Birgit Richard ::: Biography

CLONES AND DOPPELGAENGERS
Multiplications and Reproductions of the Self in Film

"Scientific discoveries, like those of genes, rely on equipment, machines, presentation techniques, funding. The facts, of course, are objective and real, but wouldn't exist without their production in the laboratory. It's only in retrospect that you can say, genes actually exist. " (Latour 2000, 67)

Life-creating science produces a certain image of itself and uses recurrent stereotypes. For its dissemination, it produces a specific symbolically exploitable imagery. The thus constructed dicourses of images shape visual formulae for genetic engineering and therefore create their own perspective.
Latour's hypothesis is of special importance: Without the laboratory as a place and a presentation, genes effectively don't exist, are not existent in society's cultural storage room.
The clone exists of matter medially only apparatically perceptible. Thus, the popular image showing the production of the clone as a pre-industrial manual process is quite suitable. The piercing of the egg cell by a pipette to inject the sperm cell is almost an exact projection of sexual intercourse and male penetration. Relaying them to the medically lay public, conventions for the presentation of various processes, procedures for the work on microstructures of the body and their areas of significance like sequencing, annotating, patenting in genetic and bio-engineering are employed. Besides maps, major imagery and motifs are places of production like the laboratory, depiction of scientists in white coats, clones/cloned cells in petri-dishes and test-tubes.

This on-line version of the book "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture" is not full. The unabridged edition can be purchased in printed form as anthology. Requests should be sent to: bulatov@ncca.koenig.ru (full information) or in written form: 236000, Russia, Kaliningrad, 18, Marx str., The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”. Phone requests: Kaliningrad +7(0112)216251, Saint-Petersburg +7(812)3885881, Moscow +7(095)2867666. On-line bookshop (in Russian): http://www.yantskaz.ru. Full reference to this book: "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture". Edited and curated by Dmitry Bulatov. The National Centre for Contemporary art (Kaliningrad branch, Russia), The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”: Kaliningrad, 2004. ISBN 5-7406-0853-7

Popular culture trivially and bluntly conveys possible defects of this technology in narratives and visualisation. However, it focuses on the negative impact of genetic engineering. It varies one major motif essentially moulded by the "cultural patterns" of Christianity: the failure of the dream of the bachelor-machine and delineating the scientific limits for the creation of life. From the very beginning, films explicitly construed the relationship between independent science and the desire for military-industrial exploitation of research results. Films depict a more flexible capitalism striving for perfection in humans and nature. The removal of suffering and frailty - Barbara Duden says (Duden 2001), the comforting element in medicine disappears- is here less important than the complete industrial producability and marketability of all components of life and its microstructures (the "David Copperfield of Reproduction" Antinori and the Clonaid company serve as good examples).

Clones and miniature-me: the duplicated self
"The frenetical atmosphere, in which only a few years ago it was discussed that the organic and mechanic human body can get his protheses in the supply room for cyborgs, was still referring to the integrity of the body. Unviolated corporeality contrasted with technological replacability of body parts. But now it's more: seemingly endless inventions of producable life, experiments with switchboard states of the Becoming." (Fa?ler 2001)




Life-creating science produces a specific symbolically exploitable imagery.

Perhaps film provides a place for the only possible positive aspect of the reproduction of the original in clones: parody. Here, the clone may also be the reduplication of an individual and a valve for aggressive tendencies of the cloned being. It makes it possible to perceive the self as the opposite number by confronting humans with their very own capabilities, thereby destroying self-perception in the projection. The living, non-mechanical doppelganger is especially alarmed, since his behaviour is based upon the genetic disposition of the cloned person. The doppelganger serves as a collector for the negative forces of the original and is made responsible in order to cathartically relieve the latter.




Being John Malkovich by Spike Jonse (USA 1999).

The clone is the emanation of the self, not of the stranger confronting the original in material form. Only the perfect doppelganger will not appear to be dangerous.
However, film pictures vividly demonstrate that suddenly deviating behaviour is neccessary. Indistinguishability questions the unique nature of the individual and therefore his/her value. Film also shows that a duplication in the desired form of an identical reproduction is impossible. The disruption caused by doppelgangers becoming increasingly self-reliant is necessary, since it raises the question of how to distinguish between copy and original. Popular culture demonstrates this in surreal films like Being John Malkovich by Spike Jonse (USA 1999); there is a scene where the "actually existing" actor John Malkovich confronts hundreds of clones of himself, who all cry out his name "Malkovich."
The possibility of distinguishing between the original and the clone is necessary to counteract the fear of humans of being replaced by one's own doppelganger. Indistinguishability questions the unique nature of the individual and therefore his/her value.
Cloning contains a modern nightmare: the reduplication of the human body. However, among the so-called "primitives" (Baudrillard 1983, 221, see also Freud 1970) doppelgangers serve as an insurance-policy against the doom of the self. The duplicate is a partner with whom a "primitive" is visibly interacting as an invisible part of himself. In Christian civilization, the doppelganger is rather a sinister harbinger of death, even an enemy, not a guarantor of further existence. This also includes the twin:

"Mostly, this twindom remains symbolic, but when it materialises it illustrates the miracle of undivided separation (separation indivise) present in all of us <...>. It is thus that we encounter the damnation and curse encumbering twindom in every culture and - on the other side of this curse- the perpetual bad conscience of individuation. Only the "ontological" break with the twin will release the individual being - and we are proud of it. However, in a state of the subconscious even beyond the psychological subconscious, we have never recovered from this break." (Baudrillard 2000, 47f)

The technical images in photography and film illustrate the development of the doppelganger into a nightmare. Shadows, spectres and mirror images as media of exchange with the self are eliminated by the appearance of the Christian concept of the soul.

"Reflections, echoes, doppelgangers, souls do not constitute similarity or equivalence; and just like twins cannot replace one another, you cannot exchange your soul. If an exchange is a criterion of generality, theft and gift are criteria of repetition. Therefore, there is an economic difference between them." (Deleuze 1992, 15)

The desire for a reduplication of the self by an identically equipped clone is fed by hoping for a personal immortality of body and consciousness. Particularly the twin, on the basis of its development in nature, anticipates the apparent multiplication of the ego:

"In some ways, in nature cloning is anticipated by twins - the hallucinating situation of a reduplication of the "same," which we can only get away from by breaking away, by breaking the symmetry. However, perhaps we never really got away from it, and cloning simply reanimated the hallucination of the twin, from whom we never really were able to dissociate ourselves from, just as it reanimated the fascination with some kind of archaic incest with this elemental double." (for the dramatic consequences arising cf. the film Dead Ringers by Cronenberg). (Baudrillard 2000, 47f)

While twins try to complete each other, the doppelganger strives for the replacement of the original person; the twin is a self-emerging phenomen, the doppelganger, before the visualisation of genetic engineering, is always a surgical product.

Alien: Queen and clone no. 8
In Alien: Resurrection from 1997 the motif of multiplication, though realised more subtle in images, is decisive. After 200 years, Ripley is reconstructed by cloning from deep-frozen blood-cans in order to extract the genetical remains of the Alien-Queen. After some abortive attempts, Ripley's and the Alien's genes are inadvertently fused. For example, Ripley now possesses the acidic blood of the Aliens and Ripley's clone no.8 has both Alien and human characteristics. This means that the film deviates from the usual presentation of clones; clones 1-7 are deformed mutations. Only No.8 is optically identical and therefore a clone in the real sense. However, the mutants are necessary for the narrative construction of the film. They reveal, as mis-clones to be disposed of, the undesired blending of monster and human being. We see the futility and the many attempts required to create identity. The pictures have to demonstrate that the only objective is an identical appearance without optical deviations, not a hybrid.


Alien: Resurrection (1997): after 200 years, Ripley is reconstructed by cloning from deep-frozen blood-cans in order to extract the genetical remains of the Alien-Queen.

Only after having given birth to the Alien-baby she is carrying, is Ripley reborn as a clone in a kind of birth. The Ripley-clone is optically distinguished from the Ripley figure of the previous Alien trilogy. Her birth is insect-like and she has black fingernails, suggesting the change in character, despite optical correspondence. In her first fight on board, she reveals superior physical powers and is perceived not as a woman, but as a monstrous being. Alien: Resurrection shows that Ripley's resurrection as a clone has the only purpose of getting near the Alien-Queen. Thus the "exploitative intervention in the female body, unjustified by any curative thinking." (Schneider 1995) Profit is the objective, and clone and host are treated simply as intermediate matter.

This on-line version of the book "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture" is not full. The unabridged edition can be purchased in printed form as anthology. Requests should be sent to: bulatov@ncca.koenig.ru (full information) or in written form: 236000, Russia, Kaliningrad, 18, Marx str., The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”. Phone requests: Kaliningrad +7(0112)216251, Saint-Petersburg +7(812)3885881, Moscow +7(095)2867666. On-line bookshop (in Russian): http://www.yantskaz.ru. Full reference to this book: "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture". Edited and curated by Dmitry Bulatov. The National Centre for Contemporary art (Kaliningrad branch, Russia), The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”: Kaliningrad, 2004. ISBN 5-7406-0853-7

Since Ripley, as an androgyneously styled hero, breaks up presuppositions of female characters, she is predestined as an actively reproducing host body. It becomes a dangerous place for the various patriarchal societies in the individual Alien episodes. Especially the blending of Ripley with the Alien-Queen puts the natural female body on an equal footing with the Alien's progenital mother. Thus, both represent a similar uteral danger from the inside. Alien: Resurrection creates a film variant of the motif of a woman giving birth to evil. This representation directly follows up on manic and stereotypical phantasies of the times of the witch hunt, which involved physical merging with a paramorous devil or Satan himself as the third stage of the witch's conviction. The phantasy of improper intercourse with a being associated with the supernatural or the evil empire (Rosemary?s Baby), forcing the woman to give birth to a hybrid, is also a motif often seen in films. In Alien: Resurrection, the Alien-Queen loses its threatening character by having to give birth like a human as she therefore can be integrated into and processed within an existing technological apparatus.

"The birth of these satanic children is a horror scenario, which might end fatally. The immaculate conception and the purity of the madonna-like birth as an ideal in film mutates into a satanic mother, the evil's breeding machine is created. Female sexuality is thus demonised and affects the socially and culturally conditioned concept of femininity and motherhood in the esteem of the society." (Dompke 1999, 17)




The laboratory represents and imagines a possible form of a male womb. It is a technological birth cave, from which life is supposed to leap out.

Demonised sexual intercourse produces the evil's breed, while the clones have a predestined, male connotated place of creation: In Alien IV the laboratory is the place of creation of the protagonist. It is here that she is confronted with the abortive attempts of male scientific births, which have led to clone no.8: herself. The various hybrids are displayed in this laboratory in glass cylinders according to their stage of development between Alien and human being. The only specimen still alive asks Ripley to kill it, so that a clone destroys ist own clone siblings. The freaks are research objects, which have to live hidden in the male womb of the laboratory and should not expect mercy from the scientists studying them.

The laboratory: place of male monstrous products
"The researchers in the laboratory exactly know about the complexity of their dependencies. When they approach sponsors, they often openly talk about interpretations, risks, funds and alternatives. But when they leave the laboratory and address the public, it is a pure Newton in most cases." (Latour 2000, 67)






In Alien 4 the laboratory is the place of creation of the protagonist. It is here that Ripley is confronted with the abortive attempts of male scientific births, which have led to clone no.8: herself.

The difficulties of a visual presentation of the process in laboratories of genetic engineering in films express themselves in recurrent visual formula. The hypervisualisation of mutants breaking out is a result of the potential impossibility to show the process of human reproduction. The opaqueness of an order scientifically developed and the potentially monstrous hidden in the microstructures cause the fear of failing to perceive visually, to distinguish between clone and original (e.g. in the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and leave no other choice than exaggerated image ciphers. Inevitably, the images are a reduction of complex correlations.
The places of the mutations' creation are of special importance. These are artificial, extraordinary worlds, space stations or an inaccessible jungle, which at their core reveal a secluded partial sphere: the laboratory. At the same time, the laboratory is the biotope where the clone is supposed to live; it was created for him. The clones always live in artificial environments.


The only specimen still alive asks Ripley to kill it, so that a clone destroys ist own clone siblings.

The inversive process of graded interiors and exteriors plays an important role during a film. The borders of these spheres may not be violated from the inside or outside, i.e. the creature is not allowed to go outside, nor is anyone allowed to visit it inside. The inacessibility and seclusion of the laboratories has to be guaranteed. Films show the difficulties of entry by elements like locks- and door systems, closing one after another and only permitting entry to individuals identifiable by ID-cards, chip cards or fingerprints.
When the inevitable misfortune happens, the snail-like movement of further entries turns into a maze. The seclusion and chaotic arrangement having suggested security now turns against humans. All subsequent processes show the counter-movement from a secluded interior to the outside. When the dangerous life form opens its way from the laboratory to the outside, it is already too late to intervene. The film imagines what in the debate about genetic engineering is called outdoor experiments.
Laboratories are sterile and artificially illuminated. In Gattaca the greenish light is predominant in all rooms, creating the impression of a universal laboratory staffed by the human species. In some films, test tubes can be seen in the laboratories containing the foetuses of the species to be created. The abortive attempts of artifically produced life are displayed seemingly secure behind glass as a warning.


Just when the Alien-Queen is presented as a good mother, she is defeated by her own breed.

In addition, the laboratories contain colourful, luminous liquids and machines linked with tubes, which subliminally rather refer to alchemistic processes than to the scientific character of life-producing ones. The laboratory represents and imagines a possible form of a male womb. It is a technological birth cave, from which life is supposed to leap out, and the only sphere in which the life produced by males is able to exist. As soon as it leaves this sphere it is doomed, despite its dangerousness.
When the created being flees, the laboratory and all its frightening inmates and the abortive specimens have to be destroyed. It often explodes and its glass inventory breaks and is smashed. In Alien 4 Ripley destroys the laboratory containing the mutants, which were supposed to be clones, with a flame-thrower. When the secluded order of the laboratory, its stereometric technological structure is destroyed, the walls are broken down or contaminated by organic structures, the violation of the scientific arrangement has to be eliminated by destruction, in an explosion. Especially the destruction of glass, which is supposed to symbolise the transparency of the actually alchemistic processes, demonstrates this objective. When the Alien acid burns itself through the storeys vertically, counter to the horizontal arrangement of the rooms, these images illustrate the destruction of the clarity of the existing balance of power on board.
Before this moment of destruction, the images contrast the natural "impure" birth from the female body cave with the clinical, scientifically optimised production of life in the laboratory. But here the dream of male autonomous reproduction fails. The film Alien also demonstrates that it is impossible for the male body to give birth to life without dying himself. The parasitic nesting of the Alien in the male abdomen does not only lead to the death of the male host, but also to the disastrous breaking out of the alien being. Once again, the utopia of the bachelor machine is destroyed, because life cannot be dissociated from the female role in reproduction. The films show that men create their aggressive being themselves, but are unable to sustain it.
They also show "...that particular immaculate idea we are looking for in unnatural experimental cross-breedings or the sterile atmosphere of the laboratory." (Vacquin 1991) Though we should put Vacquin's presupposition of a previous naturalness of processes of giving birth and reproduction into perspective, the film with its motif of the laboratory also shows the consequences of the supposedly sterile environment in the male womb. Similar to an infection in a hospital not containable by antiseptics, in the films an uncontrollable horror develops, which finds ideal conditions for this development in the antiseptic and secluded environment of the laboratory.




The hybrid kills the mother; it only accepts the genetic mother, not the "natural" one.

The science-fiction genre, when dealing with genetic engineering, reveals the doomed vision of male independence from female birth. However, in films both the autonomous female and the male reproduction do not have a chance. Hollywood films, when dealing with genetic engineering, prove to be a conservative medium. At the end of the millenium, it illustrates, in the Christian tradition, the apocalyptic consequences for humans trying to take over the role of the creator. Film becomes a moralistic institution, since it rates these interventions as human presumptousness receiving commensurate punishment.


The presentation of the clone is based upon a presentational pattern of infantility from the early modern period before the seventeenth century: the clone is visualised as a shrunken self.

The film Alien: Resurrection vividly demonstrates the definite male take-over of birth. This is replaced by a technical act of production in the laboratory. Scientists give birth in a laboratory womb. Ripley's birth is a side-show, her female body is addressed with the words "How's the host?", a non-coincidental association of the instrumentalisation of the female body in reproductive medicine. Alien anticipates what Geisler (2001, 9) calls the hunt for the egg cell. The female body is used as a host for the extraction of egg cells. This bears a high risk for the woman; superovulation, an overproduction of egg cells (OHSS, hyperstimulation syndrome) may well lead to death.

This on-line version of the book "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture" is not full. The unabridged edition can be purchased in printed form as anthology. Requests should be sent to: bulatov@ncca.koenig.ru (full information) or in written form: 236000, Russia, Kaliningrad, 18, Marx str., The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”. Phone requests: Kaliningrad +7(0112)216251, Saint-Petersburg +7(812)3885881, Moscow +7(095)2867666. On-line bookshop (in Russian): http://www.yantskaz.ru. Full reference to this book: "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture". Edited and curated by Dmitry Bulatov. The National Centre for Contemporary art (Kaliningrad branch, Russia), The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”: Kaliningrad, 2004. ISBN 5-7406-0853-7

All manners of imagination film is based on point out that men and women are restricted to heterosexual reproduction and reveal the limited opportunities to break away from it. Utopias of the development of a peaceful clone, offering men and women a new fulfilling way of reproduction outside a production in an industrial complex or homosexual couples a new opportunity, have not yet been visualised in film.

Clone environments and laboratory discourses
The seclusion of laboratories as magical spheres shown in scientific depictions, e.g. in lighting, generates the phantasms of new frightening forms of life and calls for the presentation of the processes to the outside world.
The clone is the corollary of the constructed term "embryo" (Duden 2001), which is inevitably associated with its separation from its development within the female body. The new label of the fruit of the womb as a separate being allows for its medical processing, its enhancement (Joseph F. Coates, see Geisler 2000, 9), its disposal, its being harvested and its medical maintenance. (Jean Louis Tourraine, see Geisler 2000, 9) Only, of course, to help the woman. In Alien she is reduced to the role of a mere assistant. It is the embryo in full genetical service (Geisler 2000, 9), which is genetically provided for and focussed on, not the woman.
The clone is removed from the female body in its various production stages in order to integrate it completely into the patriarchal structure of the production laboratory. Its extraction from the female body is supposed to be no longer discernible. The separated egg cell and the subsequent egg heaps no longer refer to it. After the breeding of the clone this technical construct of reproductive medicine is re-implanted into the female body. This now serves again as a natural production machine (especially with surrogate mothers).
The scientific industrial complex does not really show much imagination in processing the clone. The object clone does not create any new oedipal conflicts, it is not an unimaginative throwaway product. It's only in film, as Baudrillard supposes, that the clone will remove its father not to be able to sleep with mother, but to assert itself as the original.
A future industrialisation of the production of clones based upon nanotechnology does only exist in tissue engineering and reflects botanical processes.
It also seems logical to depict the processes in two-dimensional cartography. It explains the ways of intervening with the female body, which, being excluded from the discourse, is not shown as an individual body. (Foucault 1973) Just like in pre-modern interpretations, a body-topology is created, a geographical terrain, a field and landscape which can be cultivated and where embryos can be harvested. Since cloning in botany is a natural process and the term derives from this scientific field, the human process of cloning are performed on the level of botanical reproduction not only metaphorically, but also technically. Baudrillard's presupposition, that by cloning we leave behind standards of sexual reproduction in order to revert to low-complex processes of reproduction, can be confirmed in this instance.
The clone creates the utopia of immortality and the perpetuation of an individual body and consciousness. Despite all similarity, it has to be distinguishable, thus it is not, in its depictions in popular media, completely identical. In contrast, in "scientific" pictures of Dolly or of genetically manipulated plants you will not find any differences. This corresponds to the didactic picturing-programme of the genetic engineering complex. What is shown is, that nothing has changed, we are only dealing with a different technology and everything is controllable.






The images in the popular media, however, reintroduce the difference, especially poignant in differences between original and clone.

The images in the popular media, however, reintroduce this difference, especially poignant in differences in size between original and clone. In the examples in films, cartoons and music videos analysed we find it quite often: from Dr. Evil's clone Mini-Me, expressing the reduction in size by its very name, via Aphex Twins' medial infant clones (music video Come to Daddy) to the South Parks clone of Stan, the child, who looks rather blown up. If the difference in size consists of an enhancement, the clone is stronger and has to be fought against with special technical means.
Interestingly, scientific experiments in cloning also show a monstrous development in the size of the foetuses as a significant defect of the clones: the LOS syndrome. The presentation of the clone is based upon a presentational pattern of infantility from the early modern period before the seventeenth century: The clone is visualised as a shrunken self, whose proportions only correspond again at an adult stage.
Here, results of scientific experiments are anticipated or visualised in film in an all too obvious, unconscious and indadvertent manner. All phantastic possibilities are pursued, e.g. in Come to Daddy the clones rush ahead of their "creator." What is special about Cunningham's vision of image-clones is that the father-figure of the clones is only born after the fact, already expected by the kids in a Messiah-like fashion. The Aphex Twin clones do not have any mother, just a father. Here, we find parallels to the Ripley clone character in Alien: Resurrection.

This on-line version of the book "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture" is not full. The unabridged edition can be purchased in printed form as anthology. Requests should be sent to: bulatov@ncca.koenig.ru (full information) or in written form: 236000, Russia, Kaliningrad, 18, Marx str., The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”. Phone requests: Kaliningrad +7(0112)216251, Saint-Petersburg +7(812)3885881, Moscow +7(095)2867666. On-line bookshop (in Russian): http://www.yantskaz.ru. Full reference to this book: "Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture". Edited and curated by Dmitry Bulatov. The National Centre for Contemporary art (Kaliningrad branch, Russia), The National Publishing House “Yantarny Skaz”: Kaliningrad, 2004. ISBN 5-7406-0853-7

The theatre of reproduction, as it is shown by reproductive physicians like Antinori, is no longer associated with sexuality and, therefore, no longer with its antithesis, death, invoking the theatre of anatomy. The theatre of reproduction wants to send the theatre of the dead body into oblivion and abolish the existence of death.
The theatre of the clone is invisible. Thus, the technologically potent "surrogate fathers" take over the performance. They cannot offer any symbolically exchangeable insights into the body. Their optical presentation in the media reproduces the exclusion of the public from the transfer of knowledge about artificial reproduction. Scientists are the producing meta-fathers. Their knowledge remains property of the genetic-industrial complex; it is privatised and patented. The theatre of anatomy of the seventeenth century was public and fashionable, the corpse a concrete object to view. The issue of genetic engineering in films, especially in the 90s, anticipates many experiments; perhaps this is where the theatre of reproduction is located. It might unconsciously serve as an introduction and preparation for what is still to come.




The Aphex Twin clones do not have any mother, just a father. Here, we find parallels to the Ripley clone character in Alien: Resurrection.

However, films rather tend to show freaks and abortive specimen. As a product, the clone proves to be a resistant manifestation, difficult to direct, a will of its own incarnate. The images show the concept of a clone as a miniature-self, which, when carefully cultivated, as a delusion will flourish like a plant and of the same size.
Films show the symbolic reinstatement of the clone character. The run-away clones fom the laboratories settle in certain niches of civiliziation and pose a danger, a grotesque memory or preservation of human qualities like the ability to love (Bjork's music video All is full of love). They emancipate themselves and develop their own character, far beyond characteristics they were supposed to have, just like all living creatures do. The seriality of technical images allows for blue-prints of alternatives, from sexual reproduction to reproduction in images, breaking restricting gender norms.

Bibliography:
Baudrillard, Jean. "Das Original und sein Double." In: Die Zeit Nr. 12, 14. Marz 1997, S.67.
Baudrillard, Jean. "Uberleben und Unsterblichkeit." In: Kamper, Dietmar/Wulf, Christoph (Hrsg.): Anthropologie nach dem Tode des Menschen. Frankfurt am Main, 1994, S.335-354.
Baudrillard, Jean. Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod. Munchen, 1983.
Baudrillard, Jean. Der unmogliche Tausch. Berlin, 2000.
Deleuze, Gilles. Differenzund Wiederholung, Munchen, 1992, EA: Difference et repetition.
Dompke, Christoph. Unschuld und Unheil. Das verdorbene Kind im Film. Hamburg, 1999, S.17.
Duden, Barbara. http://www.pudel.uni-bremen.de/subjects/subject.html
Fa?ler, Manfred. "Kodes, Kunst und Wissenschaft." In: Schweeger, Elisabeth: Granular synthesis Gelatin. Biennale Katalog Osterreichischer Pavillon Ostfildern Ruit 2001, S.65-85.
Freud, Sigmund. Das Unbehagen in der Kultur 63-129; 18th Auflage Frankfurt Hamburg, 1970 (erstveroff.1930)
Foucault, Michel. Geburt der Klinik: eine Archaologie d. arztl. Blicks Munchen, 1973, EA: Naissance de la clinigue
Geisler, Linus S. "Fragwurdiger Umgang mit den Hoffnungen kranker Menschen. Das sogenannte therapeutische Klonen." In: Frankfurter Rundschau Montag 19. Februar 2001, No. 42, S.9.
Geisler, Linus S. "Ist das ein Mensch? In der Fortpflanzungsmedizin kulminieren nahezu alle ethischen Probleme der Biotechnologie." In: Frankfurter Rundschau 9. September 2000, Nr. 210, S.9.
Latour, Bruno. "Die Kuhe haben das Wort Interview" in: Die Zeit 30. November 2000, NR. 40, S. 67f.
Schneider, Ingrid. Foten: der neue medizinische Rohstoff, Frankfurt am Main; New York, 1995.
Vacquin, Monette. Die Geburt ohne Frau: Frankensteins Kinder und die Gen-Technik, Bad Munstereifel, 1991.




HOME    РУССКИЙ

How to purchase this book

COLOPHON

CONTENTS:

I. LABORATORY: science and technology

Svetlana Borinskaya. Genomics and Biotechnology: Science at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.

Mikhail Gelfand. Computational Genomics: from the Wet Lab to Computer and Back.

Irina Grigorjan, Vsevolod Makeev. Biochips and Industrial Biology.

Valery Shumakov, Alexander Tonevitsky. Xenotransplantation as a Scientific and Ethic Problem.

Abraham Iojrish. Legal Aspects of Gene Engineering.

Pavel Tishchenko. Genomics: New Science in the New Cultural Situation.
II. FORUM: society and genomic culture

Eugene Thacker. Darwin's Waiting Room.

Critical Art Ensemble. The Promissory Rhetoric of Biotechnology in the Public Sphere.

SubRosa. Sex and Gender in the Biotech Century.

Ricardo Dominguez. Nano-Fest Destiny 3.0: Fragments from the Post-Biotech Era.

Birgit Richard. Clones and Doppelgangers. Multiplications and Reproductions of the Self in Film.

Sven Druehl. Chimaera Phylogeny: From Antiquity to the Present.
III. TOPOLOGY: from biopolitics to bioaesthetics

Boris Groys. Art in the Age of Biopolitics.

Stephen Wilson. Art and Science as Cultural Acts.

Melentie Pandilovski. On the Phenomenology of Consciousness, Technology, and Genetic Culture.

Roy Ascott. Interactive Art: Doorway to the Post-Biological Culture.
IV. INTERACTION CODE: artificial life

Mark Bedau. Artificial Life Illuminates Human Hyper-creativity.

Louis Bec. Artificial Life under Tension.

Alan Dorin. Virtual Animals in Virtual Environments.

Christa Sommerer, Laurent Mignonneau. The Application of Artificial Life to Interactive Computer Installations.
V. MODERN THEATRE: ars genetica

George Gessert. A History of Art Involving DNA.

Kathleen Rogers. The Imagination of Matter.

Brandon Ballengee. The Origins of Artificial Selection.

Marta de Menezes. The Laboratory as an Art Studio.

Adam Zaretsky. Workhorse Zoo Art and Bioethics Quiz.
VI. IMAGE TECHNOLOGY: ars chimaera

Joe Davis. Monsters, Maps, Signals and Codes.

David Kremers. The Delbruck Paradox. Version 3.0.

Eduardo Kac. GFP Bunny.

Dmitry Bulatov. Ars Chimaera.

Valery Podoroga. Rene Descartes and Ars Chimaera.
VII. METABOLA: tissue culture and art

Ionat Zurr. Complicating Notions of Life - Semi-Living Entities.

Oron Catts. Fragments of Designed Life - the Wet Palette of Tissue Engineering.
VIII. P.S.

Dmitry Prigov. Speaking of Unutterable.

Wet art gallery

Biographies

Bibliography

Webliography

Glossary


© ncca kb. yevgeny palamarchuck | Jaybe.ru