Yesterday I made a point of visiting the exhibition “Design in the Age of Darwin” at the Block Museum of Art on Northwestern University’s campus in Evanston, IL. The title of the exhibition caught my attention when I was flipping through a Chicago guide while visiting with some family there. The terms “design” and “Darwin” are usually brought up in a controversial opposition. However, this exhibition promised to take a deeper look at the relationships present in the fundamental orderings of Darwin’s work on natural selection and decorative design.
The exhibition takes a sort of auteur-like approach, focusing on a few men prominent in the decorative arts at th turn of the century and just before the birth of so-called modernism. The title includes the notables William Morris and Frank Lloyd Wright as well as C.F.A. Voysey, Louis Sullivan, and Christopher Dresser, an English botanist turned industrial designer.
I wrote in the comment book that the exhibition was well-presented, but that it lacked an engagement with the discipline of evolution as well as any other social and cultural field beyond traditional notions of design.
The missed opportunity lies in the ability to untangle well-tread debates of form versus function from ideas about natural and sexual selection, the role of mutation as a creative force, and the cultural and social appropriation of “selection” in the burgeoning onslaught of mass production and “upward mobility”.
I would have liked to see, for instance, a more overt discussion of Frank Lloyd Wright’s spandrel and the famous (at least within evolutionary biology) paper “The Spandrels of San Marcos”. In it Gould and Lewontin take on the adaptationist perspective which basically says that form must have function and needs a explanation. The adaptationists neglected the role of happenstance (technically, genetic drift) and frequently created “just so” stories to explain the unexplained. Gould and Lewontin’s view was that evolution is a side-effect of a true adaptation, where some traits arise from correlations between a networked body (i.e. gene networks), rather than arising from natural selection. Admittedly, I haven’t read the catalog for the exhibition, but here was a golden opportunity to flesh out the role that complex dynamism plays in evolution. As it stands, the exhibition just furthers the paradigm of intention and selection in the interplay of form and function.
I would agree with the curator’s thesis that Darwin’s ideas contributed to the design sensibility of the age, but it was probably only the case insofar as both Darwin and these designers relied on the metaphor of selection.
Another missed opportunity was the role that social Darwinism played in the development of modernism. For an excellent paper on the subject, see Christina Cogdell’s “Products and Bodies: Streamline Design and Eugenics as Applied Biology.”
What was there were some fantastic examples of Arts and Crafts and Prairie-style decorative and architectural renderings from Chicagoland area collections. It seems almost like the curator was constrained in the availability of ideas and objects to articulate the thesis, and while the show is a unified presentation, there isn’t anything novel to suggest that accounts of art history haven’t yet “speciated”. For the discipline’s sake, let’s hope it doesn’t go extinct.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581-598. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/77447
Cogdell, C. (2003). Products or Bodies? Streamline Design and Eugenics as Applied Biology. Design Issues, 19(1), 36-53. Retrieved August 13, 2008, from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/074793603762667683
This afternoon we concluded a week-long workshop in the so-called bioarts (go here for a nuanced discussion of the term) at the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore, India. The workshop, conducted by Symbiotica and organized through a collaboration between NCBS, The Arts Catalyst and the Center for Experimental Media Art at the Srishti School of Art Design and Technology, brought together both Indian and international artists to engage with the tools of biotechnology as a way of investigating opportunities for research at the intersections of biology and art practice.
The capstone to the week was a community discussion among the participants and graduate students and faculty from NCBS. The conversation wa quite lively as it had been all week beginning with a opening keynote from Oron Catts about bioart and its role in cultural and scientific discourse.
Mukund Thattai moderated the discussion and acted as a provocateur by highlighting the potential for artists to become long-term interlocutors within the NCBS community. He particularly asked for skeptics of this art/biology engagement to share their concerns. Some of questions and concerns raised were:
How does the arts research percolate ‘down’ into culture given that these are two “ivory towers” largely speaking to each other?
Why is it that artists seem to be so vague in their proposals, seemingly lacking the precision of language to communicate ideas?
That the sciences practiced in institutions like NCBS are not intended for the average person and that possibly they shouldn’t be involved in it’s production because of the responsibility involved.
That the artworks produced appear to be superficial.
That the ideas or concepts presented through the work are already known and aren’t progressive enough to indicate value.
That biological research is drawing on ancient and traditional ways of knowing that largely obviate the need for any questioning of its categories and ways of understanding life.
That biologists just need to become better communicators and all of the problems associated with, e.g. acceptance of evolution, will disappear (this was actually raised during our first day’s interaction with the NCBS community).
These questions were sincere and engaging, and I was happy that there was such a good turnout to discuss these issues. People shared many different perspectives that varied widely in their desire for further such engagements, different models of engagement, and skepticism for the value of the kinds of activities that we were engaged in.
I was somewhat restrained from entering the fray directly because one of my main goals is to elicit the widest possible display of concerns from a community like this. Sometimes I feel it is better to just listen and use the issues raised as areas for getting tactically involved.
This brings me to a rationale for art/science engagement that I think deals with many of the concerns raised. Art, when engaged with biology, performs a social function of ‘witnessing.’ Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer (Leviathan and the Air Pump, 1985) highlights this process in their analysis of Robert Boyle’s experiments with pneumatics and Thomas Hobbes’s critiques of his experimental program. They describe three processes that effectively multiply witnesses to experimentation and the resulting production of scientific knowledge: 1) facilitating replication–so that users can perform experiments themselves, 2) performance of experiments in a social space–i.e. sharing in the embodied experience, and (perhaps most importantly) 3)virtual witnessing–i.e. production in a user’s mind an image of the experimental scene such that it obviate the need for direct witness.
In the context of the workshop, I think this process of witnessing is increasingly relevant for the production of the biological program and its social contract with society. On the one hand, by teaching artists to use the tools of biology, Symbiotica creates an expectation that non-specialists could theoretically repeat experiments for themselves and verify their validity. Indeed, simple hypothesis testing was performed using environmental sampling of microorganisms and transformation of E. coli with a green fluorescent protein marker. Another example where replication of an experimental program is facilitated comes from the Critical Art Ensemble’s Marching Plague in which US military experiments in biowarfare were replicated with a critical eye for how the results did or did not support defense practice and the politicization of biotechnology. Each of these examples demonstrate how the practices of biology can be effectively replicated to allow for a wider social engagement of science and it’s relationship to other social groups and cultural concerns.
The second aspect of witnessing in shared spaces is perhaps the easiest to show. There were twenty residents at NCBS during the week, engaging in shared processes, visiting labs, and discussing the methods and implications of biological research in India. There’s a worldwide trend of artists working in labs with organizations. Kevin Kelly has a nice list of these residencies here.
What follows from these forms of replication and shared space is the dissemination of a virtual reality of the experimental program. I think that what comes out of artists’ engagement is a type of circumstantial evidence for scientifically-produced knowledge. It relies not on fact or even certainty but solely the residue of artistic engagement. Shapin and Schaffer point to these as circumstantial, stylized, accounts that do not exist as pure forms but instead as publicly acknowledged moves towards or away from “the reporting of contingencies.” Contingencies here means events or things that might jeopardize the validity of the experiment. By allowing the full spectrum of the experimental ’scene’–perhaps through the inclusion of additional perspectives, political persuasions, or ideas–a better picture of experimentation and its context can be understood. The CEMA blog this week documented the workshop in detail. How often do you see that level of detail in the daily working of, say, a genetics lab? Consider also how art exports knowledge into other spaces and disciplines, either though its images or simply through the engagement itself.
Reflecting on all of this (and I’m tired now), I think one of the interesting questions to pursue is to ask what difference artistic engagement makes along each of these three axes. Does it differ from other methods of communication, and if so what are the behaviors and practices that make it so?
National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore March 10-14 2008
Call for Participants
Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology and the National Centre for Biological Sciences, in collaboration with the Arts Catalyst and SymbioticA, is organising an intensive 5 day workshop for artists and others interested people. It will be led by SymbioticA’s Director Oron Catts and his scientific collaborator Greg Cozens from the University of Western Australia.
This is a hands-on workshop where the tools of modern biology are demonstrated through artistic engagement, which in turn gives voice to the broader philosophical and ethical exploration into the extent of human intervention with other living things. It involves exploration of biological technologies and issues stemming from their use, and serves as a theoretical and practical introduction to the creation of biological art and is aimed at educating artists from India in issues of biotechnology and the life sciences.
The workshop will cover hands-on engagement with these technologies in order to be able to carry out and critique manipulation of living systems from an informed practical perspective. The practical components include DNA extraction and fingerprinting, genetic engineering, plant and animal tissue culture and basic tissue engineering techniques.
The workshop will present work of contemporary artists dealing with biotechnology. Scientists will be involved discussing ethical issues raised by artists’ work in this area and leading visit to NCBS laboratories. At the end of the week, the ideas explored in the workshop will be opened out with a public discussion event at a venue to be announced in Bangalore.
Attendance and Conditions:
Attendance at the workshop will be by selection through open submission or by invitation. The selection will be made by Srishti, SymbioticA, the artist in residence at NCBS, and the Arts Catalyst’s curator, currently in residence at Srishti. Artists are expected to be available and present for the entire week-long workshop, as this is an intensive process of learning and social interaction. Artists should be based in India, or nearby countries in South Asia.
There is no cost to selected participants to attend the workshop, but travel and other expenses will not be covered. Limited accommodation is available at NCBS for artists travelling from outside Bangalore. Subsidised meals will be available for participants at NCBS.
The organisers believes that the effects of the workshop will be felt in the long-term, as the artists, having learned the technology, will start working on their own biotech projects, or at least feel their work is informed by the experience.
About SymbioticA:
SymbioticA is part of The School of Anatomy and Human Biology, Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences, University of Western Australia. SymbioticA is an artistic laboratory dedicated to the research, learning and critique of life sciences. SymbioticA is the first research laboratory of its kind, in that it enables artists to engage in wet biology practices in a biological science department.
SymbioticA sets out to provide a situation where interdisciplinary research and other knowledge and concept generating activities can take place. It provides an opportunity for researchers to pursue curiosity-based explorations free of the demands and constraints associated with the current culture of scientific research while still complying with regulations. SymbioticA also offers a new means of artistic inquiry, one in which artists actively use the tools and technologies of science, not just to comment about them, but also to explore their possibilities.
Please send an expression of interest in attending as an email, including a CV and brief bio, by February 8 2008 at the latest to Meena Vari, Srishti: meena@srishti.ac.in
This workshop has made possible thorough the generous support of part of The School of Anatomy and Human Biology, and Faculty of Life and Physical Sciences, University of Western Australia, NCBS and the Sir Rattan Tata Trust.
There is a critical issue at the core of the discussions about innovation that isn’t being discussed. I hesitate to say that it’s the elephant in the room, but when in India…
This issue is encapsulated in an exchange I had with Gregg Davis during the questions period following his presentation at the “Leadership through Design Summit” in Bangalore just before the end of the year. In reality it was only a question and response, but it’s worth sharing.
Davis presented a talk during the IDEAS section on “Innovation for Business Transformation.” The presentation was titled something like “Brand, Design and The Brain: A New Methodology for Building Design and Brand Attributes Based on Recent Scientific Studies of the Brain.” I grabbed this title from a recent talk he gave at the CONNECTING’07 Congress of Industrial Designers, but it was basically the same thing.
What is interesting about this topic is how cognition studies are being used to inform business and communication practices aimed at better attracting customers. The talk itself was fascinating and full of insight and ideas from cognitive science. Davis presented Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) imaging as a tool to more closely predict how consumers make choices. MRIs “take a picture” of the brain basically by showing where blood flow is most intense. MRIs can even be performed over a time-interval to show how changes in blood flow happen over time. The basic idea is that blood flow increases to parts of the brain that are being used most intensely. So if you are having an emotional response to something, then the amygdala may light up. If you are recognizing metaphors, then the angular gyrus may be involved. If you are involved in reasoning or planning, then the frontal lobe may show a signal (and so on). When Davis and collaborators presented people with “familiar products” they observed that regions associated with comfort lit up. When they showed “unfamiliar products” the regions associated with anxiety lit up.
Here is where it gets really interesting. Davis suggested that one of the purposes of this approach was to do many of the things that artists do. He put it another way by saying that there is an assumption that artists typically “unlock” those regions of the brain associated with emotion that also, incidentally, affect non-rational consumer choice. Given that marketers and business folks are interested in understanding (and in fact controlling) choice, it’s not surprising that they would be interested in those factors and patterns in the brain that affect consumer decision-making.
Okay, let’s assume that artists do indeed capitalize on those “emotional” and “non-rational” regions of the brain (I think it’s reasonable). Why then do we need to expend the vast resources and put people under the enormous imposition of MRI technologies in order to do things that are already possible if you involve artists in the business and design processes? The response I received was great. Davis started by commenting that this was a hugely dangerous question and that it got to some of the issues of the relationship of business and artists. He didn’t go much further than that, and it was fine by me. I could understand why he wouldn’t.
This is the key question. Why do we do things that are technically feasible but ultimately more harmful and manipulative to individuals? Why are big problems approached from a technological perspective rather than the more complicated social one? I understand why this problem exists; artists talk back and make suggestions that businesses do not want to hear. MRI machines just do what they were made to do. While there is some interesting data and observations that can be made, where will the real design innovation come from? Will it come from the more precise matching of people’s preferences to product offerings, or will it come from people who have the ability to predict and enliven design ecologies to respond to the cognitive changes that cause people’s preferences to shift and flux in an ever-changing environment?
August 6, 2007 at 7:40 am · Filed under art, genomics
Announcing the launch of a new genomic art website curated by Holly Longstaff and Jordan Miller. The gallery is graciously supported by Genome British Columbia. The purpose of this project is to spark public dialogue and debate about genetic and genomic science.
The site describes the “Allegories of the Genome” project, which also included an exhibition that was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba at outworks Gallery in February, 2007. The online gallery expands beyond the February show to showcase the work of 14 international artists working in a variety of mediums.
We hope you all will take a few minutes to view the artists’ work and read what they have to say about novel technologies.
Evidence from language, history and form suggest an analogy between the cinema and the genome. The author describes some of the relationships between cinema and the genome and points to opportunities for discovering unmarked categories within the genome and new methods of representation. This is accomplished by evaluating existing metaphors presented for the understanding of genetics and revealing how current scientific understanding and social concerns suggest a cinematic alternative. The formal principles of function, difference and development mediate discussion and serve as heuristics for investigating creative opportunities.
