Aesthetics for post-human worlds

Abstract

This short commentary briefly flags and develops three dimensions of an `aesthetics for post-human worlds', which are suggested by Dixon et al.'s (2012) paper. The first relates to questions of non-human difference – encouraging the authors to focus on what might be gained from comparing the different ontologies offered in their two case studies. The second examines questions of expertise, dwelling on the skills recounted in the paper under discussions and the epistemological politics that underpin science-art collaboration. The third observation explores the relationships between post-human aesthetics, ethics and politics. In short this commentary suggests that the authors have perhaps been a little humble about the import of their analysis. There are wider implications for geographical thought and practice after the relational turn raised here that are worthy of more extensive discussion.