The concept of the “inhuman” can’t be taken too literally. Unlike some science fiction dreamers, I don’t advocate that people should become inhuman, more than human or part machine. I don’t see how an artist can be anything other than a body that desires other bodies, functioning in normal bodily ways. There is no transcendence of the bodily, vulgar, ordinary and material. The inhuman is a place that allows a perspective on the mass delusions of the social, including the art world. What is most oppressive about art world conventions is that they block feeling, meaning an original response to any work. So then my use of the “inhuman” is actually on behalf of ordinary human feeling; it’s a strategy particular to abstraction to ground a liberating perspective—partial, temporary, contingent.
Still, there is a valid political reason for the terminology. One way to understand it might be to start with the environmental perspective offered earlier on this blog.