In the beginning, objects must evince features signaling humanness—faces, mouths, voices—to be looked at animate; in objectophilia, the thing is sexy correctly since it is perhaps not individual, perhaps not soft and saturated in fluids, but instead hard, hard, hard—though also a little porous.
But both situations are about things arriving at a new way life in reference to their counterparties—subjects, individuals, wetware. Nevertheless, both are about topics engaging with things, whoever brand new status is simply caused by them by the former. The new charm of things is rooted in their being seen as things, which begins when they are no longer objects for subjects in Jane Bennett’s view, by contrast. 4 They then become available not merely for animist animation and sexual interest, but in addition for a 3rd connection: as things of recognition, as avenues toward what’s finally a de-animation, a kind of de-subjectivation or critical problem of subjectivation. Hito Steyerl might have had something similar to this at heart whenever she published in e-flux journal:
Typically, emancipatory training is linked with a want to be an interest. Emancipation ended up being conceived as becoming a topic of history, of representation, or of politics. In order to become an interest carried with it the promise of autonomy, sovereignty, agency. To be an interest ended up being good; become an object had been bad. But, even as we all understand, being a topic are tricky.