Ian Bogost in Alien Phenomenology analytically examines Object-Orientated Ontology’s rejection of correlationist views, to embrace the multifarious complexity of being among all things (Bogost, p 5). By decentralizing anthropocentric theory, OOO’s objective is to give all objects equal status in the importance of their existence. However, by deeming all objects equal and thus equating all being’s existence, Bogost cautions placing misguided inter-subjectivity upon an object’s relativism and agency. By avoiding such, it draws our attention and transcends the limits of an object’s conventional purpose whilst simultaneously encouraging more possible ways to join and relate ideas not previously associated with an object’s existence. Thus, doing the philosophical work of drawing and expanding explication’s confines as it expands transmission model’s linear discourse and hierarchal connotations of being.
Therefore, by applying a combination of what Bogost describes as flat and tiny ontology we unite two worlds and synthesize the human and nonhuman into a common collective (Bogost, p 17), whilst a list’s succinct yet open-ended format makes us less likely to fall into the systematic trap of over-determination. In class we investigated this method by producing a one-minute soundscape, attempting to create ontology for a locale void from anthropocentric and teleological explanation and restraint.
Our locale was ‘a garden’ – Carlton Gardens. In an attempt to encompass OOO’s primary principle of objects not relating merely through human use but through any use, including relations between one object and any other (Bogost, p 6), we intentionally selected a location fundament of a natural eco-system. Initially focusing on relativism present in the garden’s eco-system, birds to trees, trees to soil, soil to worms etc., a serendipitous moment occurred making us reconsider our applied approach. As Ben held his phone and the recording equipment close to one another, a static noise appeared and was recorded. This provoked recognition of objects that were prevalent, but overlooked (radio signals, Wi-Fi, telephone tower range, etc.) (Similar to Bogost’s capsicum), and exhibited our unconsciously applied anthropocentrism. The moment was consequent to the delusion and naiveté of contemporary scientific naturalism and social realism, which enforces that although all things equally exist, not all things exist equally (Bogost, p 11).
This hierarchy of being was further disrupted through editing’s transformation, as networks of human and nonhuman actors behaved on one another through entering and exiting relations (Bogost, p 19). Working in assistance with one another’s subjectivity (what humans have recorded and what technology can record), flat ontology’s democracy of objects allowed us to transcend restrictions due to the reliance of one another’s object’s distinction. However, the narrative’s contribution was difficult to decipher as the use of language, (let alone the English language), seemed like a dominating, constructionalist attribute. However, by applying tiny ontology and viewing each actor as a unit, whilst using flat ontology’s method of flattening out previous hierarchal relationships, we attempted to keep all objects decentralized, thus denying a dominant narrative arc and structure. Hence, producing a file that invites creativity rather than enforces previously associated detachment. Rushkoff asserts that stories don’t work in a technological environment as their un-engaging nature with an active audience creates a narrative collapse, whereas lists and games interactivity can attract new relationality and interpretations. Rushkoff describes games surpassing all other forms of entertainment and cultural importance as they engage with player they expand the infinite structure of a list, as opposed to the grammatical formation of a sentence. Thus, allowing the audience do the philosophical work of drawing our attention to an object with greater attentiveness, through experience rather then the act of telling (Rushkoff, p 62).
Our list was constructed in random subject sequence avoiding traditional hierarchal connotation. Instead of depending on thoughts relativity and nature of ‘what comes next’, we observed the locale and encourage our site to be constructionalist. Attempting to liberate from the determined associations of our psyche, my involvement with a chain of ‘choice’ was still subject to preconditions taught by my own cultural context. Thus, making it harder to reject humanist determining, as systematic subject patterns appeared due to my engrained psychological context – viewing left to right, seeking similarities rather than differences, making connections through subject matter, etc. This is demonstrated in my list below.
–
– Grass
– Metal
– Stones
– Pebbles
– Sand
– Roots
– Trunk
– Trees
– Bark
– Leaves
– Stems
– Water
– Dirt
– Duck
– Moss
– Algae
– Spider
– Bubbles
– Coins:
– $2,
– $1,
– 50c,
– 20c,
– 10c,
– 5c
– Metal
– Fences
– Plastic
– Plastic bags
– Cigarette
– Juice popper
– Bark
– Phones
– Cameras
– Clothing
– Smoke
– Books
– Umbrella
– Glass
– Walls
– Dust
– Wheels
– Cars
– Pens
– Check boards
– Crowds
– Keys
– Ratio
– Doors
– Locks
– Footprint
– String
– Possum
– Birds
– Bat
– Ant
However, even though relations and association between subjects can be identified, the list’s format enforces that there is no super object, but instead a demonstration of objects gathered together in a harmonious unity. This draws our attention to each object individually, and with greater emphasis, as we attempt to do this philosophical work of making sense of ‘what we see’ but with greater attentiveness.
Thus, a list does not explain but instead leaves open interpretation. Liberated from the grammatical confines of a sentence that attempt to establish narrative arc, a list format prompts us to question the nature of connection between two objects, as oppose to its purpose. In conclusion, the list itself communicates simply the multifaceted relations and possibilities of an object’s very complex existence.