I’m reading a book entitled, When Species Meet, by Donna Haraway. She’s one of my favorite authors, not only because of her subject matter, the relationships between ourselves and other organisms, science, and the stories we use to create meaning for how we act in the world, but because her literary style mixes the meanings of words and maintains her constantly questioning presence in the text.
Potamopyrgus antipodarum under the dissecting scope
In the third chapter of the book, she handles suffering, particularly of organisms in highly-constructed laboratory settings, with great care. By pointing out that we are always linked to killing in one form or another, the questions she raises is not if we do it at all, but rather how we approach, encounter, and leave those organisms that we are inextricably bound to.
My favorite passage from that third chapter is the one in which she asks some of her colleagues in the biological sciences how they demonstrate concern for the organisms in the lab as part of their practice. This is a question very close to home for me because it describes so much about my own motivations for doing science in the lab, how ‘reliable’ data are produced, and what kinds of practices can result.
I’m reminded of that famous quote from Barbara McClintock, also the title of Evelyn Fox Keller’s book, that emphasizes how “Getting a Feeling for the Organism” inserts itself so profoundly into daily scientific practice. This is empathy, yes, but the question Haraway asks is how we learn to recognize and therefore intervene in existing situations to show concern and enact strategies for care.
I think back to my own experiences in the lab, or rather, a temperature-controlled cool room. Others had brought snails back from a mountainous lake region in the southern hemisphere, and I was responsible for their care. These snails happened to be an invasive species in the U.S., requiring an extra level of containment to keep them, their offspring, and the parasites out of the regional ecosystem. My relationship with them meant creating the best possible environment for their growth and reproduction. They were, in effect, prisoners (although escape did have a potentially huge payoff). My role in their care meant feeding, finding and installing balanced spectrum lighting to mimic the ambient wavelengths, bringing in local plants to help filter the water in a huge freshwater ecosystem, making sure the water kept moving, installing irrigation systems to distribute a constant flow across many individual containers, adding sterilized rocks to the containers to allow for micronutrients, bacteria and other microorganisms, and even keeping fish and crayfish in the main tank to help condition and scavenge the water. For me, all of these technologies were about care. For one thing we couldn’t maintain the relationship these snails had with their parasites in the lab because we thought they just weren’t being taken care of well enough. There was this very important relationship, then, between how we cared for these snails and how and what kind of data we could collect about their own tight relationship with the parasites they came with.
For design, I’m thinking of how we script care. How can it be made obligatory as part of the function of a service, object, or process? How is it that we find connections and feel compelled to spend our time and energies attempting to make an environment or artifact more comfortable for another? How are we able to recognize what matters in this equation, especially when there are so many possibilities to misinterpret or just plain get it wrong. I suppose we look for signs of health, reproduction, and activity as indicators that we are on the right track. In doing so we create synergies between ourselves and others. By designing for their comfort, we link our vigor and theirs.
Not the first movies depicting plant sex, but perhaps the first dedicated theater. What I’m wondering is why it would necessarily be visual at all. My question is how other species (in this case plants) would sense and respond to suggestions of sexual display. For plants, it’s often interspecies mediated. Does a non-pollinating insect then provide stimulation if not fertilization?
WORLD’S FIRST PORN THEATER FOR HOUSE PLANTS OPENS IN CALIFORNIA Chico Gallery Hosts Revolution in Film for Non-Humans Beginning September 10th
August 24, 2007 – In a bid to increase movie audiences exponentially, and to dominate the motion picture industry, conceptual artist Jonathon Keats has announced plans to produce film and video for other species — from rose bushes to almond trees — using specialized new techniques. “Humans have more entertainment than they can endure,” explains Mr. Keats. “Yet organisms with populations far greater than ours are routinely ignored by MGM and Disney.”
Mr. Keats came to appreciate the potential impact of arts and entertainment on non-human audiences while choreographing ballet for honeybees at Chico State University last year. “Dance comes naturally to bees,” he says, “less naturally to trees. But all plants can perform photosynthesis. They’re sensitive to the play of light. As an entertainment form, cinema was practically made for them.”
By projecting specially-prepared video directly onto foliage, Mr. Keats found an effective way to share films with bushes and brambles, even entire forests and jungles. Yet he chose to open the first movie theater for the botanical kingdom at 1078 Gallery, an alternative arts space in Chico, California. “Chico has the advantage of being an agricultural town,” he explains. “In a place like this, my venture is likely to be appreciated.”
Still an essential question remained: What genres of film would appeal to flora? “This wasn’t the sort of situation where I could learn the audience’s mindset,” admits Mr. Keats. “The only thing that would be a sure hit, I figured, was sex.” Accordingly, the artist dutifully filmed plants getting pollinated, editing his uncensored footage into a gritty black-and-white porn video.
“I think it must be very titillating, if pollination is your thing,” says 1078 exhibition committee member J. Pouwels. Mr. Keats, who’s already looking into further venues for plant porn, believes that the theater might even be intriguing to people. “Watching movies in a cineplex is partly about absorbing the experience of others in the audience. On the big screen, our point of view is enlarged. I see no reason why shared experiences with other species can’t further expand our perspective.”
A Cinema Botanica trailer can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZqzr5ANi7I * * * Jonathon Keats is a conceptual artist, fabulist, and critic. Recently he exhibited extraterrestrial abstract artwork at the Judah L. Magnes Museum in Berkeley. He has also attempted to genetically engineer God in a petri dish, in collaboration with scientists at the University of California, and petitioned Berkeley to pass a fundamental law of logic — A=A — a work commissioned by the city’s annual Arts Festival. He has been awarded Yaddo and MacDowell fellowships, and his projects have been documented by KQED-TV and the BBC World Service, as well as periodicals ranging from The San Francisco Chronicle to New Scientist. He is represented by Modernism Gallery in San Francisco. For more information, please contact Mr. Keats at jonathon_keats@yahoo.com, or see http://www.modernisminc.com/artists/Jonathon_KEATS/
My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.1. Relational Aesthetics One way to resolve the inconsistencies and differences among individuals is to emphasize the relationships among individuals. Relationships effectively emphasize the nature of interactions and are the product of more than one individual. This suggests a relational aesthetic, which takes into account the range and quality of human relationships and their social context (Bourriaud, 2002). Relational aesthetics relies on a definition of aesthetics as “an idea that sets humankind apart from other animal species.” Though human aesthetics are very different from those of other species, it is only the idea that they are different which sets humans apart from others. A definition of relational aesthetics can be expanded to include the range and quality of human and non-human relationships as variables.
Instead of setting humans apart from others we can now take into account the numerous interactions and relationships that occur between and among humans and non-humans.
If we refer back to the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration, we are reminded to ask, “How do we create common ground and promote just relationships for each of these interactions?”
George Gessert’s work with hybrids of the Iris genus are a good example of relational aesthetics in action. Gessert cultivates iris strains as art. The cultivation and culling of Iris plants strengthens the relationship between Gessert’s own aesthetic preferences and the hybrid phenotypes or outward appearance (Gessert 1993). This is a form of artificial selection that has been used for centuries to domesticate and select organisms for human purposes–in Gessert’s case, the purposes are aesthetic. The thing to remember about Gessert’s relationship with the iris hybrids is that the relationship is, in many ways, the artwork. Rather than promoting an agonistic interaction by simply picking and displaying the flowers, Gessert refers to himself as a “facilitator” which demonstrates that his role is a cooperative one. Raising hybrid Irises is a collaborative artwork involving selective decisions from the artist and developmental decisions the organism. Gessert directly affects floral morphology through cultivation. This raises issues about how human-mediated selection and so-called natural forms of selection might affect plant-pollinator interactions. Correspondingly, other relationships that the plant has (e.g. microbes and fungi in the soil) may implicate other responsive stakeholders.
Examples of human and non-human interactions that promote cooperative relationships are not restricted to the art world. The poultry industry, pressured by the demand for eggs, raises hens in crowded cages to increase industrial efficiency. This crowding increases competitive interactions, mortality, and decreased egg production among the chickens and led to beak trimming as a controversial method of reducing injury. Researchers decided that a better way to decrease mortality and increase egg laying could be accomplished by selecting cages rather than individuals (Muir 1996). In this manner, the relationships among the individuals in the cages were important to the well-being of each individual. Cages with fewer agnostic interactions also demonstrated higher egg-laying productivity. Again, the point of this example is to demonstrate how relationships themselves can be a positive area of interest and lead to a more synergistic response.
Framing the relationship between individuals rather than specific qualities of individuals ensures that individual attributes are maintained in a relationship system, despite whatever value judgments are made. This system might include humans, non-humans, or a mix of both. Mark Thompson creates art installations that allow him to share a space with bees. In Thompson’s words, these serve as “models of interaction” while simultaneously creating pollination opportunities outside of the exhibition space (Gessert 1993).
Another area in which attention to relationships is important is in the practice of good pedagogy in teaching and learning. Attention to the strength of interactions fosters second-order understanding. Second-order understanding is the understanding that results from recognizing another individual’s understanding (Krippendorf 2006).
Strong interactions among individuals often promotes the establishment of empathy, a form of second-order understanding.
This can result in better design for educational objectives and creative research that springs from strong design. Chickering and Gamson outline seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (1987) that have a relational component. Contact between students and faculty, reciprocity and cooperation among students, and prompt feedback, clearly suggest a relational strategy. Though less explicitly connected, feedback is a very important relational device for communication and for assessing the quality and range of interactions. Feedback reinforces second-order understanding.
My point in outlining these variables is to demonstrate that relationships (intense/relaxed; local/global; friendly/apathetic, for example) can be attended to, and as all relationships need more than one individual, there may be better opportunities to find common ground between differences. Attention to relationships can happen through working arrangements in the classroom, lab, or studio. In this approach, the comparison is about those patterns that connect these different levels of organization–biological or otherwise. This also does not presuppose which relationships are better or have more value than others. In Gessert’s work, an argument can be made that the iris benefits from increased cultivation. Gessert benefits from the pleasure they provide.
My intention is only to reframe the boundary of the system to take more perspectives into account. Those that are less frequently incorporated (e.g. non-humans) may gain an increased stake in discussions under this model. Consequently,decision-making that implements a relational set of values would first ask about the kinds of relationships created and what qualities and/or ranges those relationship exhibit.
Bourriaud, N. Relational Aesthetics. Trans. Pleasance, S. & F. Woods. Les Presses du Reel. 2002.
Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. “Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. (1987). p.3-7.
Gessert, G. “Notes on Genetic Art,” Leonardo Vol 26, No. 3 (1993).
Krippendorf, K. The Semantic Turn: a new foundation for design. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2006.
Muir, W. M. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75: (1996). p.447-458.
The exhibition of Sui generis continues this week in the Windows Room (3rd floor) at Palmer Commons (hours: 7:30 am-11pm Mon-Sat). The exhibition is open to the public now through April 13th, 2007.
A reception will be held on Friday, March 30th from 5-6:30 p.m. at the above location. Gabriel Harp will be on hand to discuss the work.
A presentation entitled, “Network Entrepreneurship in Biology, Art, & Design” will take place on April 2nd, 2007 from 5-6:30 p.m. in the Art & Architecture Auditorium.
About the work: Sui generis is a large-scale tectonic, systems-based installation designed to take into account related conceptual attributes of a chapel, scientific laboratory, carnival, and children’s nursery. Sui generis offers a cognitive retreat, a place for reflection, and a chance to come into close physical proximity with other organisms and ourselves. A rules-based activity based on the concept of asexual reproduction continues through the duration of the exhibition. A selection from Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking Glass often used to explain and ideate contemporary theories about the evolution of sex and recombination accompanies the artwork.
In order to experience the installation, visitors will be invited to raise their heads through one of the two holes in the floor underneath. When inhabiting the interior, the two viewers will be confronted not only with the shadowscape, but also with each other. As the architecture is elusive in its source, it invites diverse interpretations–a carnival sideshow, a Zen garden, a Victorian greenhouse, a virus, or perhaps even a flower awaiting pollination.
The title Sui generis indicates an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept. In intellectual property law, exclusive rights are granted for the creation and development of plant breeds, databases and traditional knowledge (among others) to reflect that the subject matter is a product of the intellect.
About the Artist: In his work, Gabriel Harp recombines visual art and life science (epistemology) through the processes of critical design and network entrepreneurship. Often working at the interfaces of evolutionary biology, bioinformatics, education, and visual culture, his work investigates the roles of metaphors in education, science and policy and the primacy of visual signals in the discourse surrounding genomics and biotechnology. Collaborating with Zack Denfeld and others, Gabriel is currently developing a visual map of patent claims on the human genome.
Installation of Sui generis begins this week in the Windows Room (3rd floor) at Palmer Commons (hours: 7:30 am-11pm Mon-Sat). The exhibition is open now through April 13th, 2007.
Sui generis is a large-scale tectonic, systems-based installation designed to take into account related conceptual attributes of a chapel, scientific laboratory, carnival, and children’s nursery. Sui generis offers a cognitive retreat, a place for reflection, and a chance to come into close physical proximity with other organisms and ourselves. The installation will develop to encompass different attributes and further articulation over the duration of the exhibition.
In order to experience the installation, visitors will be invited to raise their heads through one of the two holes in the floor underneath. When inhabiting the interior, the two viewers will be confronted not only with the shadowscape, but also with each other. As the architecture is elusive in its source, it invites diverse interpretations–a carnival sideshow, a Zen garden, a Victorian greenhouse, a virus, or perhaps even a flower awaiting pollination.
The title Sui generis indicates an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept. In intellectual property law, exclusive rights are granted for the creation and development of plant breeds, databases and traditional knowledge (among others) to reflect that the subject matter is a product of the intellect.
In his work, Gabriel Harp recombines visual art and life science (epistemology) through the processes of critical design and network entrepreneurship. Often working at the interfaces of evolutionary biology, bioinformatics, education, and visual culture, his work investigates the roles of metaphors in education, science and policy and the primacy of visual signals in the discourse surrounding genomics and biotechnology. Collaborating with Zack Denfeld and others, Gabriel is currently developing a visual map of patent claims on the human genome.
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.”
Workshop Topic: The purpose of the A&D Life workshop is to create space and stimulate a network for dialogue about the relationships between art, design, and the life sciences. Workshop processes can be described as attempts to critically identify and evaluate existing forms, structures, and strategies of creative engagement that span the artistic and life science domains. In these early stages of the organization’s development, the focus of A&D Life is to 1) understand the diversified viewpoints and approaches that structure creative engagement with the life sciences, 2) identify historical and contemporary precedents for work in these areas, 3) employ these theoretical and historical connections as catalysts for creative practices, and 4) register creative work as research that documents the complex, shifting relationships of art practice at the interface of contemporary social and scientific endeavor.
The goal is to try to understand what it means to think, design, and act with empathy towards the recipient(s) of our solutions. The recipient in this case is me- as you are all engaging in a critical dialogue of the work with regard to my intentions for it. How does a collaborative arrangement facilitate this? What steps are required to reach consensus?
My aim is to extricate myself from the process so as to see better what possibilities exist beyond my own sphere of influence. Thus, I rely on you all to take the tasks as your own- as if they were your own.
Guiding questions:
WHAT NARRATIVE/STORYLINE CAN I USE TO STRUCTURE AND THE EXPERIENCE AND INTERACTIONS ONE HAS WITH THIS STRUCTURE?
HOW IS THAT NARRATIVE REALIZED WITHIN THE UPPER AND LOWER HOUSES (SEE BELOW) THROUGH A COMBINATION OF PROJECTION, PERFORMANCE, SCULPTURE, INTERACTION OR OTHER SENSORY GESTURES?
I will have the structure set up in the common space…
(left)Model of the structure showing the intersection of a plane dividing the upper and lower houses. The lower house is on the right in this image and is the larger of the two.
The readings are taken from The Order of Things: an archaeology of the human sciences (Foucault 1970), Politics of Nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy (Latour 2004), and The Semantic Turn: a new foundation for design (Krippendorf 2006).
Reading them in reverse order may be useful if you are pressed for time.
The plan is this (1 HOUR):
Initial organization and task articulation (5 min): Identify tasks to complete; identify strategy(ies) to use to complete the tasks (I suggest the method outlined starting on page 247 of KRIPPENDORF); identify groups (upper/lower house).
Time for additional questions (5-10 min): What else do you need to know?
Design solutions (20-25 min): individually / in teams
KRIPPENDORF outlines the method (re: narrative) I would you to use if possible. LATOUR outlines the story that the narrative should construct. FOUCAULT outlines the history and philosophy that the story finds itself situated within.
(left and below) Multiple views of the proposed structure.
