Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) isn’t an art movement originally, but a philosophical framework that’s had influence in contemporary art and theory.
Here’s the gist:
What it is: OOO is a branch of speculative realism, developed mainly by Graham Harman, Levi Bryant, and Ian Bogost in the early 2000s.
Core idea: Objects exist independently of human perception. A chair, a rock, a virus, or even a fictional character has its own reality that isn’t reducible to how humans experience or use it.
Why it matters for art: Traditional Western art has long been human-centered — even abstract or minimalist works are often framed around human meaning or perception. OOO pushes back against this “anthropocentrism.”
In art practice: Artists influenced by OOO often explore the agency of objects themselves, how materials interact with each other, or how nonhuman entities (machines, ecosystems, algorithms) shape reality. This can look “anti-human figure” because the focus shifts from people to things.
Examples in art influenced by OOO:
Installations where objects “confront” viewers as independent beings.
Works that emphasize materiality — like how steel, plastic, or digital code behaves on its own.
Ecological and post-humanist art that treats humans as just one actor among many.
So in a sense, OOO isn’t anti-human like Suprematism or Constructivism were, but it de-centers humans — making the human figure no longer the default subject of art.
According to information provided by the Human Rights Foundation on 7 August and verified by ArtReview, representatives of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (the main funder of BACC) accompanied by Chinese embassy officials visited the exhibition on 27 July, three days after it opened, and flagged several works as ‘problematic’. Works by Hong Kong artists Clara Cheung and Gum Cheng Yee Man, Tibetan artist Tenzin Mingyur Paldron and Uyghur artist Mukaddas Mijit were removed or obscured and the names of the artists were blacked out.
“I still think science is looking for answers and art is looking for questions.” ⠀ Quinn sees the skeleton as representative of an everyman, an abstraction of a person since it is the part of the body which transcends death. The sculptures Angel and Waiting for Godot take the form of a praying skeleton and are an ironic reference to the idea of waiting for answers – or for some kind of external power to guide our life. ⠀ Marc Quinn Waiting for Godot 2006 Patinated bronze 77h x 37w x 76.5d cm
“I don’t think it’s necessary to be original. It’s necessary to be honest.”
Martin Creed: What’s the point of it? is the first major retrospective of Creed’s ingenious and often highly provocative work. Since the beginning of his career, when he made small objects that could be placed anywhere, Creed has made work that questions the very nature of art and challenges taboos. His work takes on a multitude of forms—from sculpture, paintings, neons, films and installations, to music and performance—appearing both in the art gallery and in broader public circulation. At once rigorous and humorous, his art continually surprises, disrupts and overturns our expectations. It reflects on the unease we face in making choices, the comfort we find in repetition, the desire to control, and the inevitable losses of control that shape existence.
Martin Creed Work No. 88 1995 A sheet of A4 paper crumpled into a ball.
