This exploratory paper investigates the enactment of a number of “publics” in relation to a recent, ostensibly “technical”, innovation, namely, the nanotechnology Vertically Aligned Nanotube Array-black (VANTAblack®). In particular, we show how various representations of VANTAblack—as technical artifact, as an exclusive artist’s material, as an exciting coating for a mass-produced commercial product, and as an object of science communication—implicate different “aesthetic experiences”. We discuss these aesthetic experiences in terms of the enactment of four distinct “aesthetic publics.” We then consider the possible analytic value of the concept of aesthetic publics, not least in relation to the “opening up” and “closing down” of the potential debates that might attach to emerging technologies.
BorupM.BrownN.KonradK.Van LenteH.. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18 (3-4): 285–98.
4.
BourdieuP.1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
5.
CallonM.1986. “The Sociology of an Actor-network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, edited by CallonM.LawJ.RipA., 19–34. London, UK: Macmillan.
6.
CalvertJ.SchyfterP.. 2017. “What Can Science and Technology Studies Learn from Art and Design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics.’” Social Studies of Science47 (2): 195–215.
7.
CampbellN., C. DeaneMurphyP.. 2015. “Advertising Nanotechnology: Imagining the Invisible.” Science, Technology, & Human Values40 (6): 965–97.
CollinsH. M. 1987. “Certainty and Public Understanding of Science: Science on Television.” Social Studies of Science17 (4): 689–713.
10.
CollinsH. M. 1988. “Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity.” Social Studies of Science18 (4): 725–48.
11.
DaviesS. R. 2014. “Knowing and Loving: Public Engagement beyond Discourse.” Science & Technology Studies28 (3): 90–110.
12.
DaviesS. R. 2016. “Participation as Pleasure: Citizenship and Science Communication.” In Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, edited by ChilversJ.KearnesM., 162–77. New York: Routledge.
13.
De la FuenteE.2000. “Sociology and Aesthetics.” European Journal of Social Theory3 (2): 235–47.
14.
De Ridder-VignoneK. 2012. “Public Engagement and the Art of Nanotechnology.” Leonardo45 (5): 433–38.
15.
De Ridder-VignoneK.LynchM.. 2012. “Images and Imaginations: An Exploration of Nanotechnology Image Galleries.” Leonardo45 (5): 447–54.
16.
DelgadoA.KjølbergK. L.WicksonF.. 2011. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science20 (6): 826–45.
17.
ElamM.BertilssonM.. 2003. “Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship.” European Journal of Social Theory6 (2): 233–51.
18.
FeatherstoneM.1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London, UK: Sage.
19.
FeltU.SchumannS.SchwarzC. G.. 2015. “(Re)assembling Natures, Cultures, and (Nano)technologies in Public Engagement.” Science as Culture24 (4): 458–83.
20.
FrowJ.1995. Cultural Studies and Cultural Value. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
HallS.1997. “Where Is the Subject?” In Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by HallS., 31–56. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
23.
HarawayD.2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24.
HarveyJ.2013. The Story of Black. London, UK: Reaktion Books.
LastA.2014. “Who’s the Pest? Imagining Human–Insect Futures beyond Antagonism.” Science as Culture23 (1): 98–107.
28.
LatourB.2004. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry30 (2): 225–48.
29.
LezaunJ.SonerydL.. 2007. “Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics.” Public Understanding of Science16 (3): 279–97.
LuryC.2004. Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. London, UK: Routledge.
32.
LynchM.EdgertonS. Y.. 1987. “Aesthetics and Digital Image Processing: Representational Craft in Contemporary Astronomy.” The Sociological Review35 (S1): 184–220.
33.
MacnaghtenP.GuivantJ. S.. 2011. “Converging Citizens? Nanotechnology and the Political Imaginary of Public Engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom.” Public Understanding of Science20 (2): 207–20.
34.
MarresN.2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science37 (5): 759–81.
35.
MassumiB.2011. Semblance and Event. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
MichaelM.2009. “Publics Performing Publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and Politics.” Public Understanding of Science18 (5): 617–31.
37.
MichaelM.BrownN.. 2004. “The Meat of the Matter: Grasping and Judging Xenotransplantation.” Public Understanding of Science13 (4): 379–97.
38.
MichaelM.BrownN.. 2005. “Scientific Citizenships: Self-Representations of Xenotransplantation’s Publics.” Science as Culture14 (1): 38–57.
39.
MolA.1999. “Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions.” In Actor-network Theory and After, edited by LawJ.HassardJ., 74–89. Oxford, UK: Blackwell and The Sociological Review.
40.
MolA.2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
NerlichB.2008. “Powered by Imagination: Nanobots at the Science Photo Library.” Science as Culture17 (3): 269–92.
42.
NyeD. E.1994. American Technological Sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
O’RiordanK.FotopoulouA.StephensN.. 2017. “The First Bite: Imaginaries, Promotional Publics and the Laboratory Grown Burger.” Public Understanding of Science26 (2): 148–63.
44.
OsbaldistonN., ed. 2013. Culture of the Slow. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
PinchT. J.BijkerW. E.. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts.” Social Studies of Science14 (3): 399–441.
46.
PotterJ.WetherellM.. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. London, UK: Sage.
47.
RipA.2006. “Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists.” Science as Culture15 (4): 349–65.
48.
RuivenkampM.RipA.. 2014. “Nano-images as Hybrid Monsters.” In Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited, edited by CoopmansC.VertesiJ.LynchM. E.WoolgarS., 177–200. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
SchillmeierM.2015. “Caring for Social Complexity in Nanomedicine.” Nanomedicine10 (20): 3181–93.
50.
SelinC.2007. “Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values32 (2): 196–220.
51.
ShoveE.2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Oxford, UK: Berg.
52.
StarS. L. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 601–17.
53.
StarS. L.GreisemerJ.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–430.
54.
StirlingA. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’ Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values33 (2): 262–94.
55.
VirilioP. (1977) 1986. Speed and Politics. New York: Semiotext(e).
