A NATURAL HISTORY PANOPTICON101Aristotelian cosmologies of two alchemists, the Majorcan philosopher
Ramon Lull (1232–1215) and the English Paracelsian physician Robert Fludd
(1574–1637). The organization of objects in the cabinets thus juxtaposes two
different scala naturae, materializing the inherent connections involved
in man’s elevation to godlike status through the acquisition of knowl-
edge. In this instance Dion wants to highlight the arbitrariness with which
the contents of the cabinets are organized. As different forms of realism,
Fludd’s scala naturae ascended from the baseness of sensus to imagination,
ratio, intellectus, intelligensus, verbum, and finally Deus, whereas Lull’s
ascended from lapis to flama, planta, brutu, homo, lelum, angel, and Deus.^95
Although they employ the materiality of objects as validating build-
ing blocks, in this configuration the juxtaposition of these two classifi-
catory systems reveals their constructedness and fictitiousness. In this
context, taxidermy is incorporated as a critical counterpoint to the an-
thropocentric act of ordering. The mounted birds housed in the top half
of the Lull cabinet, juxtaposed to the animal toys on the shelf directly
above them, reassess the permeability of ontology and the fallibility of
taxonomy. More specifically, side by side, the cabinets problematize the
nature/culture dichotomy, the anthropological divide that character-
ized the Enlightenment’s debates on education and that still animates
discussions of the Anthropocene today.^96 In this instance, like in many
others in his work, Dion’s critique is grounded in the past of institutions
and disciplines to reveal the persistence of outdated anthropocentric
approaches.
In this instance, Dion also shared his authorial ownership by directly
curating only the Lull cabinet, and delegating the other to Robert Wil-
liams, a professor of fine art at the University of Cumbria, where the proj-
ect evolved. The central cabinet that separates the two others contains a
human skeleton, emblematically situated in the position of the author
who can turn left or right toward one cabinet or the other, but who ulti-
mately cannot directly access the very essence of his own existence amid
the objects that define it. The skeleton simultaneously gestures to the tra-
ditional use of the memento mori in classical painting—the reminder of
death as the inevitable equalizer of all life. These elements draw the viewer
to participate in a process of interpretation guided by the presence of the
skeleton’s presence as silent, prophetic mirror. Specifically, left to our own
devices in making sense of the world, have we lived a fair life in preparation