Thanks for the interesting discussions - Jens, your clarification is greatly
appreciated. I would like to come back with a few thoughts and comments.
I first want to comment back to Laura Beloff on the 'instrumentalisation of
life', then contemplate on what life might be in the synthetic and the
implications of accessible synthetic biology suggesting that it is not just
media and methods but include approaches and attitudes. Finally, I want to
take an 'ethic sample' from my lab.
To Laura: agreed, 'instrumentalisation of life' is not restricted to
synthetic biology. The historical backdrop include age-old ideas of machine
& life tracing back to ancient Greece (Empedocles, Lucretius, Galen, Heron)
even if Descartes and La Mettrie provide more explicit outlooks.
In modern synthetic biology(SB) where engineering approaches are employed to
biological matter, cells are often spoken of as 'chassis' surrounding the
more important underlying 'circuitry' (DNA, RNA, tRNA, mRNA, etc). SB
(genetically) hijacks cellular processes and forces cells to carry out
actions to human benefit whether this is knowledge or material resources.
(It would be interesting to have Oron Catts or Ionat Zurr's comment on the
ethics of these cells, given their writing around the classification of the
semi-living?)
There are nuances between genetic essentialism and an instrumental view. In
the instrumental view, engineered circuits ('programs' hosted in plasmids)
work alongside the genome and only in the right type of body (even if many
strains or species contain interchangeable functional genetic material [e.g.
trans-genes]). Recent synthetic biology has been able to achieve a higher
level of complexity by synthesis of multiple genetic components to form
interactive systems (e.g. Quorum Sensing System
[1]<http://c-lab.co.uk/default.aspx?id=5&blogid=990>).
Organisms fall into the background and we are more concerned with operations
of the circuit.
Cells naturally resist foreign genetic material so plasmids are embedded
with antibiotic resistance gene(s) to ensure only cells with a desired
circuit survives. Placed outside selective media, cells gradually get rid of
foreign plasmids (at least some 'natural order' restored? [Simon]). With
bioengineering/synthetic biology, once a circuitry works, the DNA is stored
and organisms discarded. In this sense, life becomes a vehicle to fabricate
DNA or express protein as part of an engineering process. Life becomes an
engineering instrument upon which DNA is played (the genetic essentialist
might say: well, that's just life as we know it? But the difference is that
we are now cognitively involved in processing this).
I guess this is also where the whole thing becomes muddled up and the
question of 'what is life?' returns in a way that reminds me of Pier Luigi
Capucci's article some years back
[2]<http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/capucci_torriani_biotech.html>.
Viruses use living cells to multiply, we multiply our circuits using
living cells. Even the minimal genome takes a similar approach despite being
much more invasive. The question I ask is: What is life in the synthetic?
Maybe Roger and Jens already asked this?
Historically, as mentioned by Jens in terms of SB, similar threads of
instrumentation can be followed: In the thirties, mutagenic practices were a
crude way of going about this business. Edward Steichen's 'bio art' practice
employed mutagenics. Developments in the 1970s allowed recombinant practices
or genetic engineering but it remained a highly skilled craft. Where we are
at, is a stage of normalisation with substantial technical leaps being made
quickly.
In today's labs, kits are ubiquitous, and 'they are great', you don't really
need-to-know how bits works to do stuff – and that's also a call for
concern! Then again, most 'winning' technologies seem to finally ebb out in
some sort of mundane accessible 'Latour-ian blackbox'.
Jens, linked us to writings (de Lorenzo and Danchin, 2008)
[3]<http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n9/full/embor2008159.html>where
SB may be seen as a 'hype of rebranding' or a newborn discipline that
may not be 'genuinely novel'. Jens is right about the "'newnessfactor' of
SB", but I think it is also a feature of engineering to use the
catchy/funding-terms you mentioned. Whether or not these phrases are
biologically telling, they seem largely unfamiliar to biologists even those
that 'get' bioengineers.
With the biobricks initiative; many parts are made by teams of
undergraduates not just experienced bioengineers. Designers and artists
(David Bennett, Giulia Ricci, James King, Daisy Ginsberg and Tuur van Balen)
mostly from the RCA (at least in the UK) have participated in iGEM workshops
and teams, contributing to the broader discourse (even if they sometimes end
up as logo designers [4] <http://2010.igem.org/Team:UCL_London/Designs> – a
small price to pay for partaking I guess). Scientific teams are also showing
off an increasing number of 'creative' projects (e.g. banana smelling
E.coli, kyoto's E.coli Pen [5]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLVA7YPqxyo>, etc). In all of this,
researchers like Adrian Mackenzie's sees synthetic
biology deeply tied in with approaches and attitudes found in social media
and web 2.0. Others, like Marcus Schmidt
[6]<http://www.markusschmidt.eu/pdf/Diffusion_of_synthetic_biology.pdf>,
are more concern with the 'de-skilling agenda' allowing non-biotechnologists
to enter the field and the development of biohackers.
Eduardo Kac, in the work 'Genesis', synthesised (with the help of
scientists), a short piece of DNA by converting the biblical "Let man have
dominion over the fish of the sea…" into Morse, binary and finally DNA code
(TGAC) allowing the message (and not to forget the cells) to be mutated
using UV light and Joe Davis converted a bitmap symbol of female genitalia
into DNA using prime numbers. It would be easy to map these transgenic art
projects onto synthetic biology by simple redesigning of the DNA. However,
it is unlikely that biobricks stating "Man Shall…" would make any biological
sense nor is it the point for these artworks to fit synthetic biology. My
point is, perhaps, that "media adequacy" is more than a standard, a process
or media, it is also a set of attitudes and approaches that draw up specific
set of solutions to problems. If anything, and despite the differences, SB
shares a strange dialectic with what Lessig calls a remixing culture, and is
doing so on a profound level.
Finally, a little thought from my own lab, which has been developing
para-transgenic bacteria. Whilst they use traditional methods of genetic
engineering, the methodology impinges on SB by building complex genetic
compounds to express substances. All cosy inside the lab, in an open
environment using these organisms to fight diseases (e.g. Pierce's disease)
also shows, as Simon points out, "our tendency to hubris". I am not sure how
I feel about this, and those involved share some of this uncertainty, and
yet we move on. We exchange material, but so does 'nature' (e.g.
conjugation), what happens when 'nature' taps back into what we are
creating?
Best,
Howard
[1] http://c-lab.co.uk/default.aspx?id=5&blogid=990
[2]
http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/capucci_torriani_biotech.html
[3] http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v9/n9/full/embor2008159.html
[4] http://2010.igem.org/Team:UCL_London/Designs
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLVA7YPqxyo
[6] http://www.markusschmidt.eu/pdf/Diffusion_of_synthetic_biology.pdf
_________________________________
Howard Boland
Director of Artistic Engagement
c-lab
w. http://c-lab.co.uk
e. howard@c-lab.co.uk
t. +44 (0) 75 95 84 6441
<%2B44%20%280%29%2075%2095%2084%206441>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, <
yasmin_discussions-request@estia.media.uoa.gr> wrote:
> Send Yasmin_discussions mailing list submissions to
> yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> yasmin_discussions-request@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> yasmin_discussions-owner@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Yasmin_discussions digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (Annick Bureaud)
> 2. art and science: re-drawing boundaries (roger malina)
> 3. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (Molly Hankwitz)
> 4. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (alan bigelow)
> 5. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (Massimo Canevacci)
> 6. boundaries and new and bio (Jason Nelson)
> 7. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (richard brown)
> 8. Re: boundaries and new and bio (alan bigelow)
> 9. art and science: re-drawing boundaries (roger malina)
> 10. Re: art and science: re-drawing boundaries (off)
> 11. Re: arts and sciences: re-drawing boundaries (hight@34n118w.net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 22:24:19 +0200
> From: Annick Bureaud <bureaud@altern.org>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <4DC5AA73.3000707@altern.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Roger,
>
> With synthetic biology, the boundarie is not between the
> living and the non living but between the "darwinian" living
> and the "human-made" living. Tonight, what comes to my mind
> is Macbeth, that will be defeated by a man who was not born
> from a woman (this is not the exact quotation but I don't
> have my English version of Macbeth in Paris).
>
> Will this living organism be less alive ? more alive ?
>
> I am not entirely sure this is the first new life form in 5
> billion years. There is probably some within the darwinian
> system. What strikes me at the moment, is that scientists
> are just telling us that actually we are all a serious mish
> mash from different components, somehow very "synthetic" in
> the true meaning of this word.
>
> The question might be : why do we want boundaries so much ?
>
> Annick
>
>
> roger malina wrote:
> > yasminers
> >
> > no one seems to have picked up on my previous topic\
> > on the shifting boundary between living and non living
> > systems
> >
> > until now the only forms of life on this planete are those
> > that are derived via darwinian evolution for the primordial
> > soup as they say
> >
> > in 2010 a new life form was perhaps created, the first
> > in 5 billion years
> >
> > Updated: Oct 18, 2010
> >
> >
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/science/creation-first-artificial-life-form-synthetic-cell-craig-venter.html#Q&A%20on%20What%20Synthetic%20Life%20Actually%20Means
> >
> > A brand new living cell and the beginning of an era for artificial
> > life forms! It?s official, J. Craig
> > Venter and his team have created the first self-replicating synthetic
> > cell with a completely man-made
> > set of genetic instructions?a never before existing bacteria species
> > has joined the ranks of the living.
> >
> >
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/research/gibson-et-al-2010-creation-of-bacterial-cell-controlled-by-chemically-synthesized-genome.html
> >
> > The cultural implcations of this new step will no doubt take decades
> > if not centuries to be integrated
> > into our deep views on living systems.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 21:53:28 +0200
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=_As0y-vDSuHRbTi=EAyYBe7ND6w@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Howard
>
> 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
> from
> 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
> long
> 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
> indeed
> its early in synthetic biology research and there are only a handlful of
> artists
> 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
> research
>
> 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
> breach
> 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)
>
> roger
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Howard Boland <howard@c-lab.co.uk>
> Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 112, Issue
> 1
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
>
>
> 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
> of
> 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
> synthetic
> 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
> in
> think that wet and electronic processes are the same. Much work is needed
> to
> 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
> in
> 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
> from
> 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,
> are
> 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).
>
> Best,
> Howard Boland
> Director of Artistic Engagement, c-lab.co.uk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 16:55:07 -0700
> From: Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Cc: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <B07C2DB5-94DF-4CF0-9D8B-A77E50725BC8@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> hi roger,
> this topic leaves me wordless, but
> a question or comment...is there any
> direction developing or where might one develop to integrate this new non
> living species manufacture with, say, Bateson's notions of blind person and
> cane...that they form a third entity, non binary system and human
> patterning?
>
>
> On May 7, 2011, at 1:08 PM, roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > yasminers
> >
> > no one seems to have picked up on my previous topic\
> > on the shifting boundary between living and non living
> > systems
> >
> > until now the only forms of life on this planete are those
> > that are derived via darwinian evolution for the primordial
> > soup as they say
> >
> > in 2010 a new life form was perhaps created, the first
> > in 5 billion years
> >
> > Updated: Oct 18, 2010
> >
> >
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/science/creation-first-artificial-life-form-synthetic-cell-craig-venter.html#Q&A%20on%20What%20Synthetic%20Life%20Actually%20Means
> >
> > A brand new living cell and the beginning of an era for artificial
> > life forms! It?s official, J. Craig
> > Venter and his team have created the first self-replicating synthetic
> > cell with a completely man-made
> > set of genetic instructions?a never before existing bacteria species
> > has joined the ranks of the living.
> >
> >
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/research/gibson-et-al-2010-creation-of-bacterial-cell-controlled-by-chemically-synthesized-genome.html
> >
> > The cultural implcations of this new step will no doubt take decades
> > if not centuries to be integrated
> > into our deep views on living systems.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: alan bigelow <eabigelow@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <285769.90695.qm@web113507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi, everyone--
>
> I am just introducing myself. My name is Alan Bigelow, and I am a digital
> writer living in Buffalo, New York, USA.
>
> I am very happy to be included in "Re-Drawing Boundaries." It promises to
> be a wonderful exhibition and, judging by the discussion so far, one that
> encourages lively conversation. I am particularly impressed by the variety
> of works represented within the exhibition, and the scope of media and
> philosophies that it embraces.
>
> Yes, it appears we will "re-draw" boundaries, not just in the world of art,
> but in the cross-pollination of ideas and philosophies embedded within our
> various disciplines. I wish us good luck!
>
> alan bigelow
>
> --- On Sun, 5/8/11, roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> > Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing boundaries
> > To: "YASMIN DISCUSSIONS" <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> > Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 3:53 PM
> > Howard
> >
> > 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 from
> > 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 long
> > 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 indeed
> > its early in synthetic biology research and there are only
> > a handlful of artists
> > 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 research
> >
> > 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 breach
> > 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)
> >
> > roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Howard Boland <howard@c-lab.co.uk>
> > Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Yasmin_discussions
> > Digest, Vol 112, Issue 1
> > To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >
> >
> > 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 of
> > 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 synthetic
> > 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 in
> > think that wet and electronic processes are the same. Much
> > work is needed to
> > 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 in
> > 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 from
> > 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, are
> > 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).
> >
> > Best,
> > Howard Boland
> > Director of Artistic Engagement, c-lab.co.uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:49:13 -0300
> From: Massimo Canevacci <maxx.canevacci@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <BANLkTik7yJB1vCrWvmrhb1W0xTGjRSXbaw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> yasminians
>
>
> 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
> eco-evolution.
>
>
> 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
> expanded present...
>
>
> 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
>
> maxx
>
>
> 2011/5/8 roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
>
> > Howard
> >
> > 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
> > from
> > 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
> > long
> > 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
> > indeed
> > its early in synthetic biology research and there are only a handlful of
> > artists
> > 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
> > research
> >
> > 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
> > breach
> > 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)
> >
> > roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Howard Boland <howard@c-lab.co.uk>
> > Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 112,
> Issue
> > 1
> > To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >
> >
> > 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
> > of
> > 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
> > synthetic
> > 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
> > in
> > think that wet and electronic processes are the same. Much work is needed
> > to
> > 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
> > in
> > 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
> > from
> > 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,
> > are
> > 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).
> >
> > Best,
> > Howard Boland
> > Director of Artistic Engagement, c-lab.co.uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 19:22:46 +1000
> From: Jason Nelson <heliopod@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] boundaries and new and bio
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikDXRzxduCrVQ28Pg9dtHUpvRshyA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> All,
>
> I'm eager to jump into numerous of these threads. So I'll pop in some
> thoughts regarding what seem to be two general themes brewing. The
> notion of boundaries and the evolving use of tech (both electronic and
> biological) in art/science.
>
> I see the two as quite inter-tangled in numerous ways, but one in
> particular strikes me as an artist/poet/creator. And that is that,
> honestly, I do not care. I don't mean to sound flippant or be
> dismissive, but I could care less about where the boundaries between
> art forms and media live. Additionally, I'm little interested (again
> as a creator) in how new technology is created or where the
> technology/biology sits in relation to other past/current/future
> advancements.
>
> Instead I am interested in what is being created, in the
> artworks/creations/poetry/whatever being built/born with those tools.
> Much of "new media" or "bio art" or "insert term and creative
> nomenclature" is discussed in how it relates to that technology or how
> that technology is being used or how the art is somehow redrafting
> lines and on and on. These kind of conceptual and theoretical are
> immensely interesting to me as a casual intellectual. And I can
> certainly see the need for such discussions as society grapples with
> how these new development impact our lives and conditions and
> relationships. But, as an artist, I do not would rather experience the
> creation, rather play/explore/being consumed within the artwork than
> have to consider boundaries and the intersections of science.
>
> One of the concerns about the use of "new media" is that it isnt
> "new". And that all artwork or poetry uses technology of some sort or
> other. And so why qualify it. Indeed, I don't want to look at an
> artwork and have to consider how cool it is that a GPS tracker is
> being attached to an arm, or a cellular clump is being eaten by
> another cellular clump that looks like a baseball hat. I simply want
> to experience the artwork, I want the experience to transcend the
> tools, to become its own creation and not a curious use of new
> technology.
>
> Again....and I know I keep repeating this, I am not saying these
> discussions arent worth while. Because they absolutely are. I am just
> tired of seeing works that are all about the process and no so much
> about the artwork itself, they are all about the science, with a
> little bit of art thrown in.
>
> Of course, then again, I really do want to see cellular clumps eat
> each other. As long as they are shaped like Sarah Pallin.
>
> cheers, Jason
>
> --
> Jason Nelson
>
> Net Art/Digital Poetry and other oddities
>
> http://www.secrettechnology.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:44:47 +0100
> From: richard brown <rb@mimetics.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <4DC7C59F.30509@mimetics.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Never mind the shifting boundaries between living and non living systems
> - what are the motivations behind this development and what are the
> political, ethical and economic implications?!
>
> And the motives and ambitions behind his company Synthetic Genomics?
>
> "Synthetic Genomics has a $600m agreement
> <http://cleantech.com/news/4711/exxonmobil-devotes-600m-algal-biofu>
> with ExxonMobil to obtain fuel from algae"
>
> Craig Venter was also responsible for attempting to privatise the human
> genome:
>
> "Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his
> former company, Celera Genomics <https://www.celera.com/>, against the
> publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome
> Project <http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml>.
> Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising
> concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the
> building blocks of life."
>
> Finally to dampen the wow amazing sci-fi madmangod PR slant that he has
> created synthetic life from scratch - what he had done is modified an
> existing cell by injecting an artifical synthesised DNA, signed with
> markers pointing to his website and even a James Joyce quote, how arty
> is that ;).
> "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."
>
> "The new bacterium, nicknamed "Synthia," replicates and produces
> proteins. By any reasonable definition, it is alive. Although it is very
> similar to a natural bacterium from which it was largely copied, the
> creators put distinctive strings of DNA into its genome to prove that it
> is not a natural object. These strings spell out, in code, a website
> address, the names of the researchers, and apt quotations such as one
> from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand.""
>
> Corporate science fuelled by a maverick ego driven genius - Dr.
> Strangelove anyone?
>
> For more on the man behind the experiment, seen from a UK leftish/centre
> PR newsmag persepctive:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/13/science-playing-god-climate-change
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/may/23/observer-profile-craig-venter?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
>
>
> On 08/05/2011 00:55, Molly Hankwitz wrote:
> > hi roger,
> > this topic leaves me wordless, but
> > a question or comment...is there any
> > direction developing or where might one develop to integrate this new non
> living species manufacture with, say, Bateson's notions of blind person and
> cane...that they form a third entity, non binary system and human
> patterning?
> >
> >
> > On May 7, 2011, at 1:08 PM, roger malina<rmalina@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> yasminers
> >>
> >> no one seems to have picked up on my previous topic\
> >> on the shifting boundary between living and non living
> >> systems
> >>
> >> until now the only forms of life on this planete are those
> >> that are derived via darwinian evolution for the primordial
> >> soup as they say
> >>
> >> in 2010 a new life form was perhaps created, the first
> >> in 5 billion years
> >>
> >> Updated: Oct 18, 2010
> >>
> >>
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/science/creation-first-artificial-life-form-synthetic-cell-craig-venter.html#Q&A%20on%20What%20Synthetic%20Life%20Actually%20Means
> >>
> >> A brand new living cell and the beginning of an era for artificial
> >> life forms! It?s official, J. Craig
> >> Venter and his team have created the first self-replicating synthetic
> >> cell with a completely man-made
> >> set of genetic instructions?a never before existing bacteria species
> >> has joined the ranks of the living.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/research/gibson-et-al-2010-creation-of-bacterial-cell-controlled-by-chemically-synthesized-genome.html
> >>
> >> The cultural implcations of this new step will no doubt take decades
> >> if not centuries to be integrated
> >> into our deep views on living systems.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> >> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >>
> >> 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_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> Richard Brown
>
> art&design: mimetics.com
> i-lighting: mimelight.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: alan bigelow <eabigelow@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] boundaries and new and bio
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <285767.74765.qm@web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi, all--
>
> Jason brings up a situation we often see in the world of digital
> literature, and elsewhere, as well. That situation--obliquely anticipated in
> Alvin Toffler's Future Shock--is the distance between new technologies and
> the artist. Where does the learning curve of new technologies and the innate
> predilection of artistic impulse meet? In what individual do we find a happy
> combination of the two? Unfortunately, the meeting between artist and new
> technologies is rarely a happy one. More common is the artist fooling
> amateurishly with new technologies or the new technologist aspiring to
> artistry.
>
> This is why we see collaboration as the new order of the day in new media,
> and the successful solo artist a rarity. After all, who can command all that
> technology? Where do we find that individual who has experience, or even a
> notable sense, of multiple disciplines?
>
> Obviously, I am exaggerating here, and we could easily point to many
> examples that defy my points. But at the heart of it is an important
> question that those of us who teach new media need to address: how do we
> best prepare students for this brave new world?
>
> Best,
>
> alan
>
> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Jason Nelson <heliopod@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Jason Nelson <heliopod@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] boundaries and new and bio
> > To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 5:22 AM
> > All,
> >
> > I'm eager to jump into numerous of these threads. So I'll
> > pop in some
> > thoughts regarding what seem to be two general themes
> > brewing. The
> > notion of boundaries and the evolving use of tech (both
> > electronic and
> > biological) in art/science.
> >
> > I see the two as quite inter-tangled in numerous ways, but
> > one in
> > particular strikes me as an artist/poet/creator. And that
> > is that,
> > honestly, I do not care. I don't mean to sound flippant or
> > be
> > dismissive, but I could care less about where the
> > boundaries between
> > art forms and media live. Additionally, I'm little
> > interested (again
> > as a creator) in how new technology is created or where
> > the
> > technology/biology sits in relation to other
> > past/current/future
> > advancements.
> >
> > Instead I am interested in what is being created, in the
> > artworks/creations/poetry/whatever being built/born with
> > those tools.
> > Much of "new media" or "bio art" or "insert term and
> > creative
> > nomenclature" is discussed in how it relates to that
> > technology or how
> > that technology is being used or how the art is somehow
> > redrafting
> > lines and on and on. These kind of conceptual and
> > theoretical are
> > immensely interesting to me as a casual intellectual. And I
> > can
> > certainly see the need for such discussions as society
> > grapples with
> > how these new development impact our lives and conditions
> > and
> > relationships. But, as an artist, I do not would rather
> > experience the
> > creation, rather play/explore/being consumed within the
> > artwork than
> > have to consider boundaries and the intersections of
> > science.
> >
> > One of the concerns about the use of "new media" is that it
> > isnt
> > "new". And that all artwork or poetry uses technology of
> > some sort or
> > other. And so why qualify it. Indeed, I don't want to look
> > at an
> > artwork and have to consider how cool it is that a GPS
> > tracker is
> > being attached to an arm, or a cellular clump is being
> > eaten by
> > another cellular clump that looks like a baseball hat. I
> > simply want
> > to experience the artwork, I want the experience to
> > transcend the
> > tools, to become its own creation and not a curious use of
> > new
> > technology.
> >
> > Again....and I know I keep repeating this, I am not saying
> > these
> > discussions arent worth while. Because they absolutely are.
> > I am just
> > tired of seeing works that are all about the process and no
> > so much
> > about the artwork itself, they are all about the science,
> > with a
> > little bit of art thrown in.
> >
> > Of course, then again, I really do want to see cellular
> > clumps eat
> > each other. As long as they are shaped like Sarah Pallin.
> >
> > cheers, Jason
> >
> > --
> > Jason Nelson
> >
> > Net Art/Digital Poetry and other oddities
> >
> > http://www.secrettechnology.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:51:39 +0200
> From: roger malina <rmalina@alum.mit.edu>
> Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimDSzP0rD1A1rB-rMGY+6SCyO3frQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> yasminers
>
> our re drawing boundaries is drawing a large number of posts-
> to avoid e-glut i am approving only 5 posts a day, and giving
> priority to first time posters=- so the old yasmin hands should
> be patient
>
> just a reminder that the starting for our ediscussion on how
> science and technology are driving the re -drawing of boundaries
> is the re Drawing Boundaries exhibit, details below, curated by
> Jeremy Hight.
>
> Just a personal thought- i think we should move on to other
> topics that the 'new media' topic which has become an old
> chestnut in our community and not generative of new insights
> in my view
>
> jason nelson i think correctly re directs the discussion to:
>
> "Instead I am interested in what is being created, in the
> artworks/creations/poetry/whatever being built/born with those tools.
> Much of "new media" or "bio art" or "insert term and creative
> nomenclature" is discussed in how it relates to that technology or how
> that technology is being used or how the art is somehow redrafting
> lines and on and on. These kind of conceptual and theoretical are
> immensely interesting to me as a casual intellectual. And I can
> certainly see the need for such discussions as society grapples with
> how these new development impact our lives and conditions and
> relationships. But, as an artist, I do not would rather experience the
> creation, rather play/explore/being consumed within the artwork than
> have to consider boundaries and the intersections of science.""
>
>
> roger
>
>
> Re Drawing Boundaries
>
>
> -- Curator: Jeremy Hight Senior Curators: Lanfranco Aceti and Christiane
> Paul
>
> This exhibition presents key innovators in Locative Media, New Media
> and Mapping in a show that works to display not only fields and works
> but more of cross pollinations, progressions, the need to move beyond
> labels just like the importance of reconsidering borders on maps, what
> space is and what pragmatic tools and previous forms can do.
>
> The selected artists are:
>
> Kate Armstrong, Alan Bigelow, Louisa Bufardeci, Laura Beloff, J.R
> Carpenter, Jonah Brucker Cohen, Vuk Cosic, Fallen Fruit, Luka Frelih,
> Buckminster Fuller, Rolf Van Gelder, Natalie Jeremijenko, Carmin
> Kurasic, Paula Levine, Mez, Lize Mogel, Jason Nelson, Christian Nold,
> Esther Polak, Proboscis, Kate Pullinger, Carlo Ratti, Douglas Repetto,
> Teri Rueb, Stanza, Jen Southern, Kai Syng Tan, Jeffrey Valance, Sarah
> Willams, Jeremy Wood, Tim Wright.
>
> The range of works in this exhibit have not only shown in Biennials in
> some cases or started whole fields of work in others, but more
> importantly, show in them a connectivity of exploration and practice
> between many people and works in differently named fields. Data is not
> just cold measure; place is not static; function can be many fold and
> startlingly so by intention. Space and location are not simply to be
> marked or named. There are histories, tensions, conflicts, stories,
> many types of data and ways of measure.
>
> This show will exhibit 2 new important artists/practitioners each week
> from several different fields.
>
>
>
> Exhibition Schedule
>
> Week 1: Jonah Brucker Cohen, Teri Rueb Week 2: Carlo Ratti, Sarah
> Willams Week 3: Stanza, Lize Mogel Week 4: Jeremy Wood, Mez Week 5:
> Rolf Van Gelder, Carmin Kurasic, Kai Syng Tan Week 6: Jason Nelson,
> Vuk Cosic Week 7: Kate Pullinger, Tim Wright Week 8: Douglas Repetto,
> Alan Bigelow Week 9: Christian Nold, Esther Polak Week 10: Laura
> Beloff, J.R Carpenter Week 11: Proboscis, Kate Armstrong Week 12: Jen
> Southern, Buckminster Fuller Week 13: Jeffrey Valance, Natalie
> Jeremijenko Week 14: Fallen Fruit, Louisa Bufardeci Week 15: Luka
> Frelih, Paula Levine
>
> Follow LEA on:
>
> Facebook
> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Leonardo-Electronic-Almanac/209156896252
>
> Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lea_gallery
>
> Twitter http://twitter.com/LEA_twitts
>
> YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/LEAbroadcast
>
> Vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/leagallery
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:18:29 +0300 (EEST)
> From: off <off@saunalahti.fi>
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] art and science: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr>
> Message-ID: <29883518.5684421305011910508.JavaMail.off@saunalahti.fi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=iso-8859-1; Format=Flowed
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> You are bringing up very interesting points in the discussion.
> Already few times have been mentioned the questions on political, economic
> and (most of all) ethical issues what the crossing of boundaries
> (human/non-human, living/non-living) will possibly impact. Lot of the
> bioart/art&science is commonly seen as the initiator for public discussion
> concerning these issues. Sometimes it seems to be presented as one of the
> primary aims of the works. In art history there are many events and
> discussions on What is Art? Even if the current initiated discussions within
> art&science seem to concern other issues; is in the bottom of the discussion
> still this same question?
> My question concerning this kind of art is simply: what else it could do?
> How else it could be?
>
> On another issue:
> At the very end of Howard?s post he said: ?some of the ethical dilemmas
> thrown up by synthetic biology (e.g. instrumentation and industrialisation
> of life).?
> The notion of ?instrumentation of life? is interesting. But wondering what
> does it actually mean? Howard, can you elaborate a bit what is in your mind?
> I think the same notion also relates to other areas, not solely synthetic
> biology, but also to AL, and areas dealing with the combination of
> organic-technological such as body enhancement.
>
>
> Best,
> Laura Beloff
> -artist, researcher currently based in Finland.
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~off/off/
>
>
>
> richard brown [rb@mimetics.com]:
> > Never mind the shifting boundaries between living and non living systems
> > - what are the motivations behind this development and what are the
> > political, ethical and economic implications?!
> >
> > And the motives and ambitions behind his company Synthetic Genomics?
> >
> > "Synthetic Genomics has a $600m agreement
> > <http://cleantech.com/news/4711/exxonmobil-devotes-600m-algal-biofu>
> > with ExxonMobil to obtain fuel from algae"
> >
> > Craig Venter was also responsible for attempting to privatise the human
> > genome:
> >
> > "Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his
> > former company, Celera Genomics <https://www.celera.com/>, against the
> > publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome
> > Project <http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml>.
> > Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising
> > concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the
> > building blocks of life."
> >
> > Finally to dampen the wow amazing sci-fi madmangod PR slant that he has
> > created synthetic life from scratch - what he had done is modified an
> > existing cell by injecting an artifical synthesised DNA, signed with
> > markers pointing to his website and even a James Joyce quote, how arty
> > is that ;).
> > "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."
> >
> > "The new bacterium, nicknamed "Synthia," replicates and produces
> > proteins. By any reasonable definition, it is alive. Although it is very
> > similar to a natural bacterium from which it was largely copied, the
> > creators put distinctive strings of DNA into its genome to prove that it
> > is not a natural object. These strings spell out, in code, a website
> > address, the names of the researchers, and apt quotations such as one
> > from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand.""
> >
> > Corporate science fuelled by a maverick ego driven genius - Dr.
> > Strangelove anyone?
> >
> > For more on the man behind the experiment, seen from a UK leftish/centre
> > PR newsmag persepctive:
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/13/science-playing-god-climate-change
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/may/23/observer-profile-craig-venter?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
> >
> >
> > On 08/05/2011 00:55, Molly Hankwitz wrote:
> > > hi roger,
> > > this topic leaves me wordless, but
> > > a question or comment...is there any
> > > direction developing or where might one develop to integrate this new
> non living species manufacture with, say, Bateson's notions of blind person
> and cane...that they form a third entity, non binary system and human
> patterning?
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 7, 2011, at 1:08 PM, roger malina<rmalina@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> yasminers
> > >>
> > >> no one seems to have picked up on my previous topic\
> > >> on the shifting boundary between living and non living
> > >> systems
> > >>
> > >> until now the only forms of life on this planete are those
> > >> that are derived via darwinian evolution for the primordial
> > >> soup as they say
> > >>
> > >> in 2010 a new life form was perhaps created, the first
> > >> in 5 billion years
> > >>
> > >> Updated: Oct 18, 2010
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/science/creation-first-artificial-life-form-synthetic-cell-craig-venter.html#Q&A%20on%20What%20Synthetic%20Life%20Actually%20Means
> > >>
> > >> A brand new living cell and the beginning of an era for artificial
> > >> life forms! It s official, J. Craig
> > >> Venter and his team have created the first self-replicating synthetic
> > >> cell with a completely man-made
> > >> set of genetic instructions a never before existing bacteria species
> > >> has joined the ranks of the living.
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.optimalfunctioning.com/research/gibson-et-al-2010-creation-of-bacterial-cell-controlled-by-chemically-synthesized-genome.html
> > >>
> > >> The cultural implcations of this new step will no doubt take decades
> > >> if not centuries to be integrated
> > >> into our deep views on living systems.
> > >>
> > >> Roger
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > >> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > >> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> > >>
> > >> 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_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Brown
> >
> > art&design: mimetics.com
> > i-lighting: mimelight.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 13:11:01 -0700
> From: hight@34n118w.net
> Subject: Re: [Yasmin_discussions] arts and sciences: re-drawing
> boundaries
> To: yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> Message-ID:
> <f48578963ccde556602c2273f776d608.squirrel@webmail.34n118w.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I absolutely agree. It also is the issue that at times arises around "new
> media". I have heard many people speak about how "new media" is used by
> some as a buzz phrase, to others a really exciting space to explore and to
> others a space to proclaim any works they see in it as "dead" or "over".
> Within new media many of us have been working with variations of how work
> is displayed and how to deal with the issue of works on say floppy disk or
> a jazz drive that is now deemed outmoded. I must also add that since being
> a little kid I have had a life long fascination with etymology and
> semiotics.
>
> Some enjoy exploring in an area oft codified as on the trad art world's
> edge while others bemoan how in this horrible economy it is so hard to
> make any money doing art they love as it is digital. This is from people I
> have spoken to and discussion groups in the last few years on the topic.
>
> The issue to me is of the borders here. Where does it end as being one
> thing or another? Digital photographs, blog art, paintings made from
> projections from photoshop on a wall then codified as paintings only, it
> is definitely not always problematic, but at times can be.
>
> If you think of time in its long sloping chronology, a "new" media becomes
> a not so new media. Nothing is wrong with this but it makes the etymology
> a bit slippery when it comes to issues mentioned above to some artists as
> well as curators and theorists. Video has had quite a resurgence the
> last 3 or 4 years as it now can be on phones, projected , can be
> triggered by gps coordinates and is great material for online exhibition
> spaces. It is vital as always of course, but it is interesting to see the
> newer platforms and this form meet.
>
> I would love to hear thoughts on the "avant garde" and other codifying
> terms in art in this context. When a new tool comes historically along, an
> amazing array of experiments often emerge but then the tool may become a
> standard usage element in culture at large and some will then begin the
> debate of where the works displayed after this abstract designation has
> been placed stand. Also a lot of work currently is exhibiting that plays
> with aesthetics and functionality of older games, web aesthetics and
> graphic capabilities. Is this a semiotically charged game of irony and
> commentary as some write of some works, or is it more a fascination with a
> lost meme and/or like Billy Holiday's singing (sorry for the slightly
> obtuse example ) it is emboldened by working with the amazing
> possibilities of what can be seen as "limitations" which becomes something
> beyond these confines?
>
> best,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think the question of "what is new media" is that intractable.
> Any
> > activity that involves doing something through a means that augments
> human
> > action, irrespective of how minor that augmentation is, is mediated. It
> is
> > hard to imagine of any human activity that doesn't involve some form of
> > augmentation. Our capacity to absorb or appropriate agency from elsewhere
> > is
> > part of what makes us human. In this sense all art is "media art".
> > However,
> > we typically use the term "media art" to indicate art forms that involve
> > media that are not established as long-term conventional media within an
> > area of practice. To be accurate we can refer to such mediated practice
> as
> > "new media" so as to differentiate it from "old media". Where's the
> > problem?
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > On 06/05/2011 07:39, "hight@34n118w.net" <hight@34n118w.net> wrote:
> >
> >> This reminds me of a discussion many of us in new media and locative
> >> media
> >> have been having for several years now. What is "new media"? The
> >> terminology is so deeply problematic that it almost to some negates
> >> itself
> >> in a self destructing (yet also sustaining) mobius strip. It could be
> >> anything from the printing press, sun dial or use of colored soils as
> >> drawing tools to the latest new platforms and software being used to
> >> make
> >> anything from narratives to images and animations. Figures come and go
> >> with declarations of its birth, others its death, yet others its stasis
> >> or
> >> perseverance.
> >>
> >> The connected issue emerges from the pragmatic (but also semiotic) realm
> >> of exhibition and presentation. Is new media to be shown on screens in
> >> the
> >> traditional white space of the gallery? Is this to a degree though
> >> issuing
> >> it as of another aesthetic realm and still of online space? Is it to be
> >> perhaps placed on flat screens embedded in walls or projected from
> >> hidden
> >> laptops to instead jump into the pantheon of physical exhibition in a
> >> more
> >> familiar construct? What is the work seen on a tiny phone screen in all
> >> of this?
> >>
> >> Locative Media art has seen many genres within its years since the mid
> >> to
> >> late nineties. What makes a work a wearable not a sensor work woven into
> >> clothing? What in Roland Barthes' larger discussion of metaphor as
> >> being
> >> many things to even stained glass or a single image as a narrative
> >> denotes
> >> locative narrative versus another form? Does it matter?
> >>
> >> What is the Avant Garde? Is it a containing space or a chosen
> >> designation?
> >> What is a meme's lifespan? What spaces do we prescribe in physical and
> >> online spaces that connote new and established exhibition spaces and the
> >> lines between?
> >>
> >> A lot of literary magazines are being run on blogs now. The blog used to
> >> have the little brother connotation for some as not a "space" as though
> >> built and designed but a prefab like in architecture. Does the online
> >> exhibition space have to have "rooms" and navigation to be so named?
> >> What may come soon? What older paradigms and forms have shifted away if
> >> any? Who decides such contexts?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear Lanfranco
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the long answer to my questions and the in-depth
> >>> description
> >>> of your actions, achievements and plans with LEA.
> >>>
> >>> What you are describing as the process with the artists looks to me ...
> >>> the usual curatorial process with artists that are alive (= not dead),
> >>> who
> >>> are creating a new work that, as a curator, you are supporting. I don't
> >>> see any difference or specificity here and it is exactly the kind of
> >>> things I am doing when I curate a show.
> >>>
> >>> You write : "I don't think that old and traditional categories of
> >>> 'exhibiting' and 'documenting' apply any longer."
> >>>
> >>> I do not agree with that statement. I agree that some of the boundaries
> >>> are bluring or are elsewhere than where they were before, but I do
> >>> think
> >>> there is a difference between let say Edunia or Alba by Eduardo Kac and
> >>> the documentation about those works. Likewise, there is a difference
> >>> between a performance and the documentation about the performance.
> >>> Those
> >>> categories disappears only for some kind of
> >>> digital-new-media-technoscience-artworks, not all of them. Hence
> >>> remediation or transmediation do not apply on an equal basis for all
> >>> "new
> >>> media" artworks.
> >>>
> >>> But I totally agree when you write that : "The beauty of the medium
> >>> (Internet) I found is that it allows to blur these boundaries - to be
> >>> at
> >>> the same time exhibition, catalog and archive and to leave to the
> >>> viewer
> >>> the perception of its structures favoring one over the other."
> >>>
> >>> About the other points you are raising :
> >>>
> >>> You write :
> >>> "a) the exhibition pages and all their dissemination and visibility
> >>> structures could be defined as artworks in themselves"
> >>> This reminds me of the heated debate in the contemporay art field of
> >>> the
> >>> (physical) exhibition being the creation and the curators being
> >>> (almost)
> >>> artists (and sometimes considering themselves as more important than
> >>> the
> >>> artists and artworks themselves). Are we bringing to the
> >>> digital-technosciences field this debate ?
> >>> My point of view here, is that curating a show is also "designing" the
> >>> presentation of the works (in French we say "scenographie" like "stage
> >>> design") and this has been often (not always) not fully addressed
> >>> online :
> >>> the content was considered as what mattered. I think now, what Neural,
> >>> You
> >>> and others are doing is adressing the issue of how to design online
> >>> exhibitions that are more than a list of links.
> >>>
> >>> About transmediation : I don't think it is exactly the same as moving a
> >>> sculpture from one physical space to another. And I don't believe in
> >>> the
> >>> same possible experience for the audience in different media (or why
> >>> would
> >>> you bother to build the physical thing when the concept would be enough
> >>> ?). All works are not equal in this process.
> >>> I also think that we should be carefull with an "all-screen" domination
> >>> that will solve all issues. But don't get me wrong, those issues are
> >>> exciting, doing it well is a real challenge that I am trying to
> >>> achieve.
> >>>
> >>> About your project with Judit Hersko, you write :
> >>> "So the difficulties we are facing here are several:
> >>> a) relating the previous online show to the physical space
> >>> b) linking the new piece which is an outdoor piece in a different
> >>> location
> >>> to the internal pieces in the gallery
> >>> c) transferring the new artwork in an online presence
> >>> d) consider how the new context will affect the artwork itself and its
> >>> development"
> >>>
> >>> This is exactly the agenda ! And it could be the program of a nice
> >>> conference or workshop ;-) Is there anything planed at ISEA around this
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> There would be much to write about your long email but I suspect I
> >>> should
> >>> stop here or the moderator is not going to approve my post !
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>> Annick
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> >>> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >>> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >>>
> >>> 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_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> >> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Simon Biggs
> > simon@littlepig.org.uk
> > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> >
> > s.biggs@eca.ac.uk
> > http://www.elmcip.net/
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> > Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> > http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
> >
> > 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_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
>
> End of Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 114, Issue 1
> **************************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
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.
