The ‘French reading’ of Nietzsche crystallized almost 50 years ago at the 1972 conference at Cerisy-la-Salle, Nietzsche aujourd’hui. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the Friedrich Nietzsche Society, with the theme of ‘The Politics of Difference’, Newcastle University, 20–21 September 2018. Nietzsche’s fortunes have since undergone some dramatic shifts in France, but there are signs that he is once again on the ascendency, in particular the 2016 edited collection Pourquoi nous sommes Nietzschéens (a (...) direct riposte to the 1991 Pourquoi nous ne sommes pas Nietzschéens). Taking a bearing from the French readings, I want to explore the question of what ‘Nietzsche today’ might mean for us today. At Cerisy in 1972, the meaning of Nietzsche was centred on the twin critiques of humanism and capitalism. While these issues persist, several articles in the 2016 collection indicate that they are now inflected through the vast contemporary significance of technology. One of the key debates here is Nietzsche’s significance for transhumanism. For Bernard Stiegler, transhumanism is the culmination of nihilism, understood as the reign of big data and the total quantification of the self. In this regard, he alludes to a ‘hypernihilism’ of the contemporary era, characterised by the quantifying effects of information technologies, which work in conjunction with capitalism to produce an ultimate ‘averaging’ force. I will argue that Stiegler gives an essential corrective to the largely critical engagements with neonihilism of the Nietzscheans of the previous generation, but that his emphasis on the value of negentropy risks reaffirming the logic of the transhumanism he critiques. Nietzscheanism today, I will argue, requires an appreciation of the dual tendencies of nihilism – identified here as neonihilism and hypernihilism – such that we must draw on contributions from both generations of French Nietzscheans in order to think and respond to the problems of our contemporary era. (shrink)

In recent years ‘bioart’ has been lauded in the social sciences for its creative engagements with the ontological stakes of new forms of biotechnical life in-the-making. In this paper I push further to explore the ontogenetic potentials of bioart-encounters to generate new capacities for thinking and perceiving the nonhuman agencies imbricated in the becoming of subjects. To explore this potential I stage an encounter with Gilbert Simondon’s philosophy of individuation, highlighting three implications for theorizations of the constitution and transformation of (...) subjects. First, Simondon forces us to rethink the subject in terms of its transductive emergence from pre-individual processes, and its metastable susceptibility to ongoing transformations. Second, he substitutes voluntarist conceptions of thought with an involuntarist primacy of material encounters as the conditions for novel individuations. Finally, I argue that Simondon enables a thinking of the politics of the art-encounter in terms of its ontogenetic capacity to materially produce, rather than merely represent, new subjects and worlds. (shrink)

This chapter investigates the ontologies of fragments of photography from a number of different, but colliding, perspectives. Beginning with the Romantic fragments of Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy, Lucretius’s atoms and the worms of Marx and Vonnegut. This seemingly random array of thoughts and thinkers concretises a multiplicity as a direct expression of the concepts put into play. With different ontological amalgams emerging from the range of multiples to hand, it becomes important to take account of not only of the complexity of (...) creativity at work, but also the apparently accidental events that are developed here. To investigate these concepts, this chapter turns to the philosophies of Simondon, Whitehead and Malabou. The impact of this upon photography generated at the confluence of human and nonhuman actors is examined in two areas. First, in the deliberate disruption of a phone camera app’s software, as shown in Bonamy Devas’s ‘Photo Tai Chi’ project. Second, in the unintended disruption of Jinkyun Ahn’s photos of his family, which were only partially recovered after being accidentally deleted. In concluding, this chapter seeks not to offer final, well-delineated, ontologically complete creations and to wonder in which ways can we ensure that any act of creation doesn’t completely exhaust its possibilities in its manifestation: this chapter included. (shrink)