Abstract
In our response, below, we undertake a deeper engagement with one of the authors, Elizabeth Grosz, that a number of the respondents have evoked, implicitly as well as explicitly, in their response to our text and, in particular, Grosz's arguments on art as of the chaotic and of the animal. Whilst our comments on the bowerbird speak to the artistry involved in a sexuated mode of reproduction that increases biological difference, we emphasise an abyssal moment in our initial text wherein we move from a consideration of sexual selection to symbiosis and accretion as productive of diversity, terms that no longer sit quite so comfortably in the lexicon of the ‘animal’. Rather, we implicate aesthetics and an artistry across and down chemical concentration gradients.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
