[Synapse elist] last remarks after "sk-interfaces"

[Jens Hauser]

Dear list members,

although Vicky has formally closed the discussion, while being located 
in a different time zone, I was keen of adding some last points before 
midnight, as the sk-interfaces exhibition at FACT in Liverpool 
(containing some works that can qualify for “bio art”) as part of the 
cities year as the European Capital of Culture just ended yesterday, and 
its experience confirming some of the issues raised in the discussion.

• Terminology of “bio art”: Many posts have been concerned with the 
terminology and question whether this definition should be technical, 
philosophical or thematic. I see behind Monika’s argument for a “zoë 
art”, when considering the displays, an even technical definition to 
qualify the staged ‘biofacts’. By referring to Baridotti’s ‘return of 
'real bodies' and the return of zoe’ including ‘the other’ – (quote) 
“the 'other' of the living body in its humanistic definition: the other 
face of bios, that is to say, the generative vitality of non- or 
pre-human or animal life' – it seems to me that the technical definition 
here joins the philosophical. With the link to Dennis Noble’s 
considerations on vitalism as holistic, I also feel that this answers in 
a certain way Roger’s claim for “bio art” to become more eco-systemic. 
In this context, it may be worth mentioning that Dennis Noble, providing 
a system biology approach, was one of our speakers at the Liverpool 
sk-interfaces conference which was concerned with the concepts of 
liminality and inbetween-ness. The exhibition as well tried to encourage 
non-anthropocentric positions.

On the other hand, I like to follow the argument brought up by dj lotu5 
that “the bio in bioart is useful in that it implies a social and 
political engagement from the very inception.” I still follow dj lotu5’s 
argument when parallels to Live Art/Performance and Body Art are 
established (there are obviously subcutaneous connections). 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. Is it necessary to stress 
that since the Fluxus period in the 60ies the concept of ‘intermedia’ is 
well established? The difficulty to define “bio art” lies in the attempt 
to establish the exact features of its ontological intermediality (by 
the technique only). Nevertheless, when analysing it through the lens of 
transmedial intermediality (technique combined with concept) “bio art” 
appears to be a terrain-vague like catchword to describe a still unclear 
post-digital paradigm. Avoiding to fall into the trap of the ‘newness 
factor’, it seems to me that “bio art” has evolved into an art that 
involves biotechnological methods and/or manipulation of living systems 
has become a process based art of transformation in vivo or in vitro 
that "manipulates biological materials at discrete levels (e.g. 
individual cells, proteins, genes, nucleotides)" (E. Kac) and creates 
displays that allow audiences to partake of them emotionally and 
cognitively. In contrast, a “bio art” definition trying to include any 
thematic reference, simulation or representation of biological systems 
risks to fail – unless impressionism as well becomes “bio” or “water 
lily art”…

Useless to say that among the 17 artists of the sk-interfaces 
exhibition, and trying to avoid curatorially an ontological 
intermediality approach and favouring the transmedial one of 
“inbetween-ness” instead, most arts writers and journalists simply 
skipped the digital, interactive and tele presence work in the 
exhibition and almost exclusively focussed on the ‘living work’. Despite 
the clear attempt to think beyond dualistic dialectics, the art/science 
or human/animal splits appeared as the dominant grid of interpretation.

• Exhibiting “bio art”: I share all of the major concerns articulated in 
the discussion; also, the sk-interfaces exhibition turned out to be a 
huge challenge to the arts center FACT, both in terms of staging and 
maintaining it. Very few institutions have actually taken such a risk. 
Given the uncertain status of GMOs in art galleries in the UK, Jun 
Takita was not able to display the version of his work “Light, light 
only” which should have contained transgenic, bioluminescent moss 
covering a plaster mould of his brain. The semi-living garments in 
“Victimless Leather” by the Tissue & Art Project had to be ‘harvested’ 
after 6 weeks of exhibition, after the cells had replaced the supporting 
polymer structure, and been replaced by fresh polymer scaffolds. The 
custom-build bioreactor in Orlan’s “Harlequin Coat” was overheated due 
to a thermostatic defect and cells eventually died. Nevertheless, having 
to do with an ephemeral art, these incidents do not need to be seen as 
failures but can also be interpreted as vanitas-like indicators that 
this art might find other contexts then the white cube or the black box. 
Interestingly, the remarks by Kathy High about the extreme care provided 
by gallery staff and partners to her live animal display can be 
confirmed, in the sk-interfaces experience, although no recognizable 
animals but only tissues and cells were on live display.

In this perspective, the raised questions about the most appropriate 
venues and contexts are of a large interest for forthcoming debates in 
this field. While I have difficulties seeing this art becoming an 
utilitarian education tool in science museums, the emergence of centres 
asking at the same time aesthetical, environmental and political 
questions such as the Parco d’Arte Vivente in Torino or the Verbeke 
Foundation in Belgium are phenomena to be observed closely.

Best regards,

Jens