top of page


Invited Distinguished Professor:

Patrick Danahy


Gabriel Esquivel,  Studio Professor

Teaching Assistant: Shane Bugni.

Texas A&M University


Team: Maggie Martin, Sophie Trevino, Aidan Lozano, and Alex Ignatow.

Two things are formally distinct if they are distinct from one another, but they cannot exist independently of one another. This point is referenced by Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition. The distinction that is formed separates the formalized and familiar from the speculative and imaginative world that blurs both human and nonhuman objects. Our object becomes a living body in that it gains meaning and signification from the assemblages of objects, on various planes that it embodies.This meaning of a thing concerns what is completely in the thing and what the thing is completely in as defined by Tristan Garcia in Form and Object. Albeit, assemblages of the various parts that embody the object and the object being placed in a bounded connected system. Signification on the other hand places things, such as the human being as equal as any other non human object such as a honeybee, on the same plane. To reiterate, the idea of flat ontology resulting in the purposeful equality of objects. The assemblages of these parts and the object made of these parts form interrelations with each other as well as other external relationships within the system.


Anthropocentric tendences highlight the continual reference to the human but also are defined by the transitional point, so-called the limit, between the territoriality of humans against the territoriality of nonhuman systems, forcing tension within the oncological system. There becomes a tensional, infestational quality defined by the nature of bees but also defined by human-created machines, systems, and assemblages. The narrative that the pre-existing structure was infested by bees to then being invaded by the presence of humans defines anthropocentricity. It is through the defined bounds of territoriality that differ in that there is acknowledged tension between human and nonhuman actors. Whether that is through coexistence of humans and bees, the dependency between bees and human-mechanized systems, or the human-senses (like the associated fear, the sounds, the smells, etc.). 


The form transitions from a marked space to an unmarked space that redefines what nature could be. The marked, familiar worlds are highlighted through vernacular objects such as formal space, materialization, and machine. The unmarked, speculative worlds are imaginative, unthinkable, and unreal that overrun the assemblage. The synthesization of these worlds produces a unified autopoietic machine that relies on the processes of production of objects of which in return produces its own objects through transformations and regeneration. These processes constitute the autopoietic machine as a concrete unity in the space that they exist within the domain of the network. Autopoietic machines, consequently, are not only self-organizing systems but their self-reference applies to the production of other objects as well. Everything that is used as an object by the system is produced as an object by the system itself, placing everything on the same plane and producing an autonomy of system and form. Therefore, autopoietic machines rely on the network of objects as the machine cannot exist as an individual entity not relying on its components. Emphasizing the idea that everything serves an equal purpose given the interrelationships and co-dependency of the combined ontology formed.


bottom of page