The Asterisk: A Diffractive Prism

The asterisk * is a glyph of paradox—simultaneously a void and a plenitude, a silence and a scream. It is a symbol that gestures beyond itself, inviting interpretation while resisting fixation. As a placeholder and a portal, it operates across linguistic, technological, and cultural domains. This essay examines the asterisk’s evolution from an editorial tool to a marker of multiplicity, exploring its role in language, algorithmic systems, and artistic practice. By analyzing the asterisk through linguistics, assemblage theory, diffraction, Hauntology, and new materialism, it argues that this seemingly simple sign embodies the interdisciplinary ethos of media art: where ambiguity is not a flaw but a foundation. Linguistic Archaeology: The Asterisk as Omission and Amplification Etymologically, the asterisk derives from the Greek asteriskos (‘little star’), rooted in the Proto-Indo-European ster-(star). Initially a textual annotation, it was used by Aristarchus of Samothrace (2nd century BC), a philologist, to mark variant readings in Homer’s epics, Origen adopted it in biblical analysis to indicate textual additions. Over time, its role expanded from marking anomalies and omissions to signaling emphasis, multiplication, and censorship across different linguistic systems. The East Asian textual tradition followed a different trajectory. In ancient Chinese civilization, the three-stroke thinking mode is consistent with graphic expression. The origin of the three-stroke is unknown, and it is speculated that it was formed before the Xia Dynasty. Related to it is the divination civilization, which is a representative summary of primitive civilization. The earliest was object divination (such as yarrow), then symbol divination (such as three strokes), and finally text divination (such as I Ching). To know sixty- four, you must know eight first, and to know eight, you must know three first, while Chinese character corrections relied on radicals and punctuation rather than external symbols. This contrast reflects broader semiotic thinking: the former emphasizes the instrumentality and abstract transplantation of symbols, while the latter focuses on the visual symbiosis of symbols and context. Curiously, in the digital age, the asterisk can also be seen as composed of three strokes. This resonates with the ancient Chinese pattern. In historical linguistics, the asterisk marks reconstructed proto-forms (*proto-Indo-European) and later, in generative grammar, denotes ungrammatical constructions. Giorgio Graffi identifies its use in the works of pioneers such as Bloomfield and Benveniste, illustrating how its semantic expansion parallels shifts in linguistic paradigms.¹

This adaptability underscores the asterisk’s capacity to oscillate between reconstructed and grammatically incorrect, presence and non-existent, possibility and prohibition. Assemblage: The Asterisk as a Dynamic Signifier The asterisk (), when isolated, is simply a character with no inherent role. However, once embedded in a system, it becomes an active part of an assemblage, shaping and being shaped by its context. According to Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus, an assemblage is a dynamic configuration where components interact to generate new meanings and functions. Isolated, the asterisk () is merely a character; but within a system, it becomes an active part of an assemblage, shaping and being shaped by its context. In written text, the asterisk denotes emphasis or omission. In mathematics, it represents multiplication. On social media, it serves various roles, such as censoring words (f***). These examples illustrate how the asterisk’s meaning is not fixed but emergent, shaped by its interactions within different linguistic, technological, and cultural systems. manufacturing, in general, is a simulated form in which one tries to give birth to a solution for facing the world and everyday life. A French Surrealism Communist poet, Louis Aragon, gave a concrete concept around the specific transformation sample that twinkles emotion and writing impulse into the experience: his unfinished work, The Defense of Infinity, is about desire and the failure of the desired object, oneself burnout with his exceeding passion in every moment…… But he organized the collapsed pieces. The domain of his writing is the intention to manufacture, or we can say, fantasy. In the 20th century, French Novelists began to focus on space rather than time. But Time is the root. A story needs to happen; the first step is ‘to happen’. That is, the description of someplace cannot exclusively sacrifice the Time element. Now we are in a space between still reconstructed and postmodern situations, and their pollution and subsequent pain that happens in our memories and bodies. From some illusion, the asterisk is even like an open wound, what do we understand through the traces of asterisks? Where do the signifiers that are excluded from the symbol system go?

Embracing Indeterminacy: Diffraction and Multiplicity in Structural Parallels

In digital world, the asterisk standing for any character or infinite possibility. A search for art may yield artifice, articulate, or artichoke— an algorithmic serendipity that collapses rigid categorical boundaries. This function resonates with artistic methodologies, such as Dadaist collage techniques, where found materials are fragmented and recombined to challenge norms. With Mallarmé reoriented poetic combinatorics into a compositional process that led to the “constellations” of concrete poetry, reversing its philosophical implications. Early Dadaism celebrated a colonially stereotyped language magic, but later it sought to formalize chance-driven poetics and strip away mimetic elements. Hans Arp’s 1920 random paper scraps prefigure Tristan Tzara’s 1923 algorithmic approach in “Pour faire un poème dadaïste,” where poetic elements are no longer fixed but freely permuted—transforming poetry into a dynamic algorithm. Tzara’s algorithm reimagines the Proteus verse by mathematically permuting texts at the word level. It applies the collage technique of fragments its text and produces chaos instead of harmonious cosmic order. By redefining verse as an open process, Tzara transformed his poem into a self-contained calculation—a poetic computer with random access memory conceived decades before Turing and von Neumann. His instructions translate seamlessly from French into code, shifting from partial to full automation.² William S. Burroughs recasts the chaos of Tzara’s poem as a shift from syntax to a pragmatic, performative operation. He describes the aesthetic as a “mescaline hallucination”—“seeing colors, tasting sounds, smelling forms.” In doing so, cut-up poetics revives the metaphysics of textual permutation, ultimately turning Tzara’s own approach against itself. In physics, diffraction occurs when waves bend and create overlapping patterns upon encountering obstacles. Similarly, the asterisk mirrors this behavior by acting as a symbolic aperture where meaning splinters into multiple trajectories. In language, it creates ambiguity between primary and secondary meanings, while in computing it serves as a wildcard symbol, both systems embracing unpredictable pathways and generating emergent outcomes from open-ended inputs. The asterisk, therefore, is not just a tool but a philosophy, one that reveals linguistic, technological, and artistic systems. By embracing the indeterminacy, artists resist fixed interpretations and instead engage in meaning-making as an ongoing, collaborative process. The Asterisk in Algorithmic and AI Systems The asterisk is a key tool in search algorithms because it serves as a wildcard that broadens query results. For example, a search for ‘climate * change’ might return results like ‘climate policy change’ or ‘climate and change’. However, from a New Materialist perspective, search engines aren’t neutral. They are assemblages of users, algorithms, and databases that determine what information is surfaced and what is hidden. This leads to the question: does an asterisk in algorithmic system give users more access, or does it reinforce unseen structures of information control? In AI-generated text, the asterisk plays a regulatory role in censorship. Language models might replace or mask certain words with an asterisk to keep content within social norms. While this practice prevents offensive content, it also raises ethical concerns: does the asterisk in AI-driven censorship safeguard inclusivity, or does it encode ideological biases into digital speech? In both cases, the asterisk actively shapes what information we see and how we communicate and governing the boundaries of discourse. The Asterisk in Gender-Inclusive Language: A Symbolic Gesture? Language has been granted too much powers.³ Linguistically, the asterisk is used in forms like *innen to promote gender inclusivity and challenge the traditional masculine/feminine binary. Although it provides a way to represent non-binary identities, its effectiveness is debated: does *innen truly dismantle linguistic structures, or does it merely reconfigure them under a new norm? *innen is not an isolated symbol, it’s part of a wider network of institutional policies, social movements, and digital platforms. While some government bodies require its use and social media helps spread it, this practice might be more about elevating its symbolic rather than practical significance. This leads to a critical question: is *innen a catalyst for genuine social change, or has it become a politically charged emblem that reinforces symbolic inclusivity without enacting real transformation?

Hauntology and the Asterisk: A Symbol of the Unresolved Beyond its immediate functions, the asterisk embodies Hauntological principles—Derrida’s concept of lingering pasts and unrealized futures. It frequently marks absence, omission, or unrealized potential, as seen in redacted text, missing historical records, and linguistic placeholders. This spectral quality raises profound questions: does the asterisk signify a “lost future,” a reality that could have been but never materialized? By continuously shifting across disciplines and media, * reinforces a state of ambiguity, contributing to a world where information is increasingly fragmented and “de-materialized.” In digital spaces, where omitted characters or censored words are veiled by *, the symbol becomes both a mask and a trace, concealing meaning while hinting at its presence. This paradox situates the asterisk at the heart of contemporary information politics—does it serve as a tool for self-determination, or does it enforce new regimes of digital control? Conclusion: Cosmic Metaphor and Unfinished Universe The asterisk exemplifies how a seemingly simple symbol operates across linguistic, technological, and cultural domains, existing not as an isolated sign but as an interactive, adaptable, and evolving entity. As a wildcard, it expands possibility and defies categorical rigidity. As a diffractive mark, it generates interference and noise between primary and secondary meanings. As a regulatory tool, it participates in algorithmic censorship and linguistic governance. As a Hauntological trace, it reminds us of that which is absent yet still exerts influence. Ultimately, the asterisk occupies a liminal space between empowerment and restriction, visibility and erasure, expansion and containment. Whether functioning as a censoring device, a mathematical operator, or a structural modifier in digital text, the asterisk continues to shape—and be shaped by—the systems in which it operates. It is a site of contestation, simultaneously opening possibilities while enforcing constraints, embodying the paradox of language, technology, and power. Beyond linguistics and technology, the asterisk operates cosmologically. “CONSTELLATION” describes both the spatial arrangement of the page elements and literally the arrangement of the stars in the firmament. This metaphor aligns with the concept of the open work, theorized by Umberto Eco, where art remains deliberately unfinished, demanding audience participation. In media art, such openness is vital; interactive installations, generative algorithms, and participatory films thrive on the asterisk’s ethos, transforming spectators into collaborators. The cross-civilization journey of this “little star” ultimately reveals the dual paradox of symbolic effectiveness: it is both a dialectical carrier of concealment/revelation and a field of cultural game of form/function.