• HVG article – in Hungarian

Go, kitchen labs, go!

What struck me during the discussion is the repetitiveness of some basic notions that artists find important, and how I’m not agreeing with them, and how my priorities are very much different.

What I heard

The recurring ideas put forth by the artists I found were, in brief:

• having a discussion in itself is a goal
• trying out different processes in itself is a goal
• science creates ‘problems’ that need to be addressed

It seemed that the people attending all agreed that the product of the artist’s work is not the artwork itself, rather it is a set of discussions, the process he goes through, and ethical debates involved. As if their work is somewhat like a performance: the viewer has to take part in the whole process to appreciate it, including the discussion, the process which the artist goes through, the ethical positions he takes. It seems the person best suited to understand the work is the artist doing it – as he’s in the center of the whole process. As if he was creating the work for himself, and you can only try to get into his shoes, and you can get close, but will never succeed really – never understand totally.

It also seemed that for the artists trying out something differently in itself constitutes ‘research’. This probably ties in with the notion that the process is the product itself, thus a different process would produce a different artwork already. They were shocked to learn that scientists are not really interested in dumping their proven scientific method, which is of course at the core of scientific research. Unfortunately this also implies that the artists don’t actually understand the nature of the scientific method, and thus science or research itself.

An additional interesting re-occurring point was that science creates problems, and that it is for the artist to have an ethical judgement on science. It is interesting to see that people put themselves in a position of being able to tell good from bad, and thus commandeer people (in this case scientists) in the good direction, and avert them from their otherwise detrimental ways.

Having all these positions, the artists actually could not say why their collaboration with scientists would be interesting / worthwhile to the scientists themselves, or for science in general. It seems the nature of the collaboration is pretty much one-sided, with scientists taken for technicians in an activity not involving them in a fundamental manner.

What I think

From what I heard, I really think there’s a long way to go if there is to be a real, two-sided collaboration between artists and scientists. For one, the scientists should be heavily involved as early as the definition of the goals of such a collaboration, as opposed to artists drawing up a roadmap of what they want to do, and then calling in scientists to help them out technically.

Of course I’m not a scientist myself, put my points in short are:

• involve scientists in the process, and build on their insight into real knowledge
• understand scientists goals and needs from such a collaboration
• concentrate on a work of art
• as science creates new possibilities – let’s show these to people

My position, termed ‘positivist’ by some members of the group, is that the product of an artists work is the artwork itself. The work itself is his form of expression and shows his position on what he wants to express. If a debate surrounds his work, that is done by people exposed to the work – audience members, connoisseurs and art critics. But this is a different role than that of the artists.

I also think that the artist should really know his craftsmanship – the material he’s working with. Like sculptors knowing their stone or metal, a bio-artist has to know his living organisms and his science. This is how he gains insight into the material he’s working with, and is especially essential if he’s trying to reflect on the technology through his work.

Of course, it might take years to gather such an insight, and this is where the nature and level of collaboration with scientists comes in. In a collaborative project, it is important to regard all members of the group well. Especially if it is the scientist who has the deep knowledge into the material in question. Reflection, extrapolation on future possibilities and insight come from experience and deep knowledge gathered through long hours of work.

Usually, the artist will use already existing scientific results in his work. As a remote possibility, he might drive some real research to fulfill a vision shared by both participants, but which can not be reached by what is already available. Such a case would be the ultimate level of collaboration between the parties.

Science opens up new possibilities – and it is for people to decide what they do with them. An artwork can hint at such possibilities. An artist working with scientists can help them show the future they are continuously creating during their tedious work in the lab. Such a collaboration can show people the ongoing expansion of our possibility space, that is the result of science itself. It can show insight into nature and a vision for the future that will be ours in the end.

As you can read below, my first reaction is quite emotionally charged…

For a start, Eduardo Kac says in his Book Signs of Life: “[artists] invent new entities and new relationships never seen before.” I wonder, since when is it the artist who is not reflecting on his surroundings, but shaping it? When was it ever that an artist has ever invented anything new that is beyond the realm of art itself? I wonder if Eduardo Kac can claim any invention his own, even considering his fluorescent Bunny – as he has only used technology what was available for about 8 years at that time already. I wonder about similar claims of novelty on SymbioticA‘s tissue culture projects – after all, the technology of tissue culturing was invented in the XIX. century, and became a routine lab technique in the 1950′s already. One can’t really claim he has done anything new using a technology invented and perfected long before he was even born, can he?

What these artists can claim is that they have brought the above results into the public limelight. And this is a nice achievement in its own – but it seems that this is just not enough for them.

What was even more disturbing for me was Eduard Kac’s position on the importance of cooperation in evolution, and framing it so that cooperation and competition are antagonists. He seems to associate competition with a rightist / corporate / evil ideology, while cooperation is the nice leftist concept that is obviously close to his heart. His stance obviously shows that he does not understand evolution theory. But then again, I’ve seen articles earlier where people were trying to mix their political views with hard scientific facts and universal truth about nature itself – and these were quotes in Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science by Sokal and Bricmont. It’s sad to see that even over 10 years after the useless nature of such reasoning was pointed out so elegantly, the style still thrives on.

It seems that established bio-artists develop a god-like stance, positioning themselves as ‘grand creators of beings’. Eduardo Kac says that “[bio-artists are part of] the global network known as evolution”, while Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr refer to their cell cultures as ‘semi-living’, and demand that these are regarded as a new form of being. I wonder how these claims relate to the general criticism against scientists, especially genetic engineers, which states that they are ‘interfering with life’, and that is too dangerous and ‘man should not play god’. It seems to me again that artists want to put themselves in a special position, the only ones authorized to play these roles – all on ideological grounds. I think that especially their mistaken and politically charged ideology and apparent lack of knowledge and humbleness with regards to this field makes them unqualified for the position they are so dearly aiming for.

As you can see above – my reaction is an emotional one at first indeed to the above claims. Maybe I should be much cooler and provide rational criticism instead. I guess nobody is perfect…

Where I do not follow the argument anymore is when it seems to come to define an art form through the topic it focuses on, while trying to push the term per se into the direction of tactical media art: art which addresses biopolitical issues can get along fine without using biotechnological means of expressions, and artists also use them without necessarily emphasizing current (bio)political trends.

And this is a viewpoint I really appreciate, having seen the same issue in media art for years: saying something about media, computers of cows does not produce media-art of bio-art. It’s just a statement.

I wish I could formalize my points in such a way as Jens does. You can read his complete post here for your enlightenment, which also elaborates on presentation issues regarding bio-art installations, which I’m facing myself.