|
|
| Transbiotics. Points of Transitional Stability Ainārs Kamoliņš, Philosopher; Jānis Liepiņš, Microbiologist Exhibition of Biotechnology Art | |
| The exhibition TRANSBIOTICS. Points of Transitional Stability will be on display from 14 to 20 June at the kim? and RIXC Gallery in Spīķeri, [Riga’s former warehouse neighbourhood]. This exhibition is the result of cooperation between RIXC and a curator from Paris, Jens Hauser, and is an indication that the RIXC in Latvia is logically pursuing its work in that particular area of contemporary art which intersects with the application of various technologies and media, science and similar. The TRANSBIOTICS exhibition will acquire an even greater significance in a broader context of events, because it is to take place as part of the Māksla+Komunikācijas 2010 (‘Art+Communications 2010’) festival and the ‘SLSA–EU 2010’ conference. The festival programme is offering lectures, artists’ presentations, and the opportunity to attend performances. The SymbioticA creative workshop in biotechnology art led by artists from an Australian biological arts laboratory may be of particular interest to visitors attending the event. | |
Paul Vanouse. Relative Velocity Inscription Device. 2002 | |
| The application of various technologies in creating art works is not a recent phenomenon. This is an interesting question, too: since when has living matter been used in the creation of works of art? Isolated instances have been recorded as early as the 1930s, for instance, Alexander Fleming’s drawings with bacteria, and, in the same decade, the delphiniums (larkspurs) shown by Edward Steichen in the Museum of Modern Art of New York, whose chromosomes had been doubled by applying a recently discovered drug colchicine. But in later years, in tandem with the developments in biotechnology, more elaborate art works appeared, embracing all levels of the organisation of living beings: from separate molecules (DNA, proteins), cells and tissue cultures to complete organisms (bacteria, plants, animals) or even small ecosystems (for example, aquariums). Even without taking history into account, opinions about the use of technologies and living beings in the creation of a work of art remain varied. The reasons for this are more likely to be sought outside the realm of art, as attitudes towards technologies and living things still cover the full spectrum of opinion – from brimming with enthusiasm to even paranoid. It could be thought that the ability to provoke such a wide range of opinions is one of the advantages of art, when compared to experts’ deliberations within the confines of various institutions. This might explain the observation by one of the TRANSBIOTICS curators, Jens Hauser, that a higher level of interest about technologies in art can be observed outside the art world than within it.(1) The enjoyment of such an interdisciplinary direction of art requires a minimum of interest not only about what is going on in art, but also about the processes in science and the course of theoretical discussions. Thus these works offer an opportunity to reflect critically on topics that are usually the competence of experts. Consequently transdisciplinary art becomes a medium which both educates the viewer and also raises the kind of polemic and specific issues which are usually dealt with on a daily basis by specialists: the relations between technology and people; what is the living and whether the living thing is in itself a value; what are the boundaries for interference in the processes of a living organism, etc. Of course, the judgements on these issues differ. Our judgements on this direction in art depend on whether we imagine biotechnology as something that will create either a world more beautiful and more diverse, or will potentially be nihilistic in relation to life. A paranoid vision is offered by Paul Virilio: “After all the great periods of art, after the great schools such as the classical and the baroque, after contemporary expressionism, are we not now heading for that great transgenic art in which every pharmacy, every laboratory will launch its own ‘lifestyles’, its own transhuman fashions? A chimerical explosion worthy of featuring in some future Salon of New Realities if not in a Museum of Eugenic Art.”(2) A more positive and ironic view, in turn, is offered by a philosopher of Czech origin, Vilém Flusser. He likens biologists not to the evil geniuses of Auschwitz, but to the personifications of Disney, who will make the world more colourful, interesting and manifold.(3) On the whole, it seems, expert opinion is moderately favourable towards ‘kitchen biology’, that is, amateur science. The involvement of amateurs or artists in those processes could be regarded as something similar to the contribution by enthusiastic programmers to computer science.(4) More justifiable objections may arise due to ethical or security considerations related to such practices. Too great a paranoia regarding security can also give rise to tragicomic incidents such as, for instance, when in 2004 the FBI arrested one of the members of the Critical Art Ensemble, Steve Kurtz, and charged him with bioterrorism. In truth, the works displayed in the exhibition are scarcely likely to cause moral panic of a similar scale. Rather they are to be regarded as examples for the creative and interesting utilisation of biotechnology methods in art. It should be added that unfortunately, due to the U.S. legislation which forbids the export of works of art, it will not be possible to view one of the most popular representatives (and the creator of the term) of biotechnology, Eduardo Kac, and his work Edunia, a transgenic petunia containing one of Kac’s own genes. However, more to the point is the consideration that the reflections on the works of art by any visitor to the exhibition are related to ethical and theoretical thinking on various issues related to living things and technologies, and stimulate discussion among non-professionals, which in their form are different to the institutionalised consultations based on, for instance, ethical principles which are often applied like laws. Central to the TRANSBIOTICS exhibition is the presentation of the potential of various kinds of technologies. In accordance with the means used, the exhibition pieces could be divided into three large groups: works created by means of ‘kitchen biology’ (Andie Gracie, Terike Haapoja); those which are a creative application in art of technology (Zane Bērziņa together with Jackson Tan), and those of experimentation (Paul Vanouse, Evelina Domnitch with Dmitri Gelfand). Experiment The exhibition TRANSBIOTICS will present works which can be better appreciated if there is an interest in the applications of science and technology. Paul Vanouse is possibly one of the best known artists taking part in the exhibition. He will participate with two works – Relative Velocity Inscription Device (2002) and Latent Figure Protocol (2007–2009). The concepts behind both of Vanouse’s works deal with the question – to what extent our preconceptions of DNA are a cultural construct, and what are the grounds for various reductionisms that, for example, fully ascribe the qualities of living things to a DNA endowed with magic qualities. The first of the works features a fictional competition between the various genes of the members of one family, in order to find out which is the fastest and the most successful gene. Vanouse’s second piece shows that DNA appears to contain images. In both cases, Vanouse explores the possibilities offered by biotechnology in a playful manner. In the case of the first, a viewer might well be convinced that the speed of a DNA can characterise the ‘owner’ of this DNS, or even its value. Why ever not, if we consider that human qualities can be reduced to DNA? In the work on show, the DNA samples from various family members have different lengths, and therefore are moving about in the agarose gel at different speeds (shorter ones – faster, longer ones – slower); as a result viewers are presented the illusion of a race between DNA fragments, although the outcome is firmly predetermined: it is the short ones that will get to the finishing line first. Latent Figure Protocol also deals with the concept that the unique DNA profile (the DNA fingerprint used in forensics or in paternity tests) may encapsulate the qualities of a particular living being. In the art work, the unique DNA fingerprint acquires diverse forms: from ciphers and symbols even to messages of a political colouring – an image of Che Guevara (the latter only exists as an idea, however). Yet the depiction is relative, depending on the techniques applied, and thus Vanouse deconstructs the conventional perceptions of what a fingerprint should actually look like. The creation of Latent Figure involves the use of an artificially produced plasmid (a separate self-contained DNA molecule widely used in molecular biology, which is able to replicate independently of the chromosome of the bacterial cell) treated with various restriction enzymes (proteins which recognise and split specific DNA sequences). Thus a plasmid is split into a number of pieces of different sizes that during electrophoresis (a technique of dispersal of DNA and also proteins using the influence of an electric field applied to a porous matrix, for example agarose gel) form clearly visible areas. By selecting particular enzymes, it is possible to cut a plasmid in pieces which during electrophoresis will fall into the shape of familiar ornaments, drawings or symbols. Another work illustrating an experiment with artistic means is the installation Mucilaginous Omniverse (2009) by Evelina Domnitch and Dmitry Gelfand. The work is an artistic illustration of a physical experiment where wave-particle duality, a phenomenon of the micro-world, is demonstrated in the macro-world.(5) On the vibrating surface of a liquid, where small drops of the same liquid generate vibrations, the movement of the selfsame drops starts. It is interesting that a mathematical description of this phenomenon is analogous to the wave-particle duality well known in the quantum world. It is still not clear as to why a mathematical description of a micro-world phenomenon fully corresponds to the drops on a vibrating surface of liquid that are visible to the naked eye. The installation uses silicon oil for creating special configurations of drops, which influence changes in the musical, electronic sounds of the work. It should be noted, quite rightly, that this work has the least to do with biotechnology. However, one should think that the Latvian public might be to some extent prepared for the appreciation of such a work, especially because there already exists some local experience of works involving research on the relations between physics and sound, and the most prominent local representative in this field could be Voldemārs Johansons, whose show Concord will take place in parallel to the TRANSBIOTICS exhibition. | |
Andy Gracie. Deep Data. 2009 | |
| Kitchen Biology Andy Gracie’s work Deep Data combines objects once launched from the Earth into space for research purposes with elements of the outer space environment studied over a period of 30 years. Gracie raises the question: what do we understand to be an ecosystem? Namely, what are the borders of an ecosystem. The installation creates conditions not naturally encountered on Earth, thus critically exploring the issue whether the space beyond Earth can be considered as separate from our ecosystem. In this case, technology is establishing a link with other locations in the Universe, and the data coming from there becomes intrinsic to the ecosystem of organisms in the installation. It should be pointed out that the technology used in the installation is home made. A biotechnology manual is freely available on the Web that enables one to conduct simple experiments at home.(6) On show there is to be a growth medium with magnetobacteria, to which magnetic signal transmitters are attached. The signals transmitted by these devices are made up of data collected by the space probes Voyager and Pioneer during their “expeditions”. As the particles of magnetite present in the magnetobacteria align themselves in the magnetic field, the bacteria also move in accordance with the magnetic signals given. The Finnish artist Terike Haapoja will be participating in the exhibition with two works that could also be described, like Gracie’s installation, as a manifestation of ‘kitchen biology’ in the sphere of art. Her work Succession (2008) contains a four minute video shot over nine days and featuring the development of a colony of bacteria taken from human facial skin. This is possibly the most poetic installation in the show, focusing more on artistic effect rather than a creative use of the technologies themselves. The work highlights an issue of particular importance for the author – an organism and its boundaries. A face is regarded as a universe inhabited by a variety of independent organisms. This brings to the fore an idea by Gottfried Leibniz, the 18th century philosopher, that existence teems with living organisms. Thus continuity between one body and another is always mediated by these organisms. The other interactive installation by Haapoja is Dialogue (2008). This work playfully tells us how, with the assistance of technology, it is possible to engage in a dialogue between plants and people. Devices used in the work are identical to equipment used by forest ecologists for measuring photosynthesis. As plants do not have organs for the perception and production of sound, like humans do, it might seem that a dialogue in the traditional sense should not be possible. But plants are photosynthesizing organisms: they convert carbon dioxide and water into organic compounds, using energy from sunlight and in the process, oxygen is released as a by-product. People, on the other hand, when breathing use up oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The artist builds a dialogue between the plant and people by making use of these particular needs of both organisms. For the installation, sensors were placed on the stems of plants for measuring the CO2 concentration whenever anyone breathes or whistles onto them, and lamps were lit, focussing on the plant’s leaves (where the light causes photosynthesis to take place). As the concentration of carbon dioxide gradually reduces, the data registered by sensors is converted into a whistling signal – thus the plant whistles back, and the dialogue can go on. It should be added that Latvian viewers may already be familiar with Haapoja – her video installation Entropy was on display in 2009, in the RIXC gallery. | |
 Zane Bērziņa, Jackson Tan. E-Static Shadows. 2009 | |
| Technology Latvia is represented in the exhibition by Zane Bērziņa who, in association with British architect Jackson Tan, has created an installation E–static Shadows. This project is devoted to investigative research into electrostatics – the practical and poetic potential of static electricity in our everyday communication. The work consists of a membrane sensitive to static electricity, of a piece of fabric and LED lightbulbs. The membrane reacts to changes in the ambient field of static electricity, and as a feedback signal the LED bulbs go out. The work is interactive: the viewer, by the charge of static electricity accumulated in his or her clothing, hair, accessories and body, makes an impact on the ‘light wall’ of the LED lights, causing them to go out and thus creating his or her ‘e-static shadow’. Through this, the installation addresses the inter-action between a human body and material, texture and space. Transitional Points of Stability Looking over what is on offer at the exhibition as a whole, it becomes apparent that all pieces are united under the subtitle Points of Transitional Stability. This transitional stability may refer to the proposed movement of art which operates outside the frame of established academic institutions. Thus one of its achievements would be a democratisation of science and knowledge which would be relatively independent of certain biopolitical mechanisms. At the same time, it also hints at the materiality of the works of art themselves, because for the most part they are transient and unstable, and can exist only within specially prepared environments, but sometimes are even ‘mortal’. The most vital aspect, however, is the fact that the exhibition focuses on a specific metaphysical notion which views existence as something that is constantly changing. Living matter is no more than the stability of matter acquired at a specific point. The Hippocratic Corpus contains texts describing a living body as a microcosm reflecting macrocosm (both the microcosm and macrocosm consist of four elements). Consequently it cannot be asserted that a body is set apart from the surrounding environment. The surrounding environment affects the workings of the microcosm / body. But at the same time this also presupposes that there isn’t an abrupt transition from a living being to inanimate matter. The confluence of elements in order to form a living organism is a comparatively temporary phenomenon. The boundaries, too, between the living and the non-living are short-lived. A fragment of matter takes on specific qualities only because of the particular configuration of the matter. This configuration, however, is always dependent on interaction with the environment, it is not an isolated entity. A more critical point of view also allows to maintain that the boundaries of a body and a living thing are undefined, and this, therefore, allows to speak about the contiguity of technology (that may function as the environment or as a part of the living thing) and a body (the most visible example for this aspect would be Stelarc’s creative work). In this aspect, continuity exists not between the living and the nonliving, but rather between the functions performed by a specific organism. That is why there are versions claiming that the internet and other forms of technology are not an environment independent of the human being, but an extension of the human body. Or, to be more precise, a body has always been related to technological development, and there has always been a permanent connection between the body and technologies.(7) All in all, one of the most tangible achievements of the TRANSBIOTICS exhibition is the fact that for the first time in Latvia several works related to what is known as bioart will be displayed together in the one place. This means that the viewer will be presented with all kinds of opportunities previously seldom applied in art and at the same time not accessible on daily basis. The exhibition will allow the audience to gain a direct experience and knowledge of biotechnology, and the creative application of the achievements of science in art. (1) Hauser, Jens. Observations on an Art of Growing Interest. In: Tactical Biopolitics. Ed. by B. Da Costa, K. Philip. MIT, 2008, p. 85. (2) Virillio, Paul. Art and Fear. London: Continuum, 2003, p. 61. (3) Flusser, Vilém: On Science. In: Signs of Life. MIT, 2007, p. 371–372. (4) Wolinsky, Howard. Kitchen Biology. EMBO Reports, 2009, Vol. 10, No 7 , p. 684–685. (5) With thanks to physicist L.Kalvāns for an explanation of the experiment. Experiment described in: Y. Couder and E. Fort, 2006, Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 154101 , cit. pēc Y. Couder, A. Boudaoud, S. Protière, E. Fort, 2010, Walking droplets a form of wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale?, Europhysics news, 41/1, p. 14-18 (6) Jermijenko N., Thacker E. Creative Biotechnology: A User’s Manual. See: www.locusplus.org.uk/biotech_hobbyist.html. (7) See., for example: Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time. Vol.1. Stanford, 1998. /Translator into English: Sarmīte Lietuviete/ | |
| go back | |
