[Synapse elist] Post from George Gessert

[Vicki]

Greetings everyone,

I'd hoped to respond sooner, but recently bought a new computer, and it is
giving me some annoying and time-consuming problems. I won't bore you with
the details, but Vicki is helping route this message to you.

I'd like to comment on vitalism, include a note on the word "bioart", then
add a few reflections on exhibiting bioart, which Vicki asked me to do, and
end with some thoughts on global warming and bioart.

First vitalism. No one has defined it, so I went to my Webster's dictionary
and found this: "vitalism   The doctrine that the life in living organisms
is caused and sustained by a vital force that is distinct from all physical
and chemical forces." In other words, vitalism is not a materialist
construct. Oron wrote that we need to find a materialistic basis for valuing
life, and I completely agree. I would guess - please correct me if I am
wrong - that the lingering appeal of vitalism is less its aura of mystery,
than that if life has a non-materialistic essence, then this is likely to be
a clear reason to value life above non-life. However, we do not need
metaphysics to value life over non-life. The biophilia hypothesis suggests
that we value life because we are genetically programmed to value it. Is
genetic programming an adequate basis for a value system that privileges
life? I don't see why not. Speaking non-philosophically, just because
lightning is not caused by Zeus, it is no less awesome.

The word bioart: lotu5 brought up the question of whether the word should
encompass non-living artworks that engage questions about genetics,
biotechnology, etc. Bioart is a purely descriptive word, not value-laden,
and other terms, eg. genetic art, embrace relevant nonliving works. So, no
change is necessary. Jens, I have forgotten the name of the Italian
professor who worked on the problem of terminology. He produced an excellent
diagram that appeared in the 2007 Italian translation of L'Art Biotech.

Exhibiting Bioart: almost everyone who has tried to exhibit bioart has
encountered problems. Many have wonderful disaster stories to tell. Credit
for the awful stories must be given to all the museums and galleries
designed to exclude every form of life except human beings. Some of the
reasons for this are practical - moths damage tapestries, cats scratch and
spray, etc. But there is an anthropocentric component as well - thanks
Monika for introducing the term - and museums are spaces where we can
supposedly encounter our histories, connections, and deeper selves without
distractions from nonhuman nature. This is a tragically mistaken approach to
art (to say nothing of history, human nature, and nature), but it is what we
have inherited and must deal with. The long-term solution is a cultural sea
change and new kinds of exhibition spaces, ones that restore a healthy
relationship between art and nonhuman nature. Parks, zoos, and arboretums
might be models, but more important may be uses of what we call art in
cultures where art/nature dualism does not exist. We should press for
life-friendly design changes in museums whenever opportunities arise, but in
the meantime, curators like Jens have my profound gratitude.

Global Warming and bioart: On March 1, two days before this discussion
began, an article in the Guardian quoted James Lovelock as saying that
catastrophic climate change was now unavoidable. He concluded that we might
as well have fun. He gave very few specifics about what he meant by
"catastrophic", (although he goes into detail about what is likely to happen
in his 2006 book, The Revenge of Gaia), except to say that during the next
century he expects our population to decline to about one billion (that is,
to about one-sixth of what it is today.) As for fun, far be it from me to
pass up any opportunity, but in the face of what Lovelock predicts, what
kind of fun won't fall flat?

Of course Lovelock could be wrong about climate. There's no way to know for
sure. We must live with possibility that the catastrophe he predicts will
come to pass, but also with the possibility that it will not. Bioart may be
fortuitously positioned with respect to both possibilities. The reason for
this is that the essential material of bioart - life - tends to focus
consciousness in ways that stand a good chance of serving us well. Whether
or not civilization as we know it is coming to an end, I want to spend as
much of my time with the things I love, and among them are plants.

Best,

George Gessert