WEEKLY REFLECTION-week 8 & 9

Core Reading

• Week 8: Searle, A., Giraud, E.H., Turnbull, J., Anderson-Elliot, H. 2024.Introduction: what is Digital Ecologies? In: Turnbull, J., Searle, A., Anderson-Elliot, H. and Giraud, E.H., (eds.) Digital Ecologies: Mediating More-Then-Human Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 1-20
• Sabin, L. 2024. Breathe for Ella: artivism, intersectionality and sensing air pollution, Artnodes, no. 33, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/artnodes.v0i33.417688
• Week 9: Forlano, L. 2016. Hacking the Feminist Disabled Body. Journal of Peer Production, 8, no pagination.

Reflection of Readings

This article primarily addresses a fundamental question: In an era of climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and mass species extinction, what exactly is the role of digital media in eco-politics? The author puts forward the concept of the technonatural present, pointing out that our lives have long been woven into the environment by various forms of digital media. From satellites, AI-powered plant identification systems and birdwatching apps, to environmental activism on social media, and further to surveillance cameras, camera traps and "smart" governance systems—these technologies, on the one hand, help us understand, conserve and mobilize for the environment; on the other hand, they exacerbate ecological injustice through resource extraction, energy consumption and the logic of surveillance.

The article critiques two opposing narratives: the techno-utopianism that touts the idea that "digital technology can save the planet," and the techno-pessimism that claims "screens alienate people from nature." Instead, it argues that we should look beyond the glitches inherent in these grand narratives to uncover more complex, context-specific stories—such as hacking technologies for alternative purposes, or exposing the material consumption behind digital infrastructures through unconventional rhythms and approaches. Subsequently, the author defines digital ecology as an epistemological approach that asks how, where, for whom, and with what political consequences digital media mediate the multispecies world.

Finally, the author defines several key concepts in the article:

• “Digitalization" is not a monolithic "Digital" entity, but a series of processes that convert the world into binary code. It not only enables non-human beings—previously perceptible yet overlooked—to manifest in new ways, but also opens up entirely new domains of perception (such as the deep sea or the microbial world). As such, it entails distinct forms of biopower and governance.
• “Mediation/mediatization" is conceptualized as a process that reshapes social and material relations, rather than a neutral transmission conduit. This requires simultaneous consideration of technological apparatuses, content, and affective effects.
• “Ecology" and "more-than-human" incorporate perspectives from political ecology and feminist Science and Technology Studies (STS). They emphasize the need to ask "who benefits from these infrastructures and classification systems, and who is excluded," while integrating power relations, colonial histories and non-human agency into the discussion.

Sabin, L. 2024. Breathe for Ella: artivism, intersectionality and sensing air pollution, Artnodes, no. 33, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/artnodes.v0i33.417688

Sabin’s Breathe for Ella offers an analysis centered on the art project Breathe:2022, exploring how artivism and embodied experiences can reshape the way we perceive and discourse on air pollution. The article opens with an account of a nighttime projection event on London’s South Bank—Dryden Goodwin compiled 1,300 hand-drawn sketches into an animated film, projecting enlarged upper-body images of several activists and Ella’s mother, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, onto the facade of a building.

This work was presented as part of the Breathe for Ella memorial and advocacy campaign, directly linking to two pivotal developments: first, Ella’s tragic death from prolonged exposure to traffic pollution on the South Circular Road, which marked the world’s first legally recognized case where air pollution was listed as an official cause of death; second, the political efforts to promote the UK’s Clean Air (Human Rights) Act and enshrine the "right to breathe clean air" in law. Sabin interprets Rosamund’s public advocacy as a form of intersectional feminist politics, emphasizing that air pollution should not be reduced to an abstract matter of metrics. Instead, it demands centering the stories of specific bodies, families and communities to make visible the overlapping oppressions and invisible sufferings they endure.

uilding on this framework, the author proposes the concept of breathing interfaces: architectural surfaces, urban infrastructure, digital screens and hashtags (e.g., #ICantBreathe), as well as lungs and skin themselves, all function as interfaces that render air quality tangible and bring power relations to the fore. In its conclusion, the article revisits the dual nature of the Breathe for Ella campaign—as both a memorial and a call to action. The work does not offer a ready-made solution to the goal of "clean air for all"; instead, through art and narrative, it amplifies the diverse breathing experiences of different individuals, placing its hope in sustained, care-oriented collective practice to gradually pave the way for a more breathable future.

Reflection: Week 8&9

During my experience of taking photos and "listening to spices" at the market, I realized that I was actually immersed in what Searle et al. refer to as the technonatural present. The damp, cool sheen of seafood stalls, the hot mist curling up from the kitchens of snack stands, the texture of pizza crusts, the tactile feel of fabrics, the resonance of piano keys, and the grain of stone walls—these were once nothing more than ordinary, everyday scenes in the market. Yet the moment I raised my phone, adjusted the focus, and pressed record, they were all digitized into sets of shareable, storable, and reusable data. This transformation is by no means neutral; it has altered my relationship with these physical entities. I was no longer merely a shopper or a passerby, but rather guided by my device to capture a certain texture, a particular sound, or a fleeting moment.

As noted in Searle et al.’s article, digital media have not only expanded my perception of a multispecies, multimaterial world, but also drawn me into a specific logic of perception—those things captured on camera are visible precisely because they conform to the lighting, composition, and recordability of the phone lens; while those left unrecorded (such as scents and temperatures) remain invisible.

Inspired by Sabin’s article, I came to a renewed realization that this digitized world also conceals a multitude of unseen bodies and labor. For instance, where the seafood originates and how its journey is sustained by energy consumption and cold-chain logistics; who inhales the kitchen fumes day in and day out; the weaving, transportation, and environmental costs embedded in those fabrics; and even the piano sounds that depend on the histories of wood, metal, and physical space. When I put down my camera and pressed my ear to listen to the sounds of spices in different jars, I detected that some produced a dull, muffled gurgle while others emitted a crisp, clear tinkling. These subtle acoustic differences made me realize for the first time that "sound" can also serve as an interface for understanding the food ecosystem. As Sabin argues, perception is not about generating objective metrics, but about allowing the modes of existence, histories, and vulnerabilities of matter to resonate within our own bodies.

This practice thus felt like a form of training to me: using digital media to access a multisensory world, yet remaining constantly vigilant about which relationships are amplified and which are silenced; while capturing images and sounds, also learning to listen to the stories that are not easily digitized but that truly constitute the market’s ecosystem.

During the workshop in week 9, I was introduced to the Love-O-Meter project for the first time. Using the materials kit provided, I connected and operated sensors to convert body temperature into visualised data feedback. After completing the practical steps, I began reflecting on how the process of sensation is simplified and quantified through technological intervention. In the Love-O-Meter project, the body is transformed into readable, displayable numerical values, with temperature serving as the threshold triggering visual feedback.

Combining with the Week 8 workshop practice, I observed that ordinary sensations like temperature, materials, and sound can be recoded into storable, shareable data. However, conditions or implicit labour uncapturable by lenses or sensors remain excluded from digital visibility. For example, the assembly process with my group members when connecting the Love-O-Meter, and the debugging process within the software, were not reflected in the final digital display.

From this, I came to realise that digital practices both reveal and conceal the world. Some invisible elements remain hidden behind technological interfaces. Thus, digital technology is not simply a tool for measurement and recording, but should be employed as an intermediary that prompts reflection, encourages perception, and fosters our relationship with the world.