“OOO holds no grudge against the socio-political interpretation or effectiveness of art, but simply insists that not all of the elements of the context of an artwork are relevant to that work, and that an artwork either admits or forbids its surroundings to enter through a fairly rigorous process of selection.”Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology (Pelican Books) (p. 102). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
The above is a quote by Object Oriented Ontology philosopher Graham Harman. It makes me wonder how would an artwork “admit or forbid its surroundings to enter”? Suppose I am a human object aspiring to be an artwork, how I relate or negate my context, how I compound or distance myself from other objects would reshape me as a sensual object. Right?
Me as an object among other objects am not just a “person in environment” as social work teaches us, but enmeshed, compounded, yet distinct. Depending on how I admit or reject my context, other things, other objects shifts my status as a quadruple object, a sensual object and a composition of sensual qualities. Maybe at the moment of filtering there is freedom? Maybe as an object I can change? I can recreate my compound object existence? What is my own process of “rigorous selection”? Can I think through this quote about artwork in the context of counseling?
To what extent do you consider yourself a product of your context?
When you introduce yourself, what elements of your context are relevant ? Where you grew up, went to school, what you do, your parents, your family, children, your race or religion………
Just a wondering. I need to sit with this for a while.
Photography by: Nate Dale – New Adventure Productions