Issue 32: What can moving images do? An ecological thinking of the moving image

  • Abstracts (200–400 words) are due on 31st January, 2018 with a view to submit articles by April 2018.

Issue 31: Technoaffect: Bodies, Machines, Media.

  • Abstracts (200-400 words) are due 20 August 2017, with a view to submit articles by 20 November 2017.



CFP: Issue 32: What can moving images do? An ecological thinking of the moving image

Editors: Warwick Mules and John Charles Ryan

This issue of Transformations calls for papers as provocations into the human-nature relation through the questioning power of the moving image. In particular, we are looking for contributions that focus on the function of the moving image as a material artefact or visual object within an ecological milieu or image-world, where the human relation to nature is rendered open-to-question. Thinking about the moving image extends to many formats, including panoramas, dioramas, video art installations, online digital displays, scientific data schematisation and other visual apparatuses, as well as narrative and non-narrative film and cinematic projection. We encourage ecological approaches to the moving image, broadly comprising ‘film, video, broadcast television, moving computer-generated imagery, and, in short, any mass-produced moving image technologically within our reach now and in times to come’ (Carroll 2003, p. xxi).

This issue will consider ‘ecological webs’ as image-worlds or umwelten and will engage critically with the modes of nonhuman signification enacted within moving image media. Theoretical advances in ecocinema, ‘eco-cinecriticism’ and ‘green film criticism’ (Ivakhiv 2008, p. 1) over the last twenty years underscore that ‘the cinematic experience is inescapably embedded in ecological webs’ (Rust & Monani 2013, 2). The question of what can moving images do ecologically brings to prominence questions of aesthetics, poetics, politics, ethics, mediation and representation of the nature of nature and the nonhuman. Submissions from any of the disciplines that concern themselves, in one way or another, with the moving image are welcome. These include film and cinema studies, new media and video, film-philosophy, literary studies, environmental humanities and associated disciplines.

Issues and Questions:

  • The ‘nature’ of the moving image (Macdonald 2004; Willoquet-Maricondi 2010)
  • An ecopoetics of the moving image (Pick & Narraway 2013)
  • The moving image as a form of life
  • Image-worlds, poiesis, umwelten, kinesthetics and nature (Ivakhiv 2008, p. 24)
  • Time, temporality, consciousness, death and earth in film and other genres
  • Nature as ‘excess’ of the moving image
  • Nonhuman signification and semiosis (the language, script, voice, gesture and corporeality of the natural world) in moving visual media (Rust & Monani 2013)
  • Human-nonhuman collaboration, co-authorship and co-editorship in, and through, the moving image
  • Cognitive, phenomenological and affective accounts of environment and moving image (Ivakhiv 2013)
  • Vegetal, animal, fungal or mineral life as moving image of nature (Uhlin 2016)
  • Environmental aesthetics, ecological catastrophe and modes of image-making (Kääpä & Gustafsson 2013)
  • Political and ethical concerns regarding representations of nature (Hochman 1998)
  • The relation of the moving image to technology in thinking about nature, particularly in terms of techno-utopianism and dystopianism (Murray & Heumann 2017)
  • The post-cinematic turn and the moving image: a turn to nature?
  • Image-capturing and the digital: consequences for thinking nature
  • The digital moving image: a new frontier for the thinking of nature?
  • Ecology, narrative film and the moving image: decentring the ‘anthropocentric gaze’? (Rust & Monani 2013, p. 11)
  • Documentary film and nature: new readings (Hughes 2014)
  • Ecocinema and green film criticism within the context of the environmental arts and humanities: advancing fields of critique through the moving image? (Emmett & Nye 2017)

Abstracts (200–400 words) are due on 31st January, 2018 with a view to submit articles by April 2018. The issue will be edited by Warwick Mules and John Charles Ryan.

Abstracts should be forwarded to:

For submission guidelines and to view Transformations online go to:



Carroll, N. (2003). Engaging the Moving Image. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Emmett, R. & Nye, D. (2017). The Environmental Humanities: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hochman, J. (1998). Green Cultural Studies: Nature in Film, Novel and Theory. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.

Ivakhiv, A. (2008). Green Film Criticism and Its Futures. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 15 (2), 1–28.

Ivakhiv, Adrian. (2013). Ecologies of the Moving Image: Cinema, Affect, Nature. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Hughes, Helen. (2014). Green Documentary: Environmental Documentary in the Twenty-first Century. Bristol, UK: Intellect Press.

Kääpä, P. & Gustafsson, T. (Eds.). (2013). Transnational Ecocinema: Film Culture in an Era of Ecological Transformation. Bristol, UK: Intellect Press.

Macdonald, S. (2004). Toward an Eco-Cinema. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 11 (2), 107–32.

Murray, R. & Heumann, J. (2017). Ecocinema in the City. London: Routledge.

Pick, A & Narraway, G. (Eds.). (2013). Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human. New York: Berghahn Books.

Rust, S. & Monani, S. (2013). Introduction: Cuts to Dissolves—Defining and Situating Ecocinema Studies. In Rust, S., S. Monani, & S. Cubitt (Eds.), Ecocinema Theory and Practice (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge.

Uhlin, G. (2016). Plant-Thinking with Film: Reed, Branch, Flower. In P. Vieira, M. Gagliano, & J. Ryan (Eds.), The Green Thread: Dialogues with the Vegetal World (pp. 201–217). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Willoquet-Maricondi, P. (Ed.). (2010). Framing the World: Explorations in Ecocriticism and Film. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.




CFP: Issue 31: Technoaffect: Bodies, Machines, Media

Editors: Erika Kerruish and Rebecca Olive

The body and affect have always been technological. Technologies of the body circulate affect, producing flows and forms of feeling that are economically and politically situated. Contemporary digital practices are inevitably corporeally enframed (Hansen 2004), calling upon and creating bodily norms. People diversely experience new ‘configurations of bodies, technology and matter’ (Clough 2007 2) that are accompanied by reworked public feelings (Stewart 2009) and structures of feeling (Williams 1977). Sticky affects glue together ‘ideas, values and objects’ and arrange boundaries between peoples and worlds (Ahmed 2010 29).  All too often the resulting inclusions and exclusions reinforce problematic structures of domination.  At the same time affective technologies can be a site for challenging past marginalisations and reworking experiences and understandings of affect, as evidenced by creative and scholarly practices in this area.

This special issue of Transformations pays critical attention to the circulation of affect by bodily technologies, examining contemporary anxiety, hope, hatred, unease, mood, wonder, empathy, shame and joy. We invite submissions in the areas of philosophy, critical, cultural, media, science and technology studies, and creative arts research. Possible topics include but are not limited to:

  • Social media techniques of generating affect
  • Affect in embodied creative practice
  • Bodily training using digital devices
  • Digital sexuality and romance
  • Popular stylisations of the body
  • Technoaffect and disability/ability
  • Theories of affect employed in digital and interactive design and consumption
  • Affect and racialisation in new media
  • Body shaming and social media
  • Feelings held towards machines
  • Affects and  virtual reality
  • Temporality in technoaffect

Abstracts (200-400 words) are due 20 August 2017, with a view to submit articles by 20 November 2017. The issue will be edited by Erika Kerruish and Rebecca Olive.

Abstracts should be forwarded to:

For submission guidelines and to view Transformations online go to:


List of References

Ahmed, S. (2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Clough, P. T. (2007) ‘Introduction’, in P. T. Clough and J. Halley (eds), The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Hansen, M. (2004) New Philosophy for New Media Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stewart, K. (2007) Ordinary Affects, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Williams, R. (1997) Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.




CFP: Issue 30: Concepts for Action in the Environmental Arts

Co-editors: Grayson Cooke, Warwick Mules, Erika Kerruish and David Rousell

This special issue seeks contributions from scholars who are developing innovative conceptualisations, strategies and practices for the environmental arts. Such critical reconceptualisations of the field are urgently called for in response to mounting evidence that we have entered the Anthropocene epoch, a time typified by climate change, catastrophic loss of biodiversity, ecological instability, resource depletion, ubiquitous digitisation and rapid advances in biotechnology and computer science. In revealing the profound entanglement of human culture and natural phenomena in the contemporary world, the advent of the Anthropocene has had a destabilising effect on dualistic philosophies and binary logics that have upheld rigid barriers between the human and the nonhuman, the organic and the inorganic, the natural and the artificial, the social and the material. New concepts are called for that can mobilise creative thinking and action outside of such anthropocentric and humanistic frameworks, and mobilise new practices that are both attuned and responsive to the rapidly changing environmental conditions of everyday life.

This special issue further aims to establish a theoretical toolkit of conceptual resources that can provoke, incite and in-form experimental practices in the environmental arts. We define the environmental arts broadly for this purpose, with a particular emphasis on modes of thinking, feeling, sensing, designing, making, performing and composing that are attuned to environmental change and are inherently collective in nature. In this respect environmental artists have often been years and even decades ahead of others in responding to the conceptual and practical challenges of the Anthropocene. Since the 1960s, artists such as Robert Smithson, James Turrell, Robert Irwin, Helen and Newton Harrison, Joseph Beuys and Suzanne Lacy have enacted visionary environmental practices, while also conceptualising these practices within the broader fields of social theory and philosophy. The capacity for environmental artists to effectively respond to the Anthropocene is also apparent in the direct modes of address through which they are able to materialise new philosophical concepts in public space. For instance, rather than attempting to change public opinion about the environment and thus alter people’s behaviour, artists tangibly create new environments, artefacts and encounters that directly affect social perception, imagination and experience. jan jagodzinski (2015, p. 127) has described this as the unique capacity for the arts to operate as an ‘avant-garde without authority’, working at the cutting edge of social, political and environmental transformation without making claims to disciplinary authority or truth.

In this spirit, we invite abstracts that may address the following areas of theoretical and conceptual inquiry:

  • Posthumanist conceptualisations of the environmental arts that account for the multiple ecologies of everyday life in the Anthropocene (Braidotti, 2013) and avoid reduction to subject/object schemata (Benjamin, 1999)
  • Theorisations of matter and materiality as agentic in relation to creative practice, thought and experience (Barratt & Bolt, ed. 2013; Barad, 2007).
  • Responses to the geological turn in the environmental arts (Ellsworth & Kruse, 2012), including those influenced by geo-philosophy (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) and the geology of media (Parrika, 2015)
  • The environmental arts as an applied and activist philosophy involving the composition, activation and mobilisation of concepts (Massumi, 2011)
  • New conceptualisations of technology, technique and technicity through the environmental arts, including those associated with social technologies (Stengers, 2005), virtual technicities (Manning, 2013), and technics (Steigler, 1998) and technologies of the self (Foucault, 1986).
  • The capacity for speculative fictions and geo-poetics to evoke new social worlds and a politics to come (Shaviro, 2014; Bogue, 2011; Negarestani, 2008)
  • Interspecies communication and collaboration in and through the environmental arts (Garoian, 2012)
  • The changing nature of public participation through and with the environmental arts, including their pedagogical affordances as places of learning (Ellsworth, 2005)
  • Concepts for new formations of sense (Ranciere, 2010) to break from neoliberal, market-based world views of the environment predicated on ecological sovereignty
  • New concepts of being-with and care (Nancy, 2000; Foucault, 1986) to replace the control and efficiency models of biopolitics and governmentality that currently define environmental policies and public debate.


Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. eds. (2013). Carnal Knowledge: Towards a ‘New Materialism’ through the Arts. London, UK: I.B. Tauris.

Benjamin, W. (1999). ‘Little History of Photography’, trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter in Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, Volume 2, part 2, 1931-1934, ed. Michael W. Jennings, Howard Eiland, and Gary Smith, The Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 507-530.

Bogue, R. (2011). Deleuze and Guattari and the Future of Politics: Science fiction, protocols and the people to come. Deleuze Studies, 5, 77-97.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of Learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York: Routledge.

Ellsworth, E., & Kruse, J. (Eds.). (2012). Making the Geologic Now: Responses to the material conditions of everyday life. Brooklyn, NY: Punctum Books.

Foucault, M. (1986). The Care of the Self: the History of Sexuality, Volume 3, trans. Robert Hurley, Penguin, London.

Garoian, C. R. (2012). Sustaining Sustainability: The pedagogical drift of art research and practice. Studies in Art Education, 53 (4), 283-301.

Jagodzinski, j. (2015). Affirmations and Limitations of Ranciere’s Aesthetics: Questions for art and its education in the Anthropocene. In Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. (Eds.). Posthumanism and Educational Research (pp. 121-133). New York, NY: Routledge.

Manning, E. (2013). Always More Than One: Individuation’s dance. Durham: Duke University Press.

Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and Event: Activist philosophy and the occurrent arts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Nancy, Jean-Luc. (2000). Being Singular Plural. trans. Robert D. Richardson and Anne E. O’Byrne, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Negarestani, N. (2008). Cyclonopedia: Complicity with anonymous materials. Melbourne:

Parrikia, J. (2015). A Geology of Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rancire, J. (2010). Dissensus: on Politics and Aesthetics, trans. Steven Corcoran, Continuum, London.

Shaviro, S. (2014). The Universe of Things: On speculative realism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Steigler, B. (1998). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practice. Cultural Studies Review. 11 (1), 183-196.

Abstracts (200-400 words) are due 18st November 2016, with a view to submit articles by 31st March 2017.

Abstracts should be forwarded to: