Nanoimages as Hybrid Monsters

On “Aesthetic Publics”

“…For instance, representations of nanotubes or nanobots can be more or less "technical" (e.g., derived from scanning tunneling electron microscope imaging) or "designerly" (graphic imaginative depictions of these and their various uses). As Ruivenkamp and Rip (2014) and De Ridder-Vignone and Lynch (2012) have commented, in the former case, these representations aim to establish the reality and "authenticity" of nanotechnology (as well as the seriousness of the underlying science); in the latter case, these representations mediate expectations about potential applications. While most of these analyses rightly engage with the processes by which these representations are put together, and how they might influence audiences' readings (e.g., Campbell, Deane and Murphy 2015), they pay less attention to any accompanying accounts of how these depictions might be experienced by their audiences.…”

Innovation and Compliance in Making and Perceiving the Scientific Visualization of Viruses

“…decisions about the appearance to be given to the molecular or superficial composition of these substances are based on parameters established by teams of experts who draw from conservative visual conventions to mark a continuation from, and a belonging to, a certain scientific tradition (Rasmussen, 1999). However, these experts also draw on popular iconography that partially satisfies the expectations of the public regarding particular substances, facilitating their identification and prolonging their popular reputation (Ruivenkamp & Rip, 2014). It is possible to evince the unfolding of this tension by performing a semiotic analysis of H5N1 illustrations disseminated by media outlets.…”

“…All intersecting technical and scientific aspects of visualization, including expectations and tacit rules, shape and are shaped by the visual products emerging at the end of the process (Ruivenkamp & Rip, 2014). "the laboratory," as coopmans (2014a) explains, "extends to other spaces and places via collaborative ventures, shared data centres, and information and communication technologies," challenging "the very distinction between laboratory and field" (p. 3).…”

“…As Ruivenkamp and Rip (2014) suggest, images of substances like viruses that are not visible to the human eye, and which are "assumed to be 'down there' based on data provided by instruments" (p. 177), are "guided by expectations about what can be 'seen' [at this scale] and rules [about] how [this scale] should be visualized" (p. 179). scientists are aware of the potential effects that visualization can have on publics who consume these images, in part because they are themselves exposed to the same popular cultural narratives and anxieties surrounding viruses.…”

“…Visualization is "like the materialized refigurations that corporealize life in the form of information systems" (myers, 2014, p. 162). In the visualization of submicroscopic substances that cannot be observed directly by the human eye (mody, 2014;Ruivenkamp & Rip, 2014), incorporating tropes and cultural hints establishes a vivid comparison between familiar phenomena and the object displayed, helping both learned and partially educated audiences understand its significance. However, in the case of viruses, evoking cultural metaphors is unnecessary because viruses encapsulate assumed features and an affective gravity that is difficult to ignore.…”