Stephen Wilson ::: Biography

ART AND SCIENCE AS CULTURAL ACTS

What do art and science have to do with each other? Attempting to take an unorthodox look at this question means focusing on the revolutionary work of artists and theorists who challenge the separations initiated in the Renaissance. It points toward a possible future in which the arts can reassume their historical role of keeping watch on the cultural frontier and in which the sciences and arts inform each other.
Research has become a center of cultural innovation: its results are radically influencing life and thought. Our culture needs to participate in defining research agendas, conducting inquiries, and analyzing their meanings. Artists should be hungry to know what researchers are doing and thinking, and scientists and technologists should be zealous to know of artistic experimentation. The future will be enriched if this expansion of zones of interest becomes a part of the definition of art and science.

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

How do researchers conceptualize? What agendas motivate their work? What future developments are likely to call for cultural commentary and artistic attention?

A Quiz
We are at an interesting place in history, in which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between techno-scientific research and art - a sign that broader integrated views of art and research are developing. For example, which of the following activities were carried out by persons describing themselves as artists and which by those describing themselves as researchers?

Researcher J.T. developed a method of using genetic engineering to encode messages in bacteria.

Researcher S. developed an arrangement so that persons far away could control his body through electrical stimulation.
Researcher H.S. developed a "fertility bra" that used pheromone receptors to flash indicators when the woman wearing it was in a fertile period.
Researchers created a video composite representation of participants in a video conference in which nonactive participants faded with the level of their activity.

Which is which? The confusion is a significant cultural event. (The first two were by artists)

Revisiting the Relationship of Art and Techno-Scientific Research
The arts and the sciences are two great engines of culture: sources of creativity, places of aspiration, and markers of aggregate identity. Before the Renaissance, they were united. Science was called natural philosophy. Philosophers were as likely to speculate about art and science as about religion and truth. Similarly, in tribal societies the philosopher, shaman, and artist were likely to be the same person. Visual and performance arts were integrated into the fabric of rituals and daily life. The artist who sang stories or carved ritual objects was likely to be the person who was especially observant and wise about the ways of the heavens, the weather, animals, plants, the earth, and life and death.
In the West, the Renaissance initiated an era of specialization. Science became codified as a segregated set of processes and worldviews. While its accomplishments in providing new understanding of old mysteries increased confidence in its claims, art moved in its own direction, largely ignoring the agendas of science. During the Industrial Revolution, science inspired technology and technology inspired science. Research and invention spread into every corner of life, but mainstream art seemed oblivious. Increasingly, it became less likely that an educated person would be well versed in both areas of culture. In the 1960s commentator C. P. Snow developed his influential "Two Cultures" theory [1] that concluded that those in the humanities and arts and those in the sciences had developed sufficiently different languages and worldviews that they did not understand each other. Note that this discussion will concentrate on the arts, but much of the analysis holds more generally for the humanities. [2]




Research has become a center of cultural innovation: its results are radically influencing life and thought.

The Urgency for Reexamination
Can art and science/technology remain segregated in the twenty-first century? The following discussion seeks to revisit the relationship of art to scientific and technological research, exploring the pioneering work of artists with emerging research and the prospects for future mutual influences. Several cultural forces combine to make a reexamination of the disconnection critical: 1. The influence of research in every corner of life. 2. Research's impact on philosophical notions about the nature of the universe and humanity. 3. Critical theory's radical challenge of traditional ways of studying culture by isolating the arts, humanities, and sciences in isolation from each other. 4. The increasing level of artistic activity in scientific and technological areas.

What Is Technology? What Is High-tech Art?
Where should one draw the line? Every creation system beyond the basic apparatus of the body is a technology. At various points in history, charcoal, paints, sculpting tools and techniques, ceramics, and printmaking apparatus were state-of-the-art technologies. More recently, photography, cinema, electric machines, lights, radio, recording technology, and video were considered high technology. Now, however, when people talk about high-tech arts, they are not talking about these technologies.

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 Assimilation of Art into Research and Commercial Production
The pattern of sequential technological invention, artistic experimentation, and commercial assimilation is a fascinating part of the story of how the worlds of art and research relate to each other, and is only partially analyzed here. Some of the artists working in the area eagerly pursue product development for their artistic ideas, and some are supported as part of corporate research labs whose ultimate goal is economic exploitation. Others resist these connections and passionately defend their independence.
So, where do researchers and artists get their ideas? How do they explore their ideas? How are techno-scientific research and art research different? What happens to the explorations over time? Does mainstream assimilation somehow destroy the validity of the work as art?


The arts and the sciences are two great engines of culture: sources of creativity, places of aspiration, and markers of aggregate identity.

Definitions and Theoretical Reflections
Art, science, and technology are culturally laden terms. Indeed, debates over the boundaries of the terms art and science regularly engage philosophers and historians of art and science. What is art? What is science? What is technology? What are the similarities and differences among the three? What does it mean to call someone a high-tech artist? What is art that is influenced by science? What is science that is influenced by art? Before approaching these questions, it makes sense to offer a brief clarification of my usage, and to identify shifting criteria that make a definitive answer elusive.
In recent years, critical theory has been a provocative source of thought about the interplay of art, media, science, and technology. Each of the major sci-art trends provides pertinent examples of this analysis. However, in its rush to deconstruct scientific research and technological innovation as the manifestation of metanarratives, critical theory leaves little room for the appearance of genuine innovation or the creation of new possibilities. While it has become predominant in the arts, it is not so well accepted in the worlds of science and technology. Here and below, we shall attempt to analyze the special problems that this disjunction poses for techno-scientifically influenced artists and examines various stances that artists can take in working with research.
Science and technology are sometimes conflated together; even scholars of the fields acknowledge some lack of clarity. Similarly, artists working with emerging technologies and those inspired by scientific inquiries are often lumped together. Thus, it is necessary to define our terms and to explore these confusions.

What Is Science?
Science textbooks and philosophers and commentators on science propose a number of defining elements. This set of core ideas includes the following: an attempt to understand how and why phenomena occur; focus on the "natural" world; a belief in empirical information; a value placed upon objectivity, which is sought through detailed specifications of the operations that guide observation; the codification into laws or principles (wherever possible precisely expressed in the language of mathematics); and the continuous testing and refinement of hypotheses.

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

They focus on issues such as the social forces and metanarratives that shape the questions and paradigms used in inquiry; the role of socially constructed frameworks at all stages; and the interaction of the observer and the observed phenomenon. Radical constructivists doubt our ability to discover truths applicable across all times and cultures.




The artistic gesture to move into an area of emerging technology that is radical in one era can end up being unnoteworthy a few years later.

Many analysts have contributed to the critique of science. For example, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn notes the way dominant paradigms shape the questions that get acceptance and support. In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend critiques assumptions of scientific rationality, noting that nature gives different answers when approached differently. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Donna Haraway analyzes the metaphoric language of science, its authoritative voice, and its unacknowledged patriarchal underlife. Having ethnographically studied life in laboratories, Latour in Science in Action proposes an actor-network theory of science in which organizations, persons, animals, and inanimate materials combine to shape scientific theorization. In Picturing Science, Producing Art, Peter Galison and Caroline Jones investigate the way representation deeply influences the conceptualization and processes of research.
In the humanities, this kind of critique predominates. Scientists and technological innovators, however, believe in the ability to discover universal truths and assert that reform can overcome those places where scientific process falls short of its aspirations to universality and objectivity. As evidence of science's validity, they point to the accomplishments of the scientific worldview in building robust, cross-substantiating theoretical structures, and in predicting and controlling the material and organic world.
Any attempt to cross the disciplinary borders between art and science will confront this disjunction - today's incarnation of C. P. Snow's "Two Cultures" theory. Numerous contemporary artists have created works that join the critique, creating installations that highlight aspects of science that fail the classical hygienic view. Others implicitly accept the power of the canon, building on the formulations of prior research and using processes of experimentation and theoretical elaboration.

What Is Technology?
High-tech artists do not necessarily engage science. An examination of the relationship between technology and science is useful for understanding the range of artistic work related to research. Technology is seen as "knowing how," while science is seen as "knowing why." Engineers and technologists are seen as primarily interested in making things or refining processes, not in understanding principles. Many histories of technology are essentially histories of invention -the objects, tools, and machines that people made and the processes that made them. [4] Melvin Kranzberg and Carroll Pursell believe that this definition is too broad. In Technology in Western Cultures, they define it more narrowly, as

man's effort to cope with his physical environment - both that provided by nature and that created by man's own technological deeds, such as cities - and his attempt to subdue or control that environment by means of his imagination and ingenuity in the use of available resources. [5]

The relationship of science to technology is quite complex; it became a focus for philosophers of science and technology. Contemporary definitions of technology sometimes call it applied science - the application of scientific principles to solving problems. However, since technology predates science, it should be seen broadly, as human attempts to shape the physical world: "[technology] for much of its history had little relation to science, for men could and did make machines and devices without understanding why they worked or why they turned out like they did." [6]
Developers of technology used many techniques in refining their methods, including learning from other practitioners, observing all aspects of their environment, and experimenting based on instinct, and trial and error. The goal was rarely the development of scientific principles. Certainly, the experiments of many artists in finding appropriate innovations to accomplish their artistic goals could fit this description.
With the Industrial Revolution and the refinement of science in the eighteenth century, technology began to draw more on scientific understanding to help solve its problems. In the twentieth century, scientific research became a major source of new technologies, and most manufacturers included scientists in their industrial research labs. Historically, technological research is considered somehow less "pure," and less lofty than science. [7] The origins of these attitudes lie deep in the history of Western culture. Among the Egyptians and the Greeks, fabrication was done by slaves or low artisans, and concern with the material world was considered less important than focus on more essential qualities:

"Making, even in the form of art, was often mistrusted as inimical to virtue or the pursuit of the highest good because it focused attention on material reality . . . [it] was not considered important as a contribution to the understanding either of the ends of human life or of the first principles of being." [8]


Attempts to develop real-world devices and solutions result in new scientific questions and understanding.

The distrust of "making" continued into the Christian Middle Ages. Just before the Renaissance, however, philosophers started to reexamine these notions. For example, in City of God, St. Augustine noted that technological accomplishments were the exercise of "an acuteness of intelligence of so high an order that it reveals how richly endowed our human nature is," as well as a sign of divine benevolence. [9]
With the Enlightenment came a positive attitude toward technological prowess. For example, Francis Bacon proposed that science should serve technological innovation, and suggested that the understanding of nature often becomes clear only when trying to manipulate it technologically:

Bacon proposes a reconstruction of science to produce "a line and race of invention that may in some degree subdue and overcome the necessities and miseries of humanity." [10]

Currently, science and technology work together and inform each other. Technology developers often must work in areas where scientific understanding is not sufficient. Attempts to develop real-world devices and solutions result in new scientific questions and understanding. For example, the development of new instruments - such as a more powerful collider - may give rise to new categories of questions in physics; the development of new medications may result in information about physiology and organic chemistry.
Philosophers of science and technology continue to grapple with the nature of this relationship. Edwin Layton proposes an interactive model in which science and technology are seen as "mirror images" of each other, using common methods and drawing on common intellectual heritages; technology does not only exploit the "golden eggs" created by science. [11]
This interactive model of technology probably comes close to describing what is meant when something is called high technology, or high-tech art. High-tech artists, like their counterparts in technology development settings, are engaged with the world of science. They draw on theoretical formulation and research results from scientific inquiry. They use systematic methods of experimentation borrowed from science to advance their agendas. The results can inform further work by technologists and scientists.

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

Modern sci-art works constantly return to questions about science and technology. What is the relationship of thinking and doing? What does it mean to view the analysis of mind and society as science? How pure can science be? What can we really know of the physical world, since it is seen through the lens of our conceptual frameworks?

What Is Art?
Sci-art is best understood within the context of the radical shift in the boundaries of "art" over the last century. Previously, art was produced in historically validated media, presented in a limited set of contexts for a circumscribed set of purposes, such as the search for beauty, religious glorification, or the representation of persons and places. Within a view that stresses conventional media and contexts, it is easy to wonder how the activities described above can be called art. However, this century has generated an orgy of experimentation and testing of boundaries. New technological forms, such as photography and cinema, have already raised questions about art. Artists have added new media, new contexts, and new purposes. The art world has assimilated much of this experimentation, of which a partial list follows:

- Extension beyond "realistic" representation (e.g., abstract painters)
- Incorporation of found objects (e.g., Picasso's collage and Duchamp's urinal)
- Movement into non-art settings and intervention in everyday contexts (e.g., Schwitters's Merzbau apartment and Russian AgitProp)
- Presentation of live art (e.g., Dada and Futurist performance)
- Use of industrial materials, products, and processes (e.g., Bauhaus, photography, kinetic art, electronic music, and Warhol's Brillo boxes)
- Conceptual art (ideas as art, with deemphasis of sensual form)
- Earth art (work with natural settings with resident materials)
- Interactive art (dissolution of the border between the audience and artists, for example, living theater and interactive installations)
- Performance and happenings (e.g., Allan Kaprow)
- Public art (work with site-specific materials, social processes and institutions, and community collaborators)
- Exploration of technological innovations (e.g., video, copiers, lasers, and holography)

This experimentation has left the philosophy of art in turmoil. It has become difficult to achieve consensus on definitions of art, the nature of the aesthetic experience, the relative place of communication and expression, or criteria of evaluation. However, there is some agreement on these features: art is intentionally made or assembled by humans, and usually consists of intellectual, symbolic, and sensual components. For example, the Getty Museum Program in Art Education offers this definition:




Although scientists pride themselves on objectivity, they are similar to artists in their construction of artificialities.

"Art-making may be described as the process of responding to observations, ideas, feelings, and other experiences by creating works of art through the skillful, thoughtful, and imaginative application of tools and techniques to various media. The artistic objects that result are the products of encounters between artists and their intentions, their concepts and attitudes, their cultural and social circumstances, and the materials or media in which they choose to work." [13]

Many of today's sci-artists use unorthodox materials, tools, and ideas inspired by the worlds of science and technology. Some are present in non-art contexts, such as laboratories, trade shows, the Internet, and the street. Some intend to intervene in everyday life or the worlds of science and technology. For many, the artistic rationale guiding their work is alien to the art world. In any case, we are inclined to investigate these artists' work as a continuation of the expanding inclusiveness of the definition of art. Some of the work could even be viewed as the attempt to revisit unresolved issues from movements, such as conceptual art, and art and life interventions. As far as we focus on the boundaries between art and techno-scientific inquiry, understanding the limits of art is significant. For example, on what basis can the work of researchers and technoscientific artists be differentiated, or is such a distinction even important? The work and analysis of the artists described in this book contributes to this ongoing debate.

Similarities and Differences between Science and Art
How are science and art similar? How are they different? This analysis is useful for understanding the prospects for future relationships.

Differences between Art and Science


Art
Seeks aesthetic response
Emotion and intuition
Visual or sonic communication
Evocative
Idiosyncratic
Seeks aesthetic response
Values break with tradition
Science
Seeks knowledge and understanding
Reason
Narrative text communication
Explanatory
Normative
Seeks knowledge and understanding
Values systematic building on tradition and adherence to standards



Similarities between Art and Science

Both value the careful observation of their environments to gather information through the senses.
Both value creativity.
Both propose to introduce change, innovation, or improvement over what exists.
Both use abstract models to understand the world.
Both aspire to create works that have universal relevance.

In "Principles of Research," Albert Einstein stated that the artist and the scientist each substitute a self-created world for the experiential one, with the goal of transcendence. [14] In "The Contribution of the Artist to Scientific Visualization," Vibeke Sorensen describes artists as "organizers of large amounts of data"; "people who find unusual relationships between events and images"; and "creative interdisciplinarians." She continues: "The intellectual bridge of abstraction and aesthetic consideration is fundamental to both groups." [15]

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

Feyerabend notes that scientists must create massive theoretical structures to link observation and the underlying "reality." Although scientists pride themselves on objectivity, they are similar to artists in their construction of artificialities. [17] He further asserts that difficulties arise from the extraordinary faith that science places in theoretical structures and the manipulations derived from them. He questions the wisdom of distrusting the world of real things and actions. [18] Feyerabend concludes that science is in many ways very similar to art, in which researchers build research structures and operations to represent their thoughts:

"In a way, individual scientists, scientific movements, tribes, nations function like artists or artisans trying to shape a world from a largely unknown material, Being... Or researchers are artists, who, working on a largely unknown material, Being, build a variety of manifest worlds that they often, but mistakenly, identify with Being itself." [19]




High-tech artists are engaged with the world of science. They draw on theoretical formulation and research results from scientific inquiry.

Summary: The End of Timelessness?
Where are the timeless masterpieces? The rapid pace of research is part of developments in the industrial age that clash with the hopes for art's timelessness. In the past, masterpieces were expected to transcend time and space. During this century, that tradition has been eroding with the loss of "aura" in technologically reproducible work, the ascendance of temporary art forms such as live art and installation, and the power of style and media to rapidly reshape consciousness. Nonetheless, as evidenced by the activities of museums of modern art, many hope that even contemporary art can produce timeless masterpieces.
You have just encountered some examples of research-inspired art. Many are considered masterpieces of the genre. But will they always be? The imaginative reach and innovative vision of some of these artists in mastering an area of research to create eye-opening and thought-provoking works is stunning. But the power of these works may be bounded by their sense of timeliness. After the research world has moved on, they might not seem so significant and moving. Indeed, I know this from painful personal experience, as I see some of my experimental computer artwork of fifteen years ago become quaint and archaic. Curiously, many of these old works can never be experienced again, since the requisite technological infrastructure has disappeared.
These are interesting times for the arts. The linkage of art to emerging research may hasten the redefinition of timelessness. We may need to invent a new meaning for the term masterpiece. Think of a masterpiece as a work of art that seizes the cultural moment, or as a work that senses the cultural leap represented by a line of research and uses the magic of the arts to expand what it means and explores what it might become. After the moment passes, the masterpiece will have served its place in history. Like landmarks in science, such as Gallileo's new vision of the universe, these artworks' timelessness is their audacity, even though the new ground they break may become common ground.

References and Notes:
The material has been prepared by the author for the present edition based on the Chapter 1.1. of the Book Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology. Used by permission of MIT Press. More details on the book available at: <http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson/book/infoartsbook.html>

[1]. Snow C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 1964).
[2]. In the last decades, scholars have analyzed the relationship of art and science/technology. They have reviewed the history, noting some influences of these enterprises on the arts, for example, the impact of non-Euclidean geometry and relativity on early twentieth-century painters, the import of technology on the Bauhaus, and the influence of Freud on the Surrealists. Generally, however, the mainstream art world has pretended that art could mostly ignore the technological and scientific revolutions. Art focused on science and technology was treated as a minor footnote. See my forthcoming book Great Moments in Art and Science for analysis of this history.
[3]. Derived from science articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[4]. Singer, C. History of Technology (vol.1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1954).
[5]. Kranzberg, M., and Pursell, C. Technology in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.4.
[6]. Ibid., p. 6.
[7]. Gaston, J. "Sociology of Science and Technology," in: Durbin, P. T. A Guide to the Culture of Science, Technology, and Medicine (New York: Free Press, 1980), p.467, and Layton, E. "Through the Looking Glass," in: Cutcliff, S. and Post, R. In Context (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1989), p.42.
[8]. Mitcham, C. "Philosophy of Technology," in Durbin, P. T., op. cit., p.283.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. Ibid., p. 284.
[11]. Layton, E. in: Cutlcliff, S. and Post, R., op. cit., p.35.
[12]. Smith, C. S. From Art to Science: Seventy-Two Objects Illustrating the Nature of Discovery (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980), p.23.
[13]. Getty Museum Program in Art Education <http://www.artsednet.getty.edu/ArtsEdNet/Browsing/Liata/2.html>
[14]. Einstein, A. "Principles of Research," in: Einstein, A. Essays in Science (New York: Philosophical Library, 1934).
[15]. Sorensen, V. "The Contribution of the Artist to Scientific Visualization," <http://felix.usc.edu/text/scivi1.html>
[16]. Feyerabend, P. "Theoreticians, Artists, and Artisans," in: Leonardo, vol. 29, No.1., p.26.
[17]. Ibid., p. 27.
[18]. Ibid., p. 25.
[19]. Ibid., p. 27.





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