This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Bruno Latour's object-oriented curating: mediating representation / representing mediation
A museum exhibition is deeply unrealistic: it is a highly artificial assemblage of objects, installations, people and arguments, which could not reasonably be gathered anywhere else. In an exhibition the usual constraints of time, space, and realism are suspended. This means that it is an ideal medium for experimentation; and especially for addressing the current crises of representation […].1
It is with this statement that philosopher and sociologist of science Bruno Latour and artist/curator Peter Weibel open their retrospective essay on the two exhibition they curated together at ZKM in Karlsruhe: Iconoclash (2002) and Making Things Public (2005).2 These daring transdisciplinary exercises in the representation of representation proved to be among the most innovative and memorable exhibitions of the early 21st century, in a way comparable to the groundbreaking contribution represented by Bruno Latour's own writings on the philosophy of science since the mid-1980s (which, as Graham Harman would argue, should also be seen as a highly original contribution to philosophy at large).3 Latour's analysis of laboratory practice in science led to his highly original “object-oriented” epistemological theory, in which issues of representation play a central role, with all their facets and possible meanings: in politics, science, religion, art, etcetera. In his holistic vision of all things functioning as 'actants', whose interactions form infinite amounts of tangled networks, separating each 1 Peter Weibel and Bruno Latour, “Experimenting with Representation: Iconoclash and Making
Things Public”, in Sharon Macdonald and Paul Basu (eds.), Exhibition Experiments, 2007, p.94. 2 Ibid., pp.93-108. 3 See Graham Harman, Prince of Network. Bruno Latour and Metaphysics, 2009.
All these elements . so curators.). 2007. 2 . data .. all being aspects of the same cultural/historical continuum seen as a network of networks. places. Latour. in S. and to decision-making in general. teachers.4 Indeed. Latour worked closely on each exhibition with larger teams of curators. philosophers. theologists. collectors.5 The approach Latour takes to curating is inevitably self-reflexive. Macdonald and P. sponsors and so on. but these practices often run the risk of falling back into the vicious circles of self-referentiality. commercial galleries. has often been questioned in projects stressing the role of the curator's individual choices and tastes. but so is his awareness of the risks presented by embracing this kind of critique. 5 See Paul Basu and Sharon Macdonald. Latour had already addressed the issue of modern (and post-modern) critique's aporias and dead ends in his seminal essay We Have Never Been Modern 4 See in particular B. exhibitions (and other comparable public events) are for Latour privileged spaces in which the premises of representation can be put to test: they are gatherings of things. like politicians and scientists (and artists. assemblies of assemblies. put together by a number of stakeholders in a set of historical and practical circumstances.are actants weaving a multilayered network. This is highlighted by Latour (and Weibel) in the pluralistic approach to the selection process of objects to be exhibited. In experimental curatorial practices the myth of respecting autonomy by dissimulating mediation.sphere of knowledge is ultimately pointless. by making it invisible to external observers. solipsism and cynicism.objects. in the manner of deconstruction and institutional critique. and presented to a public for the purpose of improving their awareness of a given subject. We Have Never Been Modern (1991) and Reassembling the Social (2005). each experience contributing its own strand of Actors' relationships. explicitly allowing for the coexistence of multiple points of view on a shared theme and reinforcing heteronomy over the normally untouchable (and generally illusory) idea of authorial autonomy. in order for them to become tools for the exchange of knowledge. or the power games of institutions. for example. “Introduction: Experiments in Exhibition”. Exhibition Experiments. p.) take upon themselves the delicate role of re-presenting them.20.. people. and only artificially codified as established academic taxonomies by practical constraints. Basu (eds. Things don't speak for themselves.
43. the microcosmos of an exhibition becomes a prime example of the operations of mediation constantly at play in the circulation of knowledge. but the very existence of any polar opposition between human and non-human. Latour. We then discover that we have never been modern in the sense of the Constitution. and by constantly opposing the transcendence of each one of these three terms to its immanence. No one has ever been modern. representation is dissected and reappraised.). the chosen theme.46-7. that is because an experiment is always a transformative process. 3 . Indeed. the foundation of what he calls 'the modern Constitution': “by appealing sometimes to Nature. sometimes to God. 6 B. simply ignores the work of mediation that underlies every process of knowledge production and ultimately denies not just the validity. and this is why I am not debunking the false consciousness of people who would practise the contrary of what they claim. the possible responses of the public itself.We Have Never Been Modern. […] 7 In the following three examples of Latour's forays into curating. sometimes to Society. 1999. 8 See B. p.8 Mediation occurs. pp. knowledge is produced. by the end of these experiences. These three exhibitions all have at their core a bundle of open questions. etc. of trying to purify each side from hybridisation with the other. immanent and transcendent objects of knowledge: A different solution appears as soon as we follow both the official Constitution and what it forbids or allows. each of the curatorial projects in which Latour was involved first-hand was set up as an experiment in which a theoretical premise is put to test and the outcome is not predetermined.”6 But a constant operation of debunking. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. 7 Ibid. Latour. no Actant is the same. for both its human and non-human Actors..(1991). Exhibition-making is here an opportunity to try and demonstrate how Actor-Network Theory works in practice as applied to a set of parameters (the spatial context. as soon as we study in detail the work of production of hybrids and the work of elimination of these same hybrids. starting with the intertwined paradoxes of the Nature / Society dichotomy. the moderns had found the mainspring of their indignations well wound up. If the the initial premise is disproved by the final outcome. performative elements.
reprinted in H. or what is an experiment? The Theater of Proof. At that date. when we deal with laboratories. Titled The Theater of Proof. We are not so much interested in the 9 Hans-Ulrich Obrist and Barbara Vanderlinden (eds. Latour was already internationally known as a sociologist and philosopher of science. 1999 In 1999.187. chose Latour to curate the opening event series in this expanded exhibition. ever so interested in figures and practices blurring the boundaries of established disciplines. and with the local setting in which this labour takes place. Obrist and Olafur Eliasson (eds. During the 1990s Latour had in fact contributed to debates on aesthetics and the then rising field of visual culture with writings on iconoclasm in science as well as modernism in the arts. 2009.”9 Latour interpreted this brief in a literal sense. this programme of lectures took the form of a public staging of scientific and pseudo-scientific laboratory tests. expanded his field of action by writing about figures as diverse as Piaget and Whitehead. an all-encompassing ontological and epistemological system that cannot be reduced to either side of the seemingly inescapable divide of analytical vs. It is not difficult to imagine why Obrist.Laboratorium. Laboratorium. Bruno Latour was invited by curators Hans-Ulrich Obrist and Barbara Vanderlinden to contribute to Laboratorium. continental philosophy. Laboratorium in general set itself the task of “search[ing] the limits and possibilities of the places where knowledge and culture are made. we deal with labour. re-presenting the process of experimentation in order to draw the public's attention to what actually happens in those physical spaces defined by their use as laboratories: “The etymology of the word 'laboratory' is a useful clue. 2001. whose programme of exhibits and events took over a number of venues across the Belgian city of Antwerp. focussing on experiments themselves as a mechanisms of knowledge production. p.). particularly outside of France.). although the originality and scope of his writings had not gone unnoticed. Experiment Marathon. rather than on illustrating their end results to a general audience. 4 . and started his groundbreaking work on Actor-Network Theory. an interdisciplinary project aimed at exploring the parallels between the artist's studio and the scientist's lab as circumscribed sites for experimental practices.U.
trying to dispense with any form of transcendence which may complicate the issues at stake in the government of a community of people – first of all God. 2009. the delegation of political power to an Actor speaking for a cacophonic multitude of voices. Eliasson (eds.We Have Never Been Modern. they have this much in common. esoteric artist. until they are satisfactorily reduced to a repeatable set of rules. Latour. Latour.”10 And in this sense. self-contained space in which it is possible to observe phenomena in the purest form allowed by whatever technology is at hand.U. Laboratorium. guaranteeing a form of pluralistic consensus which is as close to an ideal of objectivity as a measurable phenomenon can ever get. laboratory experiments are witnessed by a group of peers. “The Theater of Proof: A Series of Demonstrations” (1999). or before. p.). but also the idea of an absolutely objective Nature that is beyond. experimental practice changed the way scientific hypotheses are presented by creating an artificial. Latour uses the extended example of Robert Boyle's experiments to understand nature through the mediation of a non-human tool (the air pump). comparable data. Obrist and O. in H.12 Representation thus assumes this double meaning – the depiction and description of facts vs. since phenomena as encountered in the contingencies of day-to-day life can only be objects of speculation. Unlike previous theories produced in the private sphere of an individual's empirical experience. chapter 2: “Constitution”.result as in the modus operandi. the laboratory has the function of a necessary mediator. such an operation is as revelatory of scientific procedures as it is of artistic practices: The very idea of an avant-garde. unfettered by social demands and the opposition of the philistines depends to some extent on the model of the scientist. 5 . Experiment Marathon. referring to peer judgment rather than that of the public.198. and to record them as quantifiable. autonomous. contrasted with Thomas Hobbes' vision of a social contract in the Body Politik of the Leviathan. no matter that one is working in a lab and the other in a studio. but this separation of meanings is for 10 B. the Social Contract.U. 11 Ibid. Obrist and B. In this sense.). 2001. reprinted in H. free to raise his or her own technical puzzles.11 As Latour had explained in We Have Never Been Modern. pp. Both dream of total autonomy and mastery of technique. the absolute right to be esoteric. Vanderlinden (eds. 12 See B.13-48.
Whether or not the participants to each of the lectures have learnt anything valuable about the specific scientific content of each of these reenactments may be arguable. each functioning as mediators in a network of relationships allowing their interaction and mutual influence. or psychologist Vinciane Despret reproducing the Valins experiment on the emotional states of its participants). Latour's first attempt to curate a whole exhibition. in B. others embraced it as a source of productive possibilities (like the debate sparked when sociologist Harry M. in which he famously disproved the traditionally accepted theory of spontaneous generation as defended by his opponent Fèlix-Archimède Pouchet. After this experience. Latour. 2001. Otto Sibum restaging an experiment by James Joule. Collins performed the Turing test on a live audience. 6 .). together with Peter Weibel. The experiments recreated in The Theatre of Proof were thus intentionally varied and ambiguous. Some participants showed cultural bias as a problem (such as H. human and non-human. and performed by artists and philosophers as well as by scientists: Latour himself took part in the programme of events by reading Louis Pasteur's address to the Royal Academy. Iconoclash. all entities. “What if we had misunderstood the second commandment?” Iconoclash. Religion.Latour nonsensical: as we have already pointed out. p. Germany. and Art. This Centre for Art and 13 B. “knowing full well that it can only fail” in light of the local environmental circumstances. which took the form of a lecture/dance). Latour was ready to take his cross-disciplinary methods out of the lab. 200213 Representation takes a literal meaning in the 2002 exhibition Iconoclash.25. “What is Iconoclash? Or is There a World Beyond the Image Wars?”. Latour and P. Weibel (eds. but it seems fair to claim that never before the link between performance art and the so-called exact sciences had been expressed with such clarity and poignancy. at the Zentrum für Kunst und Medienteknologie (ZKM) in Karlsruhe. are Actants. Beyond the Image Wars in Science. or choreographer Xavier Le Roy's autobiographical take on the influence between his scientific background and his approach to body awareness.
”15 The neologism of 'iconoclash'. using iconoclasm as a metonymy of sorts: “iconoclash […] is when one does not know..Media. but rather that it has. how they come into being and how they sometimes end up being applied to cultural phenomena rather naively and uncritically: “[.25. in order to reflect on the mechanisms of doubt. to avoid the label of “socially constructed.16..” is apparently to insist that no human hand has ever touched the image it has produced […]. with its obsession for facts/nature vs.. it is always a hand with a hammer or with a torch: always a critical. not simply by staging exhibitions but by promoting research and offering facilities and support to practitioners in a variety of fields. become too cheap. when the hand is shown at work. this was not an exhibition about iconoclasm. why do we have so many of them? If they are innocent. representation/culture.. The only way to defend science against the accusation of fabrication. one is troubled by an action for which there is no way to know. 15 Ibid. So. of late. p. coined specifically for this exhibition. 7 . why do they trigger so many and such enduring passions?”14 As Latour repeatedly remarked in his catalogue essay. for the too quick attribution of the naive belief in others […]. a destructive 14 Ibid. the target of Latour's reappraisal is the modern Constitution.20. is a highly original institution whose mission is to explore the points of intersection between art and technology. nor an iconoclastic exercise in itself. one hesitates.] this exhibit is also a revision of the critical spirit. It is not that critique is no longer needed. in the two cases of religion and science. a pause in the critique.”16 Once again. 16 Ibid. It rather takes this seemingly destructive practice as a very tangible example of critique. setting itself the daunting task of reflecting critically on the ambiguous relationship humans have had over the ages with imagemaking and on their parallel distrust for representation: “If images are so dangerous. a meditation on the urge for debunking. whether it is destructive or constructive. Its inherently experimental approach to cultural production makes it a particularly receptive setting for an exhibition like Iconoclash. is intended to stress specifically the aporias of critique. p. without further enquiry. of which Weibel is the director. p..
Atmospheres of Democracy. p. the seven curators working with Latour on this exhibition intended to create a “pattern of interferences” that was guaranteed to make the viewer aware of the complexities of representations . 200519 Even more ambitious was the exhibition Making Things Public. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik”..18. Bringing together such a variety of sources.. in B. enshrined like a saint's bone in a reliquary in the Museo della Scienza in Florence. they would never have had religion. also co-curated with Peter Weibel and taking place 17 Ibid. and certainly a fitting one as the theme of an exhibition. and politics. 18 Ibid.4. “If westerners had really believed they had to choose between construction and reality (if they had been consistently modern).”17 But at the same time. Latour. the subject of experimental enquiry. Atmospheres of Democracy. Mediations are necessary everywhere. Latour and Weibel endeavoured to put critique under the microscope. examples. A crippled medieval Pietà is discussed in the catalogue next to an image of Galileo's middle finger. art.). p. Latour and P. 2005. science. The ambivalent relationship humans have with images was but a starting point. to be turned into a topic.25. 8 . It offered an opportunity to present a public with a number of artefacts. Weibel (eds.hand. specimens.”18 The pressing issue of the necessity of mediation needed to be addressed because taken for granted. with Iconoclash. Malevich's Black Square accompanies the Eastern religious icons Suprematism was inspired by and hoping to replace. p.and of representing representation in an exhibition format. 19 B. Making Things Public. in front of which questions can be posed about exactly what is being looked at: fact? Fiction? Original? Replica? Meaningless fragment? Relic imbued with history? Victim? Victor? Including objects such as Elain Sturtevant's replica of Duchamp's bicycle wheel (itself only known in photographic reproductions or 'authenticated' replicas) certainly complicates the matter. or dismissed with no appeal. “What would an object-oriented democracy look like?”: Making Things Public.
Here Latour tackles the other fundamental meaning of representation according to the modern paradigm (or Constitution): political representation. interrelated. to show its real meaning as that of a gathering around shared matters of concern. provided that we understand retrospectively to what extent we have never been modern. and what type of mediation should be expected of politics as a Parliament of Things. Half of our politics is constructed in science and technology.20 One of Latour's premises for this to happen is a switch in the way 'things' as well as the so-called 'matters-of-fact' of Realpolitik are defined in the political arena: not as a set of external circumstances that society has to negotiate in order to enable human concerns. walk-through redefinition of the field of politics as a whole. With an emphasis on the present interpretation of parliamentary democracy. nuanced the networks of things in which we are entangled are. Latour devises Making Things Public as nothing less than a vast. With more than 1000 exhibits and a surface of 3000 square meters. the conclusion to Latour's effort to undo that separation of nature/science and culture/politics that he symbolically located in the Boyle vs. and the political task can begin again. the exhibition is presented as a gathering of gatherings.144 9 . a way of representing representation by revealing how complex. human and non-human. and provided that we rejoin the two halves of the symbol broken by Hobbes and Boyle as a sign of recognition. Latour.We Have Never Been Modern. He helps himself with the rich etymology of the word 'thing' and its correspondents in other European languages: 20 B. The other half of Nature is constructed in societies.at ZKM between the 20th March and the 3rd October 2005. but as active constituents of an object-oriented democratic process seen as a network in which everything is equally at stake as a 'matter-of-concern'. provided that we reconsider our past. Hobbes dispute: We simply have to ratify what we have always done. Let us patch the two back together. “The Parliament of Things” is indeed the title of the final paragraph of We Have Never Been Modern. p.
and only after a while can the visitors become aware that these phenomena are somehow caused by environmental changes.13. 21 In his introductory catalogue essay. with a potentially disruptive effect on the visitors' experience. its obvious inspiration is Walter Lippmann's essay Phantom Public (1925).22 This work clearly acts within the exhibition as a stand-in for a theme that Latour deems particularly important. Icelandic deputies called the equivalent of “thingmen” gather in the Althing. Coduys. as the algorithm behind The Phantom Public is designed to use a variety of sources at once. Latour discusses in some detail only one of the works in the exhibition. Thus. kinetic and light effects scattered across the exhibition space. This is not meant to function as as a friendly interactive artwork. the Greek aitia and the French or Italian cause. 21 B. 10 . Even the Russian soviet still dreams of bridges and churches. number and position of people in the building. they will have no control over their outcome.218-223. Giving Flesh to the Phantom Public”. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik”. 22 See M. Isle of Man seniors used to gather around the Ting. a multimedia site-specific installation by artists Michel Jaffrennounand Thierry Coduys titled The Phantom Public (2005). like a screen or a spotlight being switched on or off. especially in order to grasp the curatorial narrative he tries to convey through Making Things Public. the Ding or Thing has for many centuries meant the issue that brings people together because it divides them. processed through a software and fed back into the space. or How to Make Things Public”. the German landscape is dotted with Thingstätten and you can see in many places the circles of stones where the Thing used to stand. in Making Things Public. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. Jaffrenou and T. The work consists in a series of sound. Even so. Latour. that are triggered by the public itself as their movements are captured by responsive cells. in Making Things Public. The same etymology lies dormant in the Latin res. “Mission Impossible. long before designating an object thrown out of the political sphere and standing there objectively and independently. video. some completely beyond the visitors' grasp or control: variations in temperature. etc. pp. p. though: it is at first encountered as a series of random accidents.Norwegian congressmen assemble in the Storting. online traffic on the exhibition's website.
whilst at the same time effectively allowing for a full flexibility and plurality of function (they could be lit from within.). The success of the labyrinthine.).they were also the screen onto which the workings of the Phantom were projected. made of a semi-transparent material that reveals the metal frame supporting them rather than concealing it as a meaningless backstage eyesore. 24 N. Consequently the architectural strategy developed for Making Things Public explores a material tool that can be negotiated among artists.23 As for the display architecture itself. Hirsch and M. after such a lofty introduction: articulating the open-plan space of ZKM through modular walls. support exhibits or bear wall-based signage. Latour.The idea was to give visitors a vague and uneasy feeling that “something happens” for which they were at least sometimes responsible […]. […] The visitors act as representatives of the public sphere and they construct the public sphere. Macdonald and P. Basu (eds. just as politics passes through people as a rather mysterious flow. although it certainly contributed to the exhibition's emphasis on exhibitionary self-reflexivity. pp. 24 The solution found by Hirsch and Müller is more obvious than one would expect. “The Architectural Thing. The Making of Making Things Public”. Besides. Müller. the “busy” look 23 P. etc. in Making Things Public. in S. even questionable. used as screens. Weibel and B. its tendency to predetermine a future end-state ( telos)? […] Instead of falling back into the traditional patterns of his discipline. 11 . This reads like a (somewhat predictable) metaphor on transparency vs.103-4. p. who took their brief as an invitation to question the very nature and legitimacy of their role in the context set by Latour and Weibel: The architect's position in an exhibition on Dingpolitik is critical. scientists and curators: the wall. “Experimenting with Representation”.536. […] here the public is not represented but is itself part of the system that it observes. opacity of infrastructure. not only did visitors shape the exhibition that they visited […] . pseudo-industrial result is disputable. the daunting task of devising a unifying set for such a diverse and dense exhibition was given to Nikolaus Hirsch and Michel Müller. the architect has to construct a “thing” that can be shared with other disciplines. as well as a relative neutrality of backgrounds. Exhibition Experiments. In this way. How can an architect avoid the profession's problematic heritage.
for example. Needless to say that for Latour the written word is as much an 'actant' in the Network of an exhibition as the objects shown in the gallery or the display architecture. Even when they are directly addressed. with its epistemological nuances of presentness-at-hand vs. and that in order to learn how to relate to 12 . Jaffrenou and Coduys' text on The Phantom Public is included in the section titled “The Problem of Composition” and placed after essays on visual depictions and optical tricks symbolically turning the many into one (Dario Gamboni and Simon Schaffer) and on the Lippmann-Dewey debate (Noortje Marres). theoretical. and followed by a brief intervention by Richard Rorty. Crowds – Representing the Collective Body. stating that nothing of value can be taken from a solipsistic thinker like Heidegger. multiple positions are brought together in a polemical fashion much like interventions from opposed benches in a parliamentary hearing. in a way similar to his emphasis on the role of the contributors' essays in Iconoclash. and followed by essays on experimental music composition (Denis Laborde) and an artist's text on the televised shift from masses to crowds in Eastern European popular upheavals (Ana Miljacki. historical or material as they may be. expanding on her multichannel video installation Classes. readiness-to-hand. divided into 15 subsections for a total of 1072 pages. 2005). Take for example of the section titled “From Objects to Things”. featuring Heidegger's definition of 'Thing'. Masses. complicating the matters discussed in the catalogue. Elsewhere. This is not in itself a unique trait (publishing is indeed an increasingly popular platform for experimental curating). the vast majority of the essays presents content that is not directly referenced in the exhibition. the exhibits are treated as things-among-things and mostly interspersed with the objects of other essays.of the exhibition was certainly inevitable given the number of objects on display. perhaps enhancing it rather than trying to minimise it worked as an effective way to make a statement about spatial politics and the complexities of negotiating coexistence in a shared context. accompanied by an essay by Heidegger enthusiast Graham Harman (himself developing his own theory of “tool-being” in his philosophical writings). The other constituent element of the exhibition that Latour stresses in his essay is the catalogue itself. but it takes an especially weighty presence with the printed version of Making Things Public: an assemblage of matters-of-concern in itself.
then our show has failed. that we have anticipated in this exhibition experiment. visitors have hopefully been stimulated to inquire into how to assemble. chapter 4. and design.106-7. the visitor looks at the final Isotype section with a bit of nostalgia for the modernist style but grasps that the quandaries of our age can no longer be tackled by such a philosophy.”26 Back in the exhibition space. on the other hand. Basu (eds. the assembly of assemblies. If the visitor who quits Making Things Public concludes that Neurath's modernist solution to the quandary of our age is more efficient. politics. but the sheer accumulation of data and layering of arguments make Latour a curator of challenging assemblages of things (to use his own vocabulary). Iconoclash and Making Things Public in particular presented the viewer with a sensory overload that requires an 25 See Making Things Public.103-4. in Making Things Public. Exhibition Experiments. technology. p. pp. it is difficult to judge whether such ambitious curatorial efforts succeeded in conveying the complexities of meaning that Latour tried to address in the three projects described above. pp. Latour.27 Despite this (semi-seriously) clear testing method. If so. industry and popular culture. Weibel and B. the parliament of parliaments. a typically modernist visual language of strikingly simple. through whatever means. 27 P.. visitors were presented just at the very end of their visit with a display of Otto Neurath's Isotypes. commerce.25 In the words of Latour: “There is more than a little irony in extending this meaning to what Heidegger and his followers loved to hate. If. then our experiment has succeeded.). namely science. “Experimenting with Representation”.things politically one would be better off reading Whitehead instead. 13 . in S. that objectivity is much more forward-looking than “thingness” . Macdonald and P. highly legible graphic signs used to represent statistical data and information panels in late-1920s Vienna. The meaning of each exhibit may not have been particularly obscure or hard to comprehend.13. Latour had strategically placed the Isotypes at the end of the exhibition as a way to verify the efficacy of his experiment: [H]ere is a good case of how you can stage a falsifiable exhibition experiment. rational. pleasing. and politically correct than what is presented in the show – in other words. Latour. 26 B. hugely influential on a century of infographics. “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik”.
knowledge is produced.attentive. Mediation occurs. groundbreaking and influential in their own way. and whatever the immediate response. All three projects were decidedly timely. 14 . representation is dissected and reappraised. no Actant is the same. no experiment goes to waste. curious. patient public. by the end of the experience. But the importance of an exhibition should not be calculated onto its crowd-pleasing factor (spectacular multimedia displays such as those in Making Things Public may after all have pleased those looking for easy and instantaneous gratification and thus 'falsified the data'). relevant.
pp. The MIT Press. 2005 Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds. in Hans-Ulrich Obrist and Barbara Vanderlinden (eds. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Graham Harman. in S. 2007. 2001. “The Theater of Proof: A Series of Demonstrations” (1999). Making Things Public. An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory.). 1991] Bruno Latour.U. The MIT Press.). Reassembling the Social. 1993 [orig.94-108. Phantom Public.). Bruno Latour.). Harvard University Press. Oxford University Press. Exhibition Experiments.press. 2007. 2009 Bruno Latour. 15 . and Science”.). Art. Blackwell. reprinted in H. “Introduction: Experiments in Exhibition. Macdonald and P. Harvard University Press. 1999 Bruno Latour.Works Cited Paul Basu and Sharon Macdonald.198. Iconoclash. Basu (eds. in Sharon Macdonald and Paul Basu (eds. pp. Obrist and Olafur Eliasson (eds. JP Ringier.). re. Blackwell. Beyond the Image Wars in Science. and Art. pp. Atmospheres of Democracy. 1925 Peter Weibel and Bruno Latour.185-87. Etnography.1-24. Prince of Network. “Experimenting with Representation: Iconoclash and Making Things Public”. Religion. p. Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. We Have Never Been Modern. Exhibition Experiments. Koenig Books. 2005 Walter Lippmann. Laboratorium. 2001 Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds. Experiment Marathon. 2009.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.