Allegories of the Genome
Archive for February, 2007
The Garden of Live Flowers
`I should see the garden far better,’ said Alice to herself, `if I could get to the top of that hill: and here’s a path that leads straight to it — at least, no, it doesn’t do that — ‘ (after going a few yards along the path, and turning several sharp corners), `but I suppose it will at last. But how curiously it twists! It’s more like a corkscrew than a path! Well, this turn goes to the hill, I suppose — no, it doesn’t! This goes straight back to the house! Well then, I’ll try it the other way.’
And so she did: wandering up and down, and trying turn after turn, but always coming back to the house, do what she would. Indeed, once, when she turned a corner rather more quickly than usual, she ran against it before she could stop herself.
`It’s no use talking about it,” Alice said, looking up at the house and pretending it was arguing with her. `I’m not going in again yet. I know I should have to get through the Looking-glass again — back into the old room — and there’d be an end of all my adventures!’
So, resolutely turning back upon the house, she set out once more down the path, determined to keep straight on till she got to the hill. For a few minutes all went on well, and she was just saying, `I really shall do it this time — ‘ when the path gave a sudden twist and shook itself (as she described it afterwards), and the next moment she found herself actually walking in at the door.
‘Oh, it’s too bad!’ she cried. `I never saw such a house for getting in the way! Never!’
Review of GENOME: The Secret of How Life Works at the NY Hall of Science
I recently had the opportunity to visit the exhibit GENOME: The Secret of How Life Works at the New York Hall of Science. Because part of my strategy for interacting with the world and the designs of culturally-embedded objects is to make their implicit sets of meanings explicit, I paid close and careful attention to the dominant metaphors employed in this exhibit. I was particularly interested in how the metaphors did or did not support the mission of the exhibit’s main sponsor, Pfizer.
Here is a summary list of those metaphors:
>Genome: Cracking the code
>Secrets(”this is the secret of you”)
>Gene switches shown with electric light switches that, when switched on, revealed concepts with text
>recipes with secrets
>recipes made in a factory
DNA=zippers
DNA=stuff
double helix=ideal shape
genes=DNA
DNA is a copy cat
proteins=origami
choreography in cells
cutting and pasting
cellular “community”
cell “world”
junk dna was, interestingly, deemphasized and implicated in the process of recombination
genes on chromosomes are like pairs of shoes
“the frontier” of research presented as a techno/ambient soundtrack with digital visualizations
“staying ahead of the flood” (of information, I hope)
time traveling
Information about applied careers and technology was presented after watson, crick, and franklin. Topics included:
gene therapy
bioinformatics
counseling
chemistry
treatments
newborn testing
drugs
stem cells = supercells
heredity slot machine (with the phrasing, “genes allow“)
The Reality Checks! (irony that reality is presented in a theatre)
-genetic engineering
-swapping genes from different animals
-cloning
-stem cells
Thinking vs. Making panel at CAA
The Wrap:
So all and all the panel went pretty well. In fact, it may have been the most well attended LEF mentoring session we’ve had in its three-year history. I have to wonder if this was because we did a better job of advertising the workshop or if the vagueness of the description in the program created some uncertainty and wonder in the minds of the participants. At one count I think eighty were in attendance during the initial presentations from Edward Shanken, Rich Pell, and Amanda McDonald Crowley. Once the breakout groups formed, I’d say the numbers dropped to 30-40 or so. Nonetheless, all accounts seemed to agree that the intensity and quality of the individual groups led to a worthwhile experience.
With five people (all humanities/arts affiliated) reporting:
The seminar received an overall rating of 4 on a 5-point scale.
People generally found the presentations helpful for their information and the excitement they prompted. Particularly helpful was the real-world advice and examples of successful work.
Areas for improvement:
More discussion
Greater structure in the discussion
Greater depth/more time for individual presentations
Greater specificity in the catalog about the scope and topic of the mentoring session
Notes to self: make sure all of the audiovisual works beforehand, have an even more organized plan for seeding the discussion groups
Location for installation of sui generis thesis project
The view approaching Palmer Commons from Medical Campus (north).
The view from inside where sui.generis will be installed.
content exercise in cinematographic techniques and personality traits
For Tuesday’s discussion we will use a list of “brand personality” traits employed by product marketers to stimulate our thinking about the uses of cinematographic techniques.
“down-to-earth, honest, cheerful, wholesome, daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date, reliable, intelligent, successful, upper class, charming, outdoorsy, tough”
These traits represent dimensions of brand personality that were factored from an analysis of consumer preferences by Jennifer Aaker (Dimensions of Brand Personality. 1997. Journal of Marketing Research. 34:3. pgs. 347-356.).
The goal is to identify as many ways as possible that cinema techniques can be used. We will consider the possible uses of :
- lighting
- lenses
- framing
- camera movement
- camera position
- camera angle
- editing
For each of these categories identify all of the possible configurations that could most effectively communicate each of the personality traits you are given. Do this in groups of 3-4.
Think critically about what the effect of each technique is and how it makes a connection to the characters, their point of view, the plot, etc..
The drawback is the direct link to advertising and other high concept ideas of filmmaking that rely solely on genre convention. By this I mean that we may not all agree on what camera angle communicates “cheerful.” Try to come to a consensus within your group, but also try to include all possible solutions/techniques.
Remember, there is rarely any formulaic way to communicate these personality traits. They often rely on their context. Nonetheless, we can begin to come up with solutions by asking ourselves these questions.
One challenge is to consider how we might communicate non-human personality traits.
I create uncetainty
I’m so very happy to know that people worry about what I will do. I mean this sincerely, because after all, doesn’t the creation of an uncertain future also take into account the possibility of a preferred one? I’ve been getting questions about my upcoming thesis project.
“…what exactly will be on display within the tent. I think he got a little wary when he remembered the reproductive chair that was on display at Palmer some time ago. If you could e-mail the both of us with a brief description we would really appreciate it.”
The truth is that I really don’t know what will be inside until it is installed. Nonetheless, some suggestions are often needed to get things moving in the first place.
“Inside the structure there will be an opaque set of plexiglass screens on which will be projected the shadows of various plant configurations. There will also be a visual juxtaposition (as an image) of the social spaces of a chapel and a modern biological laboratory.”
