
In addition to bees and ants, other animals are present in the garden. The most striking are two
dogs that live in the garden during the entire exhibition. The first, a female albino Podenco Canario –
a breed that originates from the Canary Islands – has her right front leg painted magenta and is named
126
Pierre Huyghe, LACMA, Los Angeles (2015); Pierre Huyghe, Museum Ludwig, Cologne (2014); Pierre Huyghe, Centre
Pompidou, Paris (2013).
127
dOCUMENTA is one of the leading exhibitions on contemporary art in Kassel since 1955. It recurs every five years.
128
Drucks 2013: online access.
129
Rafael 2013: 14-15.
49
Human (image 9). The second dog is a small brown puppy, a dachshund named Señor.130 Both dogs
are not afraid of the human visitors and do not seem to mind their presence. Besides all animal
entities, a young man is present almost daily in the garden, taking care of the dogs, plants and bees.
Even though Untilled is site-specific and created specifically for dOCUMENTA (13), the
project is not to be seen as part of the curatorial vision of curator Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev.
Without simplifying its theoretical basis dOCUMENTA (13) can be centered around the
philosophical question: ‘do not only humans, but also things think and act?’131 Whilst Huyghe’s work
seems to exemplify this theme, Huyghe states that he was already developing ideas for a project such
as Untilled, and that ‘the frame of dOCUMENTA (13)’ merely allowed it to occur.132 Huyghe had
been interested for a while in creating a situation which would allow him to examine the conditions
under which a variety of entities can appear, flourish or exist.133
With Untilled, Huyghe finds the possibility to pursue this aim. He creates the conditions for
the garden’s development, and thereafter chooses not to control its expansion. Huyghe explains:
‘Some things are decided beforehand – but then I let them unfold in their way. I still control certain
conditions but not the growth, not the way things unfold and develop and evolve.’134 Huyghe
considers himself not primarily as the creator of the situation, but merely as a ‘witness of these
accidents.’135 Untilled is hence not primarily created to be experienced by the visitor, but is rather
created in the name of research. Leaving the garden uncontrolled, Huyghe creates a space that exists
both recomposing and decomposing. Developments he consciously leaves to happen on their own
terms.
As stated previously, Huyghe incorporated natural elements in his artworks prior to the
creation of Untilled. Many of these works are subject to change due to the use of variable elements
and uncontrollable aspects.136 In Untilled however, Huyghe also makes use of elements in the park
that were already present, including the compost pile, some species of plants and a few tadpoles.
Entering the site of Untilled, it is not completely clear what exact elements are designed or introduced
and which elements preexist to the situation.137 Some clarity is provided by a small and quite abstract
map found in the short guide which shows how Huyghe imagined the construction of the garden and
outlined the design process (image 14). How the garden has evolved when the visitor enters, is
therefore yet unknown for both the visitor as Huyghe himself.
130
The literature sets out the sex of Human, but does not pay attention to the sex of Señor which is therefore not mentioned.
131
Steven Henry Madoff as quoted by Zeveloff 2012: online access.
132
Goodden 2012: online access.
133
Ibid.
134
Nathan 2015: online access.
135
Goodden 2012: online access.
136
137
Hantelmann 2017: 91-92.
50
***
In what way does Untilled reflect or respond to the Anthropocene? When answering this question, the
first issue/problem is one of man versus nature, or nature versus culture. While the animate elements
suggest that the visitor enters a ‘natural realm’, following Latour’s line of thought, the inanimate
objects show that the space is also partly artificial. Huyghe confuses the situation further by placing
animate organisms in such a way that they seem constructed. Posing such questions as: “what parts
are ‘natural’ and which are ‘cultural’?” and “which elements have been placed by the artist and which
were preexisting?” Leaving these questions unanswered, Untilled becomes a paradoxical space where
the realms of nature and culture are woven into each other and their divisionary boundary becomes
blurry.
This paradox is also present in the word ‘garden’. A garden incorporates, most of the time,
both animate and inanimate materials. Likewise to the elements present on the site of Untilled,
elements ordinary to gardens include plants, trees, dogs, but also benches, sculptures and humans.
Since inanimate objects are however subservient to the natural elements in gardens, a garden at first
sight belongs to the realm of nature. Nonetheless, a garden is a planned and cultivated natural space,
created both by and for humans. Following Latour’s mode of thought, this means we can understand
the garden as a hybrid – an entity that belongs to both realms and hence blurs the divisionary
boundaries as set by humanist philosophy. By seemingly belonging to both realm, Untilled henceforth
attacks the boundary as questions the meaning of the two realms. Because is a cultivated natural space
not natural? Does human intervening means that natural spaces merely belong to the cultural realm,
and only untouched and ‘wild nature’ to that of the natural one. Untilled becomes a space that invites
the visitor to rethink the concepts of both nature and culture, an invitation that shows how both nature
and art question one and other.
The paradox within the site of Untilled, thus becomes visible by the obvious use of both
inanimate and animate objects and the uncertainty which elements are, and which are not, created by
humans. On closer inspection, the work’s title supports this paradox. ‘Untilled’, meaning uncultivated
land, suggests that the site already existed prior to the arrival of the visitor of dOCUMENTA.
Nevertheless, the site of Untilled is indeed cultivated, something that does become clear by reading
this title since it clearly plays with the concept of the ‘Untitled work.’ As a familiar feature in the arts,
this pun influences the visitors experience of the work by indicating that the approached site is an
artwork – meaning that the visitor will thus approach the site as an artwork and not as any other part
of the park. Again, this paradoxical title questions the culture-nature relationship. Yet, since puns
strongly relate themselves to language, the title also poses important questions as: how are we
supposed to call an artwork, or site, such as Untilled? Does our humanist based language knows a
word for such a hybrid place? Whilst the reference to ‘untitled’ identifies the ‘art’ aspect, it also
51
shows that the human language fails to name such a situation and simultaneously emphasizes our need
to name the world around us.
In line with the posthuman philosophy, Untilled becomes a site that focuses upon the
nonhuman entity while leaving it to control its own existence and development. Even though Huyghe
constructs the conditions for these entities to live, he deliberately abdicates any form of control. By
letting the organisms live on their own terms, Huyghe shifts the focus from the Anthropos to the
nonhuman, creating a place where they can exist as subjects. All living entities, including animals,
plants and bacteria, have the ability to move independently from any relation to the human. They
move without a script but seem to develop one by doing, dictating the condition of the garden and
transforming the space of Untilled in one of becoming.138 The refocus upon the object and its agency
show the posthuman notion that nonhuman entities can indeed exist without the human gaze.
Following Fudge’s argumentation, Untilled is hence a sphere where the nonhuman is appreciated on
its own and not solely because it reflects something else. The animals in Untilled are therefore, as
Wolfe argues, not to be described as a “mini versions” of the human, but rather as independent and
autonomous organisms.
Focusing on the animals in Untilled, it becomes clear that they are not, in contradiction to the
artworks discussed in chapter 3 and 5, the primary importance of the artwork. Huyghe focuses upon
creating an entire ecosystem, where no hierarchy is suggested or seems to exist between the different
elements. The nonhuman animals in Untilled are part of this system and therefore take in the same
position as other nonhuman entities, such as the plants and trees. Yet, this does not mean that all
animals fulfill the same role in the artwork. A primary function is fulfilled by the bees, ants and
bacteria. These animals are mostly not domesticated and exist in both rural and urban environments
where they play an important role in the conservation of a healthy ecosystem. In Untilled their
movements also have effects on visual aspects in the garden, such as the role ants have in the
pollination of flowers or the procreation of the bees that lead to a growing head of the nude sculpture.
Again, this shows the perhaps not central but powerful role animals play in the creation of this
artwork.
The independence of the flourishing growth shown in Untilled is also noticeable when we
look at the organized and efficient manner animals live – particularly as humanity has been failing to
do so. For example, the beehive around the head of the human nude can only grow and function when
all the bees stick to their role. It therefore shows non-human forms of intelligence and seems to
suggest we can learn from the animal realm, one where every bee works together in contradiction to a
modern society that centers on the autonomous and independent subject. At the same time, the present
of the bees on the human nude seem to suggest a comparison between humans and bees, namely the
one that humans are not autonomous and individuals, but are, like bees, part of a system and are thus
138
Hantelmann 2017: 93.
52
defined by the relations they have with others in this system – such as Wolfe states by using the
theory of Luhmann.
In contrast are the two dogs which do not seem to have a specific function. Given the fact that
they are fed daily by a young man, it can be concluded that their presence is not crucial for the
existence of the ecosystem. So why are they present on the site of Untilled? Dogs are, as
aforementioned, familiar entities in gardens and parks. Not, however, in artworks. The painted leg of
the white dog, Human, undermines this unfamiliarity. The application of the magenta paint visualizes
the artistic intervention in her appearance and amplifies the idea that she is not just accidently in the
site of Untilled but belongs to the site as an artwork. Since neither Huyghe or any other critic has
elaborated on this aspect, the precise function of the paint is unclear. However, the choice of color is
striking. On the color wheel, magenta is the complementary color of green, a color that in our culture
is strongly linked to ‘nature’.139 The magenta color therefore opposes the natural sphere while
emphasizing the presence of ‘culture.’ However, the artistic intervention in the Human’s existence
does not lead to objectifying her. Through her indifference to any human presence it becomes clear
that the paint does not mean anything to Human and does not lead to an idea of hierarchy. Whilst the
magenta paint might amplify the culture versus nature relationship, Human’s behavior shows how she
is indeed a subject dictating her own development.
Proceeding with the dogs, the name of the white dog Human stands out. The choice of the
name seems, again, paradoxical. According to the humanist and modern mode of thought, it can be
argued that the name does not correspond to its holder and is even contradicting. But by naming the
dog Human and letting her subsequently live and dictate her own terms, Huyghe shows the
posthuman idea of the animal as a nonhuman animal. Since Human acts on her own, her presence
shows that humans and animals do not differ so strongly as is thought when moving in space. This
resemblance in combination with the visual presence that Human is part of a work of art then brings
up the question if Human can also be seen as a performer. Is this role only possible when being a
human? Is awareness of this role a condition for being a performer? Although such questions deserve
to be researched within a different thesis, it if of importance to realize that Huyghe in this way plays
with the anthropocentric notion of performing and performances and henceforth questions their
tenability.
Anew, Untilled corresponds to the posthuman philosophy and questions the anthropocentric
worldview. Departing from this latter claim, it is worth to look more closely at what this means for
Huyghe’s artist practice. Untilled is not an obvious artwork. It consists out of multiple objects that are
widely spread in space and on first sight seem to belong to the park itself. The fact that the site is
139
Magenta is a primary color in the subtractive color system that is used to create paint or prints. Other primary colors in
this system are cyan and yellow. In the additive color system that mixes colors of light that reach a broad range of colors,
mainly used in for example television, magenta is a secondary color. Primary colors in this case are red, blue and green. In
both systems magenta is complementary to green and lies in between red and blue on the color wheel.
53
however designed by Huyghe and that he is thus responsible for the placements and ordering of the
entities , resembles the idea of an exhibition. Untilled is however, in contradiction to convention, not
based upon inanimate objects, but rather centers the animate objects. Their existence not depends
upon the gaze of the viewer and thus question the importance of the visitor in defining their being as
part of an artwork. Following Bourriaud, Untilled therefore does not intend to present something to
someone, but rather exists in order to present someone to something. Choosing not to show Untilled
within the frame of a narrative gives Huyghe the possibility to examine the entities on their own,
leaving them to dictate the experience of the viewer, and not, as more conventional thinking on art
would state, the artist.140
Untilled becomes a space where artistic control is lost and the viewer is not guided in his or
her experience, but rather left alone with the object. The conventional exhibition, based upon the idea
of correlationism as described by Bourriaud, is attacked by Huyghe’s artwork. He shows that objects
can exist without thinking, can flourish and develop without the gaze of the human. However, this
rethinking of the human-nature relationship was only possible since Untilled is a work of art. Since
people encounter Untilled as a work of art, as the +1 Bourriaud poignantly states, they have the need
to explain and examine the existence of the site. Because of this urge, the work of Huyghe becomes a
place where modern concepts can be rethought and redefined, making it possible to widen the concept
of art and exhibition away from anthropocentric ideas. Whilst Huyghe attacks the modern boundaries
between human-animal, nature and culture, his biggest focus is upon changing the concepts that are
inherent to art: the modern modes of exhibiting might no longer be tenable in the Anthropocene.
4.3 Conclusion
Untilled is a space where all organisms affect each other and the visitor is able to experience a non-
anthropocentric worldview whereby the nonhuman shares our world, and is not, as humanism
dictates, solely part of our world.141 Since Huyghe does not create the work under the umbrella of a
meta-narrative, the visitor is rather left with more questions regarding the nature-culture/human-
animal relationship, than clear answers. With Untilled Huyghe thus constructs a situation where the
human can think and rethink his position and his existence, a space where one can wonder and
discover. As Achim Drucks elegantly explains in Art Magazine:
‘This [Untilled] is a place whose extremely fertile soil not only nourishes plants, but also
ideas, associations, and feelings. Watching the bees, the dogs playing, or in talking to other
visitors, one can ponder the difference between life and art, the perception of animals and of
humans. Or contemplate whether life and society can’t be organized differently. With
Untilled, Huyghe has created a biotope that can change our perception – even without
partaking of psychotropic substances.’142
140
141
Lavigne 2014: 5.
142
Drucks 2012: online access.
54
The ideas that are explored in Untilled lead to questions regarding the concept of art and the existing
mode of the exhibition.143 By designing an ecosystem in the name of art, Huyghe chooses to work
outside the set boundaries of nature and culture, and pushes these lines beyond their defined limits. As
in his artistic practice, Huyghe successfully broadens the concept of contemporary art. Knowledge in
Untilled is not dictated by the human, but rather by the objects, animals and other living entities. With
this, Huyghe pulls the contemporary art world away from its anthropocentric worldview and leads it
to a more object-oriented world.
143
Hantelman 2017: 94.
55
Images
Image 10. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Animals, objects, plants and minerals. Courtesy of the artist, Marian
Goodman Gallery, New York/Paris, Esther Schipper, Berlin. Photograph: Nils Klinger.
“The City”
The nearly two-meter-long concrete bench with a painted top magenta surface. Reference to the artwork by
Dominique Gonzales-Foerster Park: A Plan for Escape that was shown at dOCUMENTA 11 in 2002.
56
Goodman Gallery, New York/Paris, Esther Schipper, Berlin. Photograph: Unknown.
Female nude sculpture with beehive, replica of sculpture from the 1930s by the German artist Max Weber. On
the right: Human.
Selection of plants in Untilled, that have effect on the human body.
57
Image 14. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Drawing, published in The Guidebook by Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev
[edit.] Photograph: Bibi Scholten van Aschat.
58
Image 15. Thomas Thwaites. GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being Human. 2016. Research, Design,
Performance. Courtesy of the artist. Photograph: Tim Bowditch.
5. Case three: Becoming a non-human animal

Thomas Thwaites
GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human (2016)
‘It’s important to remember every now and again that we are animals. It helps us to think ourselves
away from some of the more crazy aspects of our society and humanity. Being an animal would help
us remember that there is no manifest destiny to the human species – we are just among all these other
creatures.’144
144
Thwaites in Barkham 2016: online access.
59
This chapter is the third and final chapter of the analytical part of this thesis. It comprises an analysis
of the work of Thomas Thwaites GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human (2016).
Having discussed two artworks that can be described as visual art, I find it important to lastly discuss
an artist who works in the fields of design. The work of Thwaites then forms a relevant case study,
since within his artistic practice he incorporates other disciplines such as visual art, philosophy and
(academic) research and thus explores the borders and meaning of these fields. Thwaites’ project
besides that examines the embodied relationship between humans and animals and shows how non-
theoretical art can contribute to the understanding what it means to live in the Anthropocene.
5.1 Thomas Thwaites

Thomas Thwaites (1980) studied Human Sciences at University College London, completed his
masters in Design Interactions at the Royal College of Art and currently lives and works in London.
He considers himself a designer who works on the fringes of design, a position that led to an oeuvre
that is a mix between design, research and performance.145 His work cuts across academic disciplines
such as philosophy, neuro-sciences, biology and chemistry. In pursuit of understanding the world
around him, he approaches certain aspects in an original way that gained him attention under a broad
audience.146 Thwaites uses humor and lightness in his oeuvre and does not necessarily work in a very
detailed manner. Each artwork or design object Thwaites creates, serves as a materialization of a
specific research project that is mostly documented both with text and photography.
Thwaites’s most well-known project, apart from GoatMan, is The Toaster Project (2013). As
the title suggests, Thwaites tried to create a toaster from scratch. He mined the iron himself and even
created, or tried to create, the plastic on his own. Even though no bread could be toasted with the final
product, the project could be designated successful. Thwaites poignantly visualized how a simple
object as a toaster is produced. With this demonstration, Thwaites simultaneously catalogued the
environmental devastation that is caused by the production of this common appliance.147 In a quite
subtle and funny way, Thwaites managed to draw people’s attention to a more serious subject, such as
the devastating influence of consumerism. An object was used in order to narrate and visualize a
specific story.
5.2 The GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human

The second biggest project for Thwaites, GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human, is
both a theoretical and a practical research. In this project, Thwaites researches how to take time off
from being a human. To pursue this aim, Thwaites attempts to transform into a goat. The final goal of
the project is to live among a herd of goats for three days and subsequently cross the alps in the same
time frame as an individual goat. The entire project is, as previously explained, documented in a book
145
Thwaites 2016: 203.
146
Thwaites 2016: 203.
147
Rothman 2016: 70.
60
with the same title as the project. This book consists of an elaboration by Thwaites on how his project
came into being, a summary of his theoretical research and a reflection of his time as a goat. The text
is accompanied by beautiful photos by photographer Tim Bowditch that eloquently capture the
project.
In the introduction of the book, Thwaites explains how the idea for the project starts when he is
dog sitting his niece’s dog. Feeling worried and stressed about his life, due to issues such as money,
relationships, his semi-employment and more universal issues regarding the environment and
terrorism, Thwaites imagines how it will be to take a holiday from being a human. After spending
time with the dog, he concludes that the relaxed attitude of the dog must mean that he does not mull or
undergoes any worries. Thwaites has a longing to escape the existential worry of being a human and
searches for a way to gain the qualities he envies in the dog and that he wants to recapture in his own
life. He describes it in the following citation:
‘Wouldn’t it be nice to just switch off that particularly human ability for a couple of weeks?
To live totally in the moment, with no worries about what you’ve done, what you’re doing, or
what you should do? […] To have a holiday from being a human? […] Absorbed in your
immediate surroundings, eating a bit of grass, sleeping on the ground, and that’s it? Galloping
across the landscape: free! Wouldn’t it be nice to be an animal just for a bit?148
This quote accurately sets out the non-theoretical motivation for this project and demonstrates how
Thwaites approaches the concept of both ‘human’ and ‘animal’. Thwaites seems to appreciate the
‘animal’ due to a lack of human qualities, such as worry and the thinking ahead. He, naively perhaps,
presumes the life of the dog to be like a ‘holiday’, a space and time where humans normally escape
their busy lives and daily troubles.
This idea is only the starting of the project. It is remarkable that Thwaites’s project focuses upon
becoming a goat by wanting to physically become an animal. In the initial phase of the project
Thwaites plans on transforming into an elephant and to live among its kind. He thinks the physical
structure of an elephant to match the physical structure of a human due to the fact that both organisms
have short necks. The knowledge that elephants mourn about their lost ones and are therefore
understood as emphatic mammals, nonetheless changes his mind.149 In his book he concludes: ‘they
are almost, I think, too human.’150 Thwaites is hereafter looking for a smaller less intelligent animal –
an animal whose mental life will be simpler and more untroubled than his own.151 With the visit to a
shaman, Thwaites seeks advice on which animal to become, and how he shall execute this research.
The shaman endorses Thwaites to become an animal that lives more closely in his own environment.
148
Thwaites 2016: 15.
149
Thwaites 2016: 21-25.
150
Thwaites 2016: 25.
151
Rothman 2016: 70.
61
Hence, Thwaites decides to become a goat, since these animals are present in the British landscape
and live even in, or closely to, the city of London.152
In order to metamorphose himself into a goat, Thwaites aims at imitating the embodied
experience of a goat. In order to reach this experience, Thwaites creates a goat exoskeleton. Since
humans move as a biped, a strong exoskeleton is needed to walk and jump as a quadruped. After
many try-outs, he nonetheless realizes that designing and building a functional, realistic imitation of a
goat skeleton is more difficult than he imagined (image 17). This leads him to outsource the practical
side of the project by letting experts build his prosthesis (image 18).153 It however turns out to be
impossible to lengthen Thwaites’s neck in any way, an extension that allows goats to eat whilst
standing. Aiming to eat like a goat also leads to a more severe difficulty. The body of a goat is built to
eat and digest grass, but the body of a human cannot digest this food resource. Goats have four
different stomachs and a rumen – a special form of a stomach that contains a specific mix of bacteria’s
and acid in order to digest grass. The content of the rumen is still unknown to humans and therefore
recognized as dangerous to ingest as a human. To solve the eating issue, Thwaites designs an artificial
rumen that he wears around his neck and which serves to maintain all the grass he eats and
subsequently spits out. During his time ‘as a goat’, Thwaites cooks the chewed grass during the night
time in a pressure cooker so he can safely drink and digest it (image 19).154
Not only does Thwaites aims to embody a goat, he also wants to understand the mental
perspective of a goat in order to genuinely transform himself into one. As a means of gaining
knowledge on the social and emotional behavior of goats, Thwaites seeks advice from multiple
experts. Completely understanding goats on a social level turns out slightly too complicated. As Dr.
Alan McElligot explains to Thwaites, determining social behavior under animals is severely difficult
since it is impossible to read their minds or simply ask them. 155 This difficulty leads for example to
anthropomorphic assumptions in goat behavior – such as the idea that goats are ‘happy’ when they
jump around. Whilst this seems plausible, the assumption has not yet been proven. The idea that
animals are stress-free is therefore a non-proven presumption and should not simply be assumed by
humans. What has been proven though by scholars such as Dr. Alan McElligot, is that goats do not
contain the ability to develop language and are secondarily not capable of imagining future scenarios.
Thwaites wonders: ‘If I could induce virtual lesions in the parts of my brain that differ between me
and a goat, the parts that are responsible for imagining scenarios and using language, would I then be
able to truly experience what it’s like to be a goat?’156 Thwaites visits a neuroscientist, but completely
turning off specific parts of the brain without severe brain damage, turns out to be – again –
152
Thwaites 2016: 26-34.
153
Thwaites 2016: 86-121.
154
Thwaites 2016: 124-139.
155
Dr. Alan McElligot is a British researcher and associated professor in Animal Behaviour, Dept of Life Sciences at the
University of Roehampton (UK). He specializes in social behaviour among life stock with a current focus upon domestic
goats.
156
Thwaites 2016: 75.
62
impossible. This leads Thwaites to just simply use the exoskeleton and artificial rumen and live with
the herd (image 19).
The days Thwaites spends as a goat are physically and mentally exhausting. Whilst the herd does
accept his presence, they do not include him in their social order or fully acknowledge him as a goat.
Crossing the Alps alone is difficult and hard. When back in London, Thwaites describes he feels
‘thankful for being a human and appreciated his life so much more’.157 The human-animal relation
invites to look more thoroughly into this project. As the shaman asks Thwaites during his visit: ‘you
have to decide if your project is […] about trying to make a costume, or is the most important thing
trying to find a way for people to feel that kinship to bridge the gap, to feel like an animal?158
***
Starting an analysis of The GoatMan project, it firstly of importance to look more closely at
Thwaites’s motivation for the project. The motive for the project is found in Thwaites’s longing to
escape being human for a while, a longing he tries to fulfill by transforming into an animal. The
concept of the animal is approached as an organism that lacks negative human emotions and is seen as
an organism that is on a constant holiday. I argue that this argumentation is anthropocentric and based
upon the humanist philosophy. Namely, it is only with his imagination that Thwaites ascribes these
emotions to the animal. He does not possess any knowledge on the mental or physical state of animals
under certain circumstances. Considering the uncertain aspects in the life of an animal, such as the
search for food, water, shelter and perpetrators, it seems peculiar that these aspects correspond to
Thwaites’ idea of a holiday.
Likewise, the correlation between the animal and the concept of freedom is unfounded. It has not
been proven that animals experience a sense of freedom or value this concept in the same way humans
do. Even though Thwaites looks into a goat’s perspective by consulting a scholar, he disregards the
fact that understanding another being is impossible with just one short talk with a specialist. Thwaites’
longing to be an animal is hence solely founded upon an anthropocentric and humanist presumption.
In line with the theory of Fudge, Thwaites places the animal at the center of his project where it can
mirror the longings and ideas of humanity. The goat, in this case, is not appreciated on its own, but
only since it seems worriless and free.
Thwaites approaches the human-animal relationship in the GoatMan project from a humanist
perspective. This claim is underlined with Thwaite’s decision to transform specifically into a goat.
Goats are domesticated animals and serve mainly to feed humans. The idea of finding freedom by
transforming into a goat therefore seems paradoxical. This paradox becomes poignant when
considering the fact that is it due to us that goats no longer live in freedom and, in certain
157
Thwaites in online video clip on YouTube, published by TNW, 2016.
158
Thwaites 2016: 44.
63
circumstances, are treated unethically as a source of production. Thwaites decision to go to the Alps –
a untenanted area with a lot of space for the goats – allows him to be oblivious to goats that do live in,
for example, a factory farm.
Thwaites’s approach towards execution of his imagined goat life mainly focuses, as
aforementioned, upon a physical transformation. How to achieve this transformation rests upon the
assumption that the core of a successful transformation lies in a similar bodily experience.159 In
accordance with the theory of Wolfe, Thwaites recognizes the crucial position of embodiment in the
human-animal relationship.160 The GoatMan therefore shows the posthuman idea that both human and
animal share an embodied experience, transforming the human into a human animal.
Looking more thoroughly at the process of transformation in GoatMan, an important questions
rises: does Thwaites becomes a goat, or merely acts like a goat? The exoskeleton Thwaites designs is
to be seen as his answer how to transform into a goat. Although this might allow Thwaites to move
like one, it also amplifies the fact that Thwaites is a human wearing an exoskeleton. The constant
presence of an artificial goat suit thus transforms Thwaites rather into a hybrid rather than an actual
goat. This idea brings me to the theory of Latour, whose significance of the hybrid however seems
inapplicable to Twaites’ project.
The concept of the hybrid, as Latour describes, belongs both to the realm of the human and the
nonhuman and is as a result not identifiable by one specific realm. The hybrid that Thwaites
transforms into only belongs to the human realm: the exoskeleton is a technological solution and thus
not natural, but artificial. By using technology so visually, Thwaites thus becomes a hybrid that only
emphasizes his humanness. The claim is underlined by the presumption that searching for an answer
in the field of technology and design is very un-goat like. For example, the cooker created by
Thwaites to eat grass contradicts his aim to transform into a goat. A goat would never use a pressure
cooker or consider these kinds of technological resources.161 Even though Thwaites acknowledges that
his work does not go into depth, it seems as if his final goal has been quite naïve from the beginning,
and he thereafter not really tries to truthfully understand the psychological pathway of a goat.162
Therefore, Thwaites never becomes a goat, but merely acts like one.
Before continuing with the question what then really is the intention of the GoatMan, it is of
importance to shortly note two aspects regarding the idea of acting. Firstly, seeing Thwaites’ as an
actor means that the Alps serve as a stage. Without maybe being aware of this idea, it should be taken
into consideration that the Alps, both as a natural and a cultural landscape, shape the context of his
project. Since goats also live in the United Kingdom, the decision to go the Alps seems to lead to a
more exiting and extreme character to the project. Secondly, Thwaites’s aim to actually use his design
159
Thwaites 2016: 44.
160
Orozco and Parker-Starbuck 2017: 64.
161
Cocker 2016: 44.
162
Cocker 2016: 43.
64
and explore being a goat in the Alps, rather seems to belong to the artistic medium of performance to
solely that of design. Whilst, again, the statement that Thwaites’ is also a performer deserves a more
thorough and theoretical research, it can be stated that Thwaites does expand the boundaries of design
with this part of his project.
And further, what, then, is the actual intention of GoatMan? Thwaites frames the project as one
driven by the longing to transform into an animal. However, it becomes clear that he rather uses the
project to examine, as he states himself, ‘the fundamental logic of what it means to be human.’163 The
role of the animal in the project therefore merely serves to reflect questions that arise when
fundamental logic becomes illogic – such as in the Anthropocene. This Era not only introduces
question marks regarding assumptions on the human-animal or culture-nature relationship but also
strongly relates to uncertainties around the human-machine relation. Whilst I have not focused upon
this latter topic in this thesis, I consider this theme to be the actual core of Thwaites project. Even
though the project centers around the animal, it actually raises questions about the identity of the
human in a society that is strongly merging with technology. Thwaites might not succeed in creating a
human-animal hybrid, he does become a human-machine hybrid. Henceforth, Thwaites not attacks the
human-animal dichotomy, following Latour’s argumentation, but mainly the human-machine
dichotomy. The designed exoskeleton then poses questions such as: in what extent are artificial
aspects part of our bodies? To what extent do they influence the ontological definition of a human?
GoatMan hence plays with developments in our society wherein technology is forming a growing part
of our daily lives and is becoming an inseparable entity when thinking about what it means to be
human.
That Thwaites searches for handles in technology however does not seem strange as he
profiled himself as a designer. Interestingly, the project consists out of multiple aspects that not all
correspond to the medium of design. Firstly, Thwaites researches on both the physical and mental
state of a goat. He then secondly designs an exoskeleton based upon this research that he also actually
uses when he leaves for the Alps to execute being a goat. Thirdly, he does not do this alone.
Bowditch, the photographer, companions him and documents the entire journey. In the end, the
photographs are used to create the book wherein Thwaites recorded the entire project with both text
and image. Whereas the medium of design conventionally focuses upon creating an object, Thwaites
thus also intertwines research, performance and documentation into his project. It is of importance
here to state that the book is not just a by-product of the project, but is rather the condition for others
to become aware of the project.
Because of the book thus, Thwaites is able to share his project with a large and wide audience.
Even though this has led partly to overexposure and media attention to some extent, it also gives
Thwaites the opportunity to explain certain philosophical, biological and technical knowledge in an
163
Thwaites, Thomas. Personal Interview. 8 Augustus 2017.
65
understandable way. He states: ‘When I was writing the book I was probably imagining a sort of
teenager as the audience, or, [someone] like an engineer. [I wanted] to talk about the fundamental
questioning [of] your own reality [and] introduce this idea to somebody who normally would not be
introduced to such ideas.’ In this way, Thwaites aims to reach ‘public understanding of science’.164
The cross-disciplinary aspects of GoatMan attack the boundaries of both art, design and
science by merging them into one and other. The book in this perspective, functions to share certain
knowledge as to visualize the process Thwaites undergoes. As Cross argues in Design Thinking, the
designerly way of thinking is literally documented within the book of Thwaites. The designer is not
the person in the background anymore, but steps forward and shares his thinking and process with the
audience. It becomes clear that the project by Thwaites is not solution-based, since his ‘question’, or
his longing to escape humanity and transform into an animal, is so broad that failing to find a solution
is inherent in its motives. As the undercurrent in Thwaites project does not correspond to the way that
it profiles itself, the project is, following the theory of Cross, problem-based. Since the project lightly
indicates questions that arise when fundamental logic of being human is no longer tenable, it is
searching for these questions along the way. GoatMan can therefore be seen as an indicator of a
certain tendency in our society in which all boundaries are under attack and clear definitions no longer
exist. Whereas it does not specifically refer to the Anthropocene Era, it does respond to it since it
acknowledges the un-tenability of the modernist concept of the human and looks what this means for
our ontological definition. As Anderson argues, Thwaites does stimulate critical thinking since he
invites the viewer to reconsider what it means to be human and the logic that is the undercurrent of
this concept.
5.3 Conclusion
The project of Thwaite is seriously interesting since it crosses boundaries of science, design and
(performance) art. Whereas he does not specifically place the project as relating to the environment or
the Anthropocene, he does depart from a place where the construction of the human that was once
known no longer exists and thus needs to be redefined. Even though Thwaites does not focus upon
finding a new definition, he shows that fundamental logic is not set and can indeed be questioned.
From a posthumanist perspective however, Thwaites does not think beyond binary boundaries as
human-animal relations and made little effort to construct a vocabulary that would allow him to have
access to the inner life of a goat.165 He merely reinforces his humanness instead of contributing to
bridging the human and the animal.
Still, Thwaites does indicate another theme that is introduced by the Anthropocene: the human-
machine relation. Although this thesis does not pursue this topic, it can be stated that the human
concept is not only under attack from the animal dichotomy, but also from its technology dichotomy
164
165
Cocker 2016: 43.
66
and so many other themes that are after all interconnected. Due to the fact that Thwaites executes his
project in quite an entertaining and light matter, his project is accessible to a broad audience that
normally might not think about what it actually means to be a human. This however also means that
the project is quite naïve and does not correspond to the more critical and theoretical tone the
discussion on the ecological crisis needs. But where the project can be criticized from a posthuman
perspective, it does imply the untenable concept of the human and shows how multidisciplinary
artworks can examine, visualize and share this thought.
67
Images
Performance. Courtesy of the artist. Collection of photographs by: Tim Bowditch.
Documentation of design process of the goat exoskeleton.
68
Final goat-exoskeleton.
Thwaites eating grass, afterwards he will spit it out in the artificial rumen around his neck.
69
Thwaites living among the herds.
70
Concluding reflections
In the previous chapters I examined how contemporary artists reflect or respond to the animal in the
Anthropocene Era. I have been motivated to conduct this research by a tendency I detected in the
cultural field. The intersection between the arts and the environment seemed, and still seems, to
develop in a new direction that was hugely influenced by the introduction of the Anthropocene Era in
2002. Not only does this new concept show the worrisome state of our planet, it also raises questions
regarding the fundamental logic of our modern society. Since the concept originates from the
geological field, I found it interesting to examine the discussions in the cultural field more thoroughly.
I wanted to understand what the Anthropocene means for contemporary artist and their function or
role in this new era. Furthermore, I was highly interested in examining how the academic field of the
humanities and ecological studies can strengthen one and other. Due to the fact that the Anthropocene
Era does not have a clear starting point and is still under discussion, my research has been an aim to
momentarily indicate and document the position of contemporary art in this new timeframe.
The use of three case studies gave me the opportunity to test the theoretical constructions that
arose with the introduction of the Anthropocene Era. In the first chapter I focused upon the
philosophical tendency known as posthumanism. Having read and discussed three different scholars, I
can now conclude that their theories are part of a search for an new concept of the human that the
Anthropocene so literally introduced. Their work is both critical and future-aimed. To firstly
understand and explain what negative consequences derived from the old and untenable human
concept, they attack the constructive philosophy for this mode of thought that is, as they argue,
founded upon the humanist philosophy. According to both Latour, Wolfe and Fudge, the humanist
philosophy centers around the subject-object dichotomy. This dichotomy consequently creates binary
pairs as nature-culture and human-animal. The concept of the human is signified as an autonomous
and rational being moreover formed important pillars such as the political system and our consuming
behavior. The anthropocentric worldview that arose from this philosophy legitimately excludes other
forms of nonhuman entities from the human realm. As the theory of Wolfe emphasizes is this
worldview responsible for a hierarchical classification of the world around us that legitimates
dominant and violent behavior towards both human and nonhuman entities.
The work of Latour and Fudge has poignantly shown that scientific research is inherent to an
anthropocentric worldview since it is founded on the presumption of a subject-object dichotomy.
Whilst Latour focuses strongly upon showing how the modern mode of thought is both destructive
and unfaithful, Fudge’s theory is rather targets towards the (art) historical research and the position or
role of the animal in this research. The theory of Latour explains how the segregation of the natural
and cultural realm is artificially constructed and based on a false assumption. He proposes a new form
of a political system that does incorporate all nonhuman entities. Even though Fudge focuses not upon
the political topic, she does follow the Latour mode of thought by proposing a new form of (art)
71
historical research that includes the animal not as an object, but as a subjective force. I found both
their approaches on the Anthropocene concept hopeful since they argue that it has been philosophy
that funded the human as a destructive organism, therefore implying that it is change within the
philosophical thinking that can transform the human from a destructive into regenerative entity.
Without meaning to claim that academic research is the only way to reach the acclaimed new
worldview, this perspective has strengthened my vision that the humanities hold an important position
in regard to dissolving the environmental issue.
Furthermore, the posthuman framework has given me tools and conceptual handles to conduct
my research in a less anthropocentric manner. The theory of Wolfe for example has led me to the
concept of the human animal and the nonhuman animal, two concepts that I consider the core of his
thinking. I hope the use of concepts like this made my thesis not read as a research into the animal
from a modern mode of thought, but rather from an approach that attempts to bring forth change. The
theory of Latour has gained me understanding of the intertwinement of the cultural and natural realm
and led to the analyses that artworks can play with this conventional opposition by purposely moving
within both. Fudge’s criticism on the mirroring function of the animal in general historical research
made me careful in my approach on the animals in the discussed artworks and constant reminded me
on my role as an art historian.
Even though the posthuman framework poignantly helped me to understand the needed change
to reach a more sustainable and fair world, it did not pay attention to the change within artistic
practice in the Anthropocene Era. In chapter 2 I have discussed multiple scholars who do pursue this
relation. Even though not all authors link their theory to the posthuman philosophy, I aimed to show
that the undercurrent in their thoughts lay in the idea that artists in the Anthropocene move beyond the
subject-object relationship and are therefore characterized by a practice that has no fixed boundaries.
The main idea on the artistic practice in the Anthropocene is summarized in the idea that – likewise to
the posthuman scholars – artists hold a position in a search for new concepts and handles that can help
them understand a challenged worldview. In order to help them understand their new position, both as
a human and as an artist, they move to other disciplines such as science, politics, philosophy and
nature as such.
I came to understand this cross-disciplinary, searching and critical approach as an argument to
underline my claim that art can have a contributive role in the environmental debate. Since art is, in
contradiction to science, not funded on a notion of truthfulness and justifiability, artist can experiment
and search into an imagined worldview that goes beyond the conventional mode of thought. The
discussed theoretical and philosophical questions in the debate on the Anthropocene can be tested by
artists. They can closely look into one specific concept or detail that, in the academic field, is
normally incorporated within a broader perspective. Also, the artist can fulfill the role of a mediator
between science, philosophy or politics and a broad audience, since they can translate complex
theories in a more understandable way. All this leads to my claim that art within the Anthropocene is
72
moving beyond the idea of art as dictated by the modern framework. It expands its borders towards
other disciplines and fluidly moves between different mediums, such as painting, performance and
design and henceforth beyond their borders.
The theories discussed in chapter 1 and 2 gave me the tools to analyze three different artworks.
The animal played a very different role in all artworks that however resemble one and other by an
alike approach: experimenting, examining and exploring. In The Museum of the History of the Cattle
Haapoja and Gustafsson explore the anthropocentric concept of history and how our approach of
documenting and shared history inherently excludes the nonhuman animal. Their work is an attempt
to create an exhibition that is non-anthropocentric and to transform the conventional curatorial
practice by humans into one by animals. The crucial aspect in the work of the human language is
contradictory to their aim, but does however not affect the message the work mediated toward the
audience. Haapoja and Gustafsson partly translate posthuman philosophy in a visual and accessible
theoretical work. I found their work to poignantly address the dominant role humans hold over the
nonhuman animal, without a negatively or accusing tone. Moreover, it showed the influence art has
on the way we encounter the world. It not only criticizes the conventional curatorial practice as an
anthropocentric one, it also contributes to the search how to transform this practice around.
In the fourth chapter I have examined the work Untilled by Huyghe. The work of Huyghe is, in
contradiction to previous discussed artwork, not incorporated with explanatory theory. This makes the
work of Huyghe quite ungraspable and led to a feeling of uncertainty. Since the work purposely stays
in between the realm of nature and culture and leaves questions in the open regarding artificial-natural
aspects, the work does exactly what the posthuman philosophy aims at: blurring. Due to the confusing
experience – what are we looking at? what is artificial, what is natural? – Untilled makes the visitor
rethink and re-examine not only his or her ideas on the culture-nature boundary, but also, and maybe
to the greater extent – what an artwork, exhibition or artist is. The work of Huyghe therefore attacks,
expends and plays with conventional boundaries towards a worldview that is more object-oriented. In
correspondence with the work of Haapoja, Gustafsson and Thwaites, Untilled is to be seen as a part of
an ongoing research towards a non-anthropocentric world.
Thomas Thwaites approaches the animal in a different manner, as I have set out in chapter five.
His project GoatMan profiled itself as one that centers around a longing to transform into an animal.
This motivation however rather emphasizes the binary relation between the human-animal than
counteracts this criticized perspective. The project turned out to be based on an aim to examine the
fundamental logic that constructs our human worldview. Not in specific relation to the introduction of
the Anthropocene or the alarming environmental issues. Rather, Thwaites executes his project in order
to understand what it means to be human in a world where technology is becoming more and more
part of our everyday lives. Even though my theoretical framework did not incorporate theory that
pursues the human-machine relationship, I found the work of Thwaites to hold strong links with the
posthuman philosophy since it centers around the need to redefine the human concept. In accordance
73
with the theory on art in the Anthropocene, Thwaites works cross-disciplinary since he uses both
scientific elements as more artistic elements in his project, such as the photographs and the final
executive part wherein he ‘performs’ being a goat. This mode of work distinguishes Thwaites from a
conventional designer and allows him to reach a broad audience. Not only does his work attracted
people that would normally not be confronted with design or artistic creations, he also succeeds in
creating a work that stimulates critical thought towards what it means to be human in our
contemporary world.
It became clear that contemporary artists respond to or reflect on the Anthropocene in a manner
that is not possible to define precisely yet, but does relate to a detectable tendency. The undercurrent
in all discussed artwork is then an attitude that aims to break down the conventions and the hierarchy
that has dictated the modern society for so long. The animal is no longer experienced as an object that
centers around the human, but rather as a subjective force that is part of our shared ecosystem. Yet,
the subject of the animal is not to be seen independent from the topic of nature as such, meaning that I
became to understand the focus upon the animal as one that mirrors the concept of nature in a more
general sense. Nature and art are now no longer experienced as separated entities but are approached
as alike. Artists function to translate the interconnectedness between these two realms to a broad
audience, whereupon they also examine and redefine their significances.
Whilst no scholar I discussed has focused upon this notion, I do argue that all these artists not
only move beyond conventional concepts of art, they also move beyond the institution. All selected
artworks are created outside the realm of the museum or the gallery. They have a temporal character
and are complex in such a way, that it is impossible to comprehend or capture their extent, content
and significance in a single glance. Due to this non-apprehensible sphere, all works are quite fluid in
their meaning and invite the visitor to explore this on their own. As the discussed theory of Anderson
shows, it is this notion of fluidity and inventiveness that can stimulate the beholder into rethinking the
human-nature relationship or all those it interconnects to. In this way, art in the Anthropocene not
constrains new moral standards, but rather encourages others to rethink theirs and maybe adjust them
when they turn out unethical. The beholder in the Anthropocene is not ascribed a passive, but an
active role – a role that nature and art together construct.
The entrance into the Anthropocene has shattered the fundamental logic of our society. Not only
is the human-animal and interconnected nature-culture relation under attack, also artistic practice is
being re-examined. The traditional subject-object dichotomy is no longer tenable and opens up the
possibility to acknowledge those entities that before existed in-between, as to the hybridization of
realms that once were – unfaithfully – separated. Although a more sustainable and ethical world is
still far out of reach, a movement has begun the crucial search for an alternative world. Their
approach also skulks through the academic field of the humanities, wherein scholars are crossing
disciplinary boundaries in order to collaborate and broader their research field. This thesis therefore
not only aimed to explore the contemporary art in the Anthropocene Era, but also aimed to show that
74
art history – or the humanities in the general – should intertwine environmental issues within their
field. I believe, and this thesis is to be seen as an argument for this claim, that it is the humanities and
their scholars that have the critical approach that is needed in a world that is dominated by a now
destructive force. The Anthropocene might be a worrisome concept, but the movement it is guiding
brings hope for a world where both human, animal, plants and others can flourish.
75
Bibliography
Anderson, Kayla. “Ethics, Ecology, and the Future: Art and Design Face the Anthropocene.”
Leonardo, Vol. 48, No.4 (2015): 338-347.
Baltic Circle. “Terike Haapoja & Laura Gustafsson (FIN): Oikeusjuttu.” Online video clip. Vimeo.
Vimeo, 2015. Web. 1 May 2017 < https://vimeo.com/105342628>
Baudin, Katia. “Director’s Foreword.” in: Lavigne, Emma. Pierre Huyghe [edit]. München, Hirmer
Verlag, 2014: 5-7.
Barkham, Patrick. “ No kidding: what I learned from becoming GoatMan.” The Guardian. 15 May
2016. The Guardian. 18 July 2017
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2016/may/15/no-kidding-what-learned-from-
becoming-goatman>
Bolton, Benjamin. “Posthumanism and Animal Rights: Rethinking “The Human” Rethinking the
‘Self.” Animal Studies Journal, Vol.3, No.2 (2014): 48-56.
CCATelAvivIsrael. “Art in the Anthropocene: Humans, Objects and Translations.” Online video
clip. YouTube. YouTube, 18 November 2015. Web. 20 August 2017
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBQUE-ZaY4&t=1521s>
Chiew, Florence. “Posthuman Ethics with Cary Wolfe and Karen Barad: Animal Compassion as
Trans-Species Entanglement.” Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2014): 51-69.
Cocker, Mark. “Unleash the Beast.” New Statesman. May 2016. New Statesman. 20 July 2017
<http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2016/05/dolittle-delusion-what-motivates-human-
beings-live-animals>
Cole, Lucinda, Donna Landry, Bruce Boeher, Richard Nash, Erica Fudge, Robert Markley,
Cary Wolfe. “Speciesism, Identity Politics, and Ecocriticism: A Conversation with Humanists
and Posthumanistis.” The Eighteenth Century, Vol.52, No.1 (2011):87-106.
Creative Time. “Creative Time Summit DC | Enter the Anthropocene - Terike Haapoja.”
Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 9 November 2016. 1 May 2017
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf1AfYzIVW0>
Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking. London, New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.
Davis, Heather, Etienne Turpin. Art in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Aesthetics, Politics,
Environments and Epistemologies [edit.] London: Open Humanity Press, 2015.
Demos, T.J. “Animal Cosmopolitics: The Art of Terike Haapoja.” The Center for Creative
Ecologies. August 2016. University of Los Angelos. 9 May 2017
https://creativeecologies.ucsc.edu/demos-haapoja/
76
Drucks, Achim. “Loss of Artistic Control Pierre Huyghe’s Biotope at documenta.” ArtMag by
Deutsche Bank. 2013. Deutsche Bank. 1 August 2017
<http://db-artmag.com/en/71/feature/loss-of-artistic-control-pierre-Huyghes-biotope-at-
documenta/>
Fudge, Erica. Animal. London: Reaktion Press, 2002.
Fudge, Erica. “The History of Animals.” H-Net. 2014. H-Net. 7 May 2017
<https://networks.h-net.org/node/16560/pages/32226/history-animals-erica-fudge
Goodden, Sky. “Pierre Huyghe Explains His Buzzy Documenta 13 Installation and Why His Work
Is Not Performance Art.” Blouin Art Info. 30 August 2012. Blouin Art Info. 1 August 2017
<http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/822127/pierre-huyghe-explains-his-buzzy-
documenta-13-installation-and-why-his-work-is-not-performance-art>
Gustafsson, Laura. “Biographical Information.” Message to Marloe Mens. 12 June 2017. E-mail.
Gustafsson, Laura, Terike Haapoja. “About.” History of Others. 2013. History of Others.
1 May 2017 <http://www.historyofothers.org/about-2/>
Gustafsson, Laura, Terike Haapoja. “Introduction: How to write the history according to cattle.”
History of Others. 2013. History of Others. 1 May 2017
<http://www.historyofothers.org/how-to-write-a-history-according-to-cattle/>
Gustafsson, Laura, Terike Haapoja. History according to Cattle [edit.] New York City: Punctum
Books, 2015.
Haapoja, Terike. “Artist Statement.” Terike Haapoja. Unknown. Terike Haapoja. 1 May 2017
<http://www.terikehaapoja.net/2273-2/>
Hantelmann, Dorothea von. “Thinking the Arrival: Pierre Huyghe’s Untilled and the Ontology of
the Exhibition.” OnCurating, No. 33 (2014): 89-96.
Huyghe, Pierre. “Museum Time: Joe Scanlan Talks with Pierre Huyghe.” Art Journal, Vol.70,
No.2 (2014): 34-41.
Jeffreys, Tom. “Oikeusjuttu (The Trial).” The Learned Pig. October 2014. The Learned Pig. 9 May
2017 <http://www.thelearnedpig.org/oikeusjuttu-the-trial/1536>
Kastner, Jeffrey. Nature: Documents of Contemporary Art [edit.] London: Whitechapel Gallery,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2012.
Lash, Schott. “Objects that Judge: Latour’s Parliament of Things.” EIPCP. Original 1999, upload
date unknown. European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies. 9 May 2017
<http://eipcp.net/transversal/0107/lash/en>
Latour, Bruno. We have never been Modern. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1993.
77
Lavigne, Emma. Pierre Huyghe [edit]. München, Hirmer Verlag, 2014.
Lennard, Natasha, Cary Wolfe. “Is Humanism Really Humane?” The New York Times. 09 January
2017. The New York Times. 7 May 2017 <https://nyti.ms/2i9sjfJ>
Nathan, Emily. “Let the Light In: Pierre Huyghe in Los Angeles.” Art in American Magazine.
18 February 2015. Art in America Magazine. 1 August 2017
<http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/interviews/let-the-light-in-pierre-
Huyghersquos-first-us-retrospective-comes-to-los-angeles/>
Orozco, Lourdes, Jen Parker-Starbuck. “Goats, Badgers and Other Beasts.” Performance
Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts, Vol. 22, No.2 (2017): 63-68.
Pederson, Helena. “Release the Moths: Critical Animal Studies and the Posthumanist Impulse.”
Culture, Theory and Critique, Vol. 52, No 1 (2011): 65-81.
Rafael, Marie-France. Pierre Huyghe: On Site. Cologne: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König,
2013.
Ramos, Filipa, Animals [edit.] London: Whitechapel Gallery, Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT
Press, 2016.
Ratelle, Amy. “Review: What is Posthumanism?” MediaTropes, Vol.3, No.1 (2011): 147-150.
Rothman, Joshua. “The Metamorphosis: What It Is Like to be an Animal?” The New Yorker.
30 July 2016. The New Yorker. 20 July 2017
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/goatman-and-being-a-beast>
Serres, Michel. The Parasite. Trans. Lawrence R. Schehr. Baltimore: The John Hopkins
University Press, 1982.
Seidl, David. “Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems.” Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität

München. Munich Business Research Paper, 2004-2, 2004: PAGE
Smits, Alice. “Moederschip Aarde.” Metropolis M. December 2015. Metropolis M. 30 August

2017 <http://www.metropolism.com/nl/features/24005_moederschip_aarde>
TNW. “Thomas Thwaites (Goat Man) | TNW Conference | A holiday from being human.”
Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 13 June 2016. 10 July 2017
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CfIMWyGQQg>
Thwaites, Thomas. GoatMan, How I Took a Holiday from Being Human. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press, 2016.
78
Weir, Andy. “Myrmecochory Occurs: Exhibiting indifference to the participating subject in Pierre
Huyghe’s Untilled (2012) at Documenta 13.” Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.10,
No.1 (2013): 29-40.
Weir, Andy. “Cosmic Alreadymades: Exhibiting Indifference at dOCUMENTA (13).” Journal of

Curatorial Studies, Vol.3, No. 1 (2014): 99-116.
Wolfe, Cary. “Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities.” PMLA, Vol.124,
No.2 (2009): 564-575.
Wolfe, Cary. What is Posthumanism?. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
YaleUniversity. “Memoirs of a Posthumanist.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube,

2 march 2017. Web. 20 April 2017
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjxelMWLGCo&t=2511s>
Zarin, Cynthia. “The Artist Who Is Bringing Icebergs to Paris.” New Yorker. 5 December 2015.
The New Yorker. 1 May 2017
<http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-artist-who-is-bringing-icebergs-to-paris>
Zeveloff, Julie. “Step Inside The German Art Fair That Changed The Way We Look At Art.”
Business Insider. 6 November 2012. Business Insider. 7 November 2017
<http://www.businessinsider.com/carolyn-christov-bakargiev-and-documenta-13-2012-
11?international=true&r=US&IR=T>
79
List of Images
1. Image 1. Olafur Eliasson. Ice Watch. 2015. Installation consisting of twelve icebergs from the
waters surrounding Greenland placed on Paris, Place du Panthéon. Each iceberg is more than
twenty meters circumference. Courtesy of the artist. Photograph: Studio Olafur Eliasson,
Berlin. Origin: Your uncertain archive, online access.
< http://olafureliasson.net/uncertain>
2. Image 2. Terika Haapoja and Laura Gustafsson. The Museum of the History of the Cattle.
2013. Two hundred fifty m2. Installation, objects, text signs, photographs and plants.
Courtesy of the artists. Photograph by Noora Geagea. Origin: The History of Others gallery,
online access.
<http://www.historyofothers.org/the-history-of-cattle-gallery/
online access.
online access.
online access.
online access.
online access.
80
online access.
9. Image 9. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Installation, animals, plants, objects and minerals.
Dimensions variable. Courtesy of the artist, Marian Goodman, New York/Paris and Esther
Schipper, Berlin. Photograph: Pierre Huyghe. Origin: Ritter, Kathleen. “Pierre Huyghe: the
Waking Dream.” Canadian Art. 30 December 2013. Canadian Art Foundation. 21 July 2017.
< https://canadianart.ca/reviews/pierre-huyghe/>
10. Image 10. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Installation, animals, plants, objects and minerals.
Dimensions variable. Courtesy of the artist, Marian Goodman Gallery, New York/Paris,
Esther Schipper, Berlin. Photograph: Nils Klinger. Origin: Drucks, Achim. “Loss of Artistic
Control Pierre Huyghe’s Biotope at documenta.” ArtMag by Deutsche Bank. 2013. Deutsche
Bank. 1 August 2017.
<http://db-artmag.com/en/71/feature/loss-of-artistic-control-pierre-Huyghes-biotope-at-
documenta/>
11. Image 11. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Animals, objects, plants and minerals. Courtesy of
the artist, Marian Goodman Gallery, New York/Paris, Esther Schipper, Berlin. Photograph:
Nils Klinger. Origin: Hantelmann, Dorothea von. “Thinking the Arrival: Pierre Huyghe’s
Untilled and the Ontology of the Exhibition” On Curating, No. 33 (2014): 90.
14. Image 14. Pierre Huyghe. Untilled. 2012. Drawing, published in The Guidebook by Carolyn
Christov-Bakargiev [edit.] Photograph: Bibi Scholten van Aschat.
15. Image 15. Thomas Thwaites. GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being Human. 2016.
Research, Design, Performance. Courtesy of the artist. Photograph: Tim Bowditch. Origin:
How I Took a Holiday from Being Human, 2016: 200-201.
Research, Design, Performance. Courtesy of the artist. Collections of photographs by: Tim
Bowditch. Origin: How I Took a Holiday from Being Human, 2016: 91, 93, 155.
81
How I Took a Holiday from Being Human, 2016: 153.
How I Took a Holiday from Being Human, 2016: 169.
How I Took a Holiday from Being Human, 2016: 172-173.
82

Contemporary Art in The Anthropocene

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Contemporary Art in The Anthropocene

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Contemporary Art in the Anthropocene:

a posthuman approach of the human and animal

Case studies of Terike Haapoja, Thomas Thwaites and Pierre Huyghe

Student: Marloe Mens

Structure and justification

1.1 Bruno Latour – The Parliament of Things

1.1.2. The Modern Constitution and its critique

1.1.2.2 The Parliament of Things

1.2 Cary Wolfe – No language, no subjectivity

1.3 Erica Fudge – On Animal Studies

2.1 The Nature Tendency: Jeffrey Kastner

2.2 The Animal Tendency: Filipa Ramos

2.3 Art in the Anthropocene: Davis and Turpin

2.4 Art and research: Alice Smits

2.6 On Design I: Nigel Cross

2.7 On Design II: Kayla Anderson

3. Case one: History according to Cattle

3.1.1 Terike Haapoja

3.2.1 The History of Others

3.2.2 The Museum of the History of the Cattle

Detail of a replica of ancient Auroch hoof, prints in clay.

4. Case two: A non-human centered exhibition

4.1 Pierre Huyghe

Selection of plants in Untilled, that have effect on the human body.

5. Case three: Becoming a non-human animal

5.1 Thomas Thwaites

5.2 The GoatMan: How I Took a Holiday from Being a Human

Documentation of design process of the goat exoskeleton.

Thwaites living among the herds.

Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking. London, New York: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Fudge, Erica. Animal. London: Reaktion Press, 2002.

Seidl, David. “Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems.” Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität

Smits, Alice. “Moederschip Aarde.” Metropolis M. December 2015. Metropolis M. 30 August

Thwaites, Thomas. Personal Interview. 8 Augustus 2017.

Weir, Andy. “Cosmic Alreadymades: Exhibiting Indifference at dOCUMENTA (13).” Journal of

YaleUniversity. “Memoirs of a Posthumanist.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi