scuse me for my delay, but i'm travelling along brazil: i'd stress that
gregory bateson was partecipating togheter with wiener and since the
beginning to the cybernetic revolution (and feed-back). And that his view
about evolution was biological + ambient mutations: an ecology of mind...
therefore ambient is always a bio-tecno-cultural one. Now perhaps there is
a disjunction or discontinuity but along a multi-linear perspective of
A no-anthropocentric anthropolgy is connected to bio-techno-cultural
mutations or bio-ecological evolution: i mean that it is still problematic
to connect new life forms with non-darwinian evolution. Perhaps it is an
my focus is crossing digital performance and a post-human body-corpse:
post-dualist organic/inorganic skin/screen bodies of ethno-performing arts.
Marx floatting into the pixel air: meta-fetishism is my perspective about a
post-dualistic sacred being
2011/5/8 roger malina <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Thank you for your very interesting and informative post
> your your work as an artist in synthetic biology
> You ask the question: re artists and synthetic biology
> " By capitalising on emerging
> technologies too quickly, do we end up metaphorically mapping art works
> diverse areas onto a desired category ? "
> The answer is of course : yes, and there is a real danger of 'eliding' into
> new hot topics without really dealing with the substance- jen hauser has a
> curatorial practice in art and biology and I am sure that he is careful not
> to confuse synthetic biology with other areas of art and biology= but
> its early in synthetic biology research and there are only a handlful of
> like you working actively in that territory
> but your email about your own work as an artist
> in a practice based art PhD in synthetic biology is a bit of a mind
> blower- a few months ago I was at a Leonardo LASER evening
> that was packed with biotech people, with the art hacker community talking
> about DYI genetic engineering equipment= just like in the 70s the
> first home computer clubs were started at the start of the digital age
> it seems to me we are in the middle of a rather profound cultural change
> in how we view life- with genetic engineering, synthetic biology,
> artificial life,
> physical intelligence we are seing a number of linked approaches that
> bring living systems into the artists studio at the cutting edge of
> stuart kauffman in his recent book 2008, Reinventing the Sacred: A New
> View of Science, Reason, and Religion.
> attacks some of these issues head on ( from his point of view in the
> science of complexity)
> there are some rather profound boundaries that we are now beginning
> to transgress
> - the boundary between living and non living systems
> -the boundary between humans and non humans
> annick= you are quite right to correct me- that the ventner work doesnt
> the living/non living boundary= but rather introduces the possibility
> of new life
> forms on earth that are not a result of darwinian evolution= and so its
> the darwinian earth life vs new life forms that are non darwinian
> and why do we need boundaries= all philosophical systems develop detailed
> ontologies= that define what objects are grouped in the same class so that
> one can reason about them= and different ontological systems not only
> lead to different epistemologies but 'meaning' becomes destabilised as
> boundaries shift
> this yasmin discussion seeks to look at how science and technologies
> are shifting profound ontological categories
> one of the fascinating things is that artists are right in there in the
> research labs making meaning at the same time as the scientists
> (howard boland's work is a great example)
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Howard Boland <email@example.com>
> Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 112, Issue
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Dear Yasminers,
> As a first time poster a quick introduction is in place. I am currently
> doing a practice-based art PhD titled "Art from Synthetic Biology". It
> entails an immersive laboratory practice working both independently and
> alongside scientists. For the last couple of years, I have been practicing
> hands on genetic engineering and synthetic biology using the MIT Registry
> Standard Biological Parts. For instance, I have engineered a genetic device
> that allows visualisation of invisible processes such as super-oxidised
> stress in bacteria and in so trace memories of growth.
> I would like to comment on four aspects: the minimal genome, orthogonal
> ribosomes, standardised parts and the Synth-ethic exhibition.
> The idea of "the minimal genome" and circumventing 4.5 billion years of
> evolution sounds dramatic but the base genome minimalised (from Mycoplasma
> genitalium) is of 'natural' origin. It is, of course, 'artificial' through
> manipulation (reduction), and more so in Craig Venter's use of a
> computational language (e.g. 'booting' up the DNA inside an existing
> organism or to paraphrase, "it's a bit like having sex with someone – and
> when the whole thing is over, the other has become you").
> Moving onto the Ortogonal Ribosome (OR), developed by a group at University
> of Cambridge and presented at the Royal Society in London, the idea here is
> to tap into the amber stop codon and integrate modified amino acids during
> protein synthesis. To do this, a similar "booting" concept emerges, through
> the creation of 'artificial' (or orthogonal) ribosomes able to fabricate
> 'unnatural' proteins. The upshot is an extended genetic code and a new
> arsenal of proteins. Jason Chin, heading the group, reflected somewhat in
> awe that it has only taken 10 years (since the beginning of modern
> biology) to redraw a 4.5-billon years history of 'natural' building blocks.
> Standardised genetic parts, like biobricks used in my own work, are less
> dramatic and more like tinkering with electronics, but lets not be fooled
> think that wet and electronic processes are the same. Much work is needed
> regenerate or convert existing material qualified and quantified by
> fundamental research into this standard (there are about 700 parts adhering
> to the MIT biobrick standard). Also, the goal of having enough parts and
> robotics-systems to develop wet devices using computers remains a remote
> idea (even with current efforts).
> Ten years is not a long time and I would be cautious about over-dramatising
> the situation. Whilst conceptually hinting towards major applications,
> synthetic biology should still be understood in terms of fundamental
> research. Much effort is driven towards manipulation in silico rather than
> vitro with the final removal of human wet work. Understanding life as it
> emerges under these conditions as artificial, returns us to the age-old
> anthropocentric discussion of nature and man that continues to patronize
> nature. Whilst the idea of the synthetic often has foreign and plastic
> connotations, the synthesis or reprocessing uses existing matter. 'The
> extended nature' works better for me, such as the production of
> metalloproteins etc. made possible through OR. A question I would like to
> pose is whether or not the shared dialectic between synthetic biology and
> computational language is an attempt to diffuse ethical implications?
> Finally, and to Jens, the Synth-ethics exhibition intrigues me. However, I
> was hoping to also see works that not only loosely relate to synthetic
> biology, specially, given the dramatic material argument launched on Bioart
> (delineating it from traditional representation - except that which has a
> synecdoche relation with bio matter). By capitalising on emerging
> technologies too quickly, do we end up metaphorically mapping art works
> diverse areas onto a desired category? The exhibited works are interesting
> and exciting. I would however like to pose a question: What artists out
> there are currently developing a synthetic biology practice and what are
> they producing? Whilst the 'Synthetic Aesthetic' network is geared at
> bringing together artists/designer with scientists in synthetic biology,
> there other artists working directly with these processes?
> I want to propose a future exhibition that would involve artworks that
> actually employ synthetic biology and show living devices, perhaps we could
> call it 'wet-devices' and use it as a platform to negotiate some of the
> ethical dilemmas thrown up by synthetic biology (e.g. instrumentation and
> industrialisation of life).
> Howard Boland
> Director of Artistic Engagement, c-lab.co.uk
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to.
> In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the
> unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.