Socioplastics does not treat the image as decoration. The image is a mobile organ of knowledge: it remembers, displaces, survives, circulates, wounds, seduces, documents, conceals and reappears. The sixth absorptive arc — Aby Warburg, Marcel Duchamp, László Moholy-Nagy, Walter Benjamin, Robert Smithson, Ana Mendieta, Harun Farocki, Hito Steyerl, Joan Jonas and Tehching Hsieh — gathers atlas, montage, conceptual art, media, performance, entropy, ritual and operational vision. What seems dispersed becomes coherent when we understand that each figure asks how images organise time, matter and power.
This arc is crucial for Socioplastics because the project is not only textual. Even when it writes, it thinks imagistically: through constellations, diagrams, nodes, cores, packs, indices, series, surfaces and recursive formats. The original Socioplastics constellation names this arc as the field of “visualidad, memoria, arte, superficie, cine, dispositivo”. The broader index, with its public sequence of nodes, repositories, DOI anchors and conceptual titles, also behaves like an atlas: not one image, but a navigable field of visual-intellectual positions.
Warburg opens the arc because he understands images as survivals. His Mnemosyne Atlas does not arrange images into a linear history. It places them in constellations where gestures, pathos formulas, draperies, rituals, gods, planets, bodies and symbols migrate across time. Warburg’s image is not fixed. It carries energetic residues. It returns in altered forms.
For Socioplastics, Warburg is indispensable. The field itself is Warburgian in structure: it gathers distant figures not to flatten them, but to reveal hidden survivals and affinities. Anaximander may speak to Lovelock; Llull may speak to Turing; Merian may speak to Kimmerer; Geddes may speak to Jacobs. The atlas is not a museum wall. It is a thinking machine. Warburg teaches that proximity can produce knowledge when it is charged, not arbitrary.
Duchamp introduces displacement. The readymade breaks the continuity between craft, object and aesthetic value. A urinal, a bottle rack, a snow shovel: by changing context, naming and institutional frame, the object changes ontological status. Duchamp matters because he shows that art is not only in the object but in the operation that relocates it.
This is deeply socioplastic. Socioplastics also relocates concepts. A biological term may enter urbanism. An archival procedure may enter sculpture. A technical protocol may enter pedagogy. A DOI may become an aesthetic anchor. Duchamp’s lesson is that meaning can be produced by displacement. But displacement is not randomness; it is an exact shift in field conditions. The same thing, placed elsewhere, becomes another thing.
Moholy-Nagy brings perception into the age of technical media. Light, photography, typography, film, design and pedagogy become instruments for reorganising vision. His work at the Bauhaus insists that modern perception must be trained through new materials and devices. The image is no longer only representation; it becomes experiment.
Socioplastics needs Moholy-Nagy because it too must invent pedagogies of perception. To see a field across disciplines requires training. One must learn to perceive structure where others see accumulation, relation where others see dispersion, plasticity where others see category error. Moholy-Nagy gives the arc its pedagogical optic: images teach because they reorganise the sensorium.
Benjamin then gives montage its historical and political density. In his work, technical reproduction transforms aura, spectatorship, memory and politics. The fragment becomes critical. The quotation becomes explosive. History is not narrated smoothly; it is constructed through flashes, interruptions, dialectical images. Benjamin’s importance for Socioplastics is immense because he turns montage into method.
A socioplastic field does not proceed only by argument; it proceeds by montage. It places distant materials in charged adjacency until a new constellation appears. The point is not synthesis as smooth fusion, but collision. Matter strikes archive. City strikes body. Technique strikes ecology. Image strikes language. In that collision, the hidden architecture of the present becomes visible.
Smithson moves the arc into entropy, site and nonsite. His work refuses the clean separation between gallery and landscape, map and territory, ruin and construction. The nonsite brings displaced matter into the exhibition space, while the site remains elsewhere, fractured and referenced. This relation is crucial for Socioplastics because every archive is also a nonsite. A node points to a world it cannot fully contain.
Smithson also introduces decay as form. Entropy is not failure; it is temporal intelligence. Cities erode. Archives decay. Meanings drift. Systems accumulate sediment. Socioplastics must therefore think not only creation but ruination. The corpus is not a polished crystal; it is a geological formation, layered, weathered, indexed, displaced.
Ana Mendieta brings body, earth, ritual and trace together. Her Silueta works place the body’s outline into mud, grass, fire, stone, blood and landscape. Presence appears through absence. The body is not represented; it is impressed into earth as wound, memory and offering. Mendieta matters because she joins image to territory and vulnerability.
For Socioplastics, her work clarifies that the image is not always visual surface. It may be an imprint, a residue, a negative, a scar. The field must therefore attend to traces: what remains after action, what marks a place, what testifies without speaking. A socioplastic image can be a photograph, but also a footprint, a cut, a ruin, a stain, a citation, a vanished body.
Farocki shifts the arc toward operational images: images made not primarily for human contemplation but for machines, weapons, surveillance, labour systems and logistics. His work reveals that modern images increasingly operate. They guide missiles, train workers, monitor bodies, simulate environments and administer reality. Farocki is decisive because he breaks the innocent theory of visuality.
Socioplastics must absorb this lesson. Images are not merely seen; they do things. Plans regulate land. Interfaces direct behaviour. Diagrams allocate resources. Satellite images produce geopolitical decisions. Medical scans define bodies. Archival thumbnails guide memory. A field attentive to images must ask: who operates through this image, and upon whom?
Hito Steyerl extends this into the digital circulation of the poor image. Compression, copying, uploading, downloading, degradation and viral movement become political aesthetics. The poor image is low-resolution but high-circulation. It loses quality while gaining speed. It becomes both democratic and exploited, free and captured. Steyerl matters because she identifies the image as a migrant worker of digital capitalism.
Socioplastics is implicated here. Its own field circulates through blogs, datasets, repositories, PDFs, DOI pages and compressed contexts. The question is not only how to produce beautiful knowledge, but how knowledge travels under degraded, platformed and uneven conditions. Steyerl gives Socioplastics a theory of circulation without purity.
Joan Jonas introduces performance, video, ritual and mirror. Her work inhabits the space between body, myth, animal, drawing, gesture and recording. The image is not stable; it is enacted. Video becomes a temporal mirror where the body sees itself becoming sign. Jonas matters because she keeps the image close to performance and ritual intelligence.
For Socioplastics, this is important because a field is not only written or archived; it is performed. Teaching Socioplastics, speaking it, arranging its posts, drawing its diagrams, walking its urban sections, gardening its metaphors — all these are performative acts. Jonas reminds the project that images are events before they are files.
Tehching Hsieh closes the arc through duration. His year-long performances transform time into the primary medium: punching a time clock, living outdoors, being tied to another person, refusing art-making. Here the image is sparse, documentary, almost residual. The real work is duration itself. Hsieh matters because he reveals that endurance can be form.
This resonates strongly with Socioplastics as a long serial corpus. Thousands of nodes are not only content; they are duration made visible. The project’s image is its persistence. Like Hsieh’s time-based work, the socioplastic corpus asks what happens when a life is organised through repeated acts that become evidence. The archive is not after the performance; it is part of the performance.
The Image-Atlas-Montage Arc therefore gives Socioplastics its sixth major proposition: images are not representations of fields; they are field-forming devices. They migrate, collide, operate, degrade, endure and return. They can reveal hidden relations, but they can also administer power. They can preserve memory, but also produce forgetting. They can open perception, but also discipline it.
The apparent distance between Warburg and Steyerl, Duchamp and Farocki, Mendieta and Hsieh, Moholy-Nagy and Jonas is precisely what this arc absorbs. Warburg gives survival. Duchamp gives displacement. Moholy-Nagy gives technical perception. Benjamin gives montage. Smithson gives entropy and site. Mendieta gives trace and earth-body. Farocki gives operational vision. Steyerl gives digital circulation. Jonas gives performative image. Hsieh gives duration.
Together they show that the image is not one thing. It is atlas, cut, machine, memory, wound, protocol, signal, ruin, document and performance. Socioplastics needs this multiplicity because the field itself must be seen as much as read. Its structure is visual even when composed of words. Its nodes form constellations. Its bibliographies form territories. Its repetitions form rhythms. Its DOI chains form infrastructural lines.
A field without images remains abstract. But a field that trusts images too easily becomes spectacle. The task is therefore double: to use images as instruments of thought, and to critique the apparatuses that make images operate.
Socioplastics must build atlases, not idols. It must create constellations, not icons. It must allow images to collide, migrate and think, without forgetting that every image has a politics of circulation and a material cost. The sixth arc teaches that seeing is never passive. To see is to arrange the world. To arrange the world is already to intervene in it.
Bibliography
Benjamin, W. (2008) The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Edited by M.W. Jennings, B. Doherty and T.Y. Levin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Duchamp, M. (1973) The Writings of Marcel Duchamp. Edited by M. Sanouillet and E. Peterson. New York: Da Capo Press.
Farocki, H. (2004) Harun Farocki: Working on the Sight-Lines. Edited by T. Elsaesser. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Hsieh, T. (2009) Out of Now: The Lifeworks of Tehching Hsieh. Edited by A. Heathfield and T. Hsieh. London: Live Art Development Agency and MIT Press.
Jonas, J. (2015) Joan Jonas: They Come to Us Without a Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT List Visual Arts Center.
Lloveras, A. (2026) Socioplastics-1507-Media-Theory-Mediation-Framework. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19162359.
Mendieta, A. (1996) Ana Mendieta. Edited by G. Moure. Barcelona: Ediciones Polígrafa.
Moholy-Nagy, L. (1947) Vision in Motion. Chicago: Paul Theobald.
Smithson, R. (1996) Robert Smithson: The Collected Writings. Edited by J. Flam. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Steyerl, H. (2012) The Wretched of the Screen. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Warburg, A. (1999) The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
