Originally published in the catalogue Teleporting an Unkown State,Peter Tomaz Dobrila and Aleksandra Kostic, editors. Published by KIBLA,Maribor, Slovenia, 1998, pp. 37-63.

Expanded Bodies and Minds

Arlindo Machado

There was a time when most of us proclaimed the rise of an "electronicrevolution" and when the artists, thinkers and researchers who couldbe considered to be ahead of their time believed that computers and networkswould be the next environment for cultural practices or for changing theconcepts of art and culture themselves. Today, however, when everythingis, in a sense, "electronic", when writers, painters, composers,performers, and photographers sit down in front of a computer to createtheir works, and usually to make them in a traditional way, it is timeto ask if the expressions "electronic culture" and "electronicart" mean something distinctive, or define a specific field of events.

This article aims to examine the recent work of an artist who is determinedlycontributing to the development of a new paradigm inside the dubious rubricof "electronic culture". Eduardo Kac, a pioneer in the artisticapplication of a wide range of new technologies, is currently exploringthe ultimate dimensions of creativity which are being opened up by thenew biological front. Like a few others who are currently trying to promptdebate on the new directions for art, he is also focusing on questionsrelated to the new biology, Artificial Life, and the ecology of the bio-technosphere,among other areas of inquiry. After generalizing happenings, performances,and installations, after questioning the white cube of the museum and jumpingto the public space, after employing all kinds of machines and technologicalapparatuses, after discussing the tragedy of the human condition and layingbare the embarrassment, the segregation, the unspoken differences of race,sex, geographic origin, and socio-economic contingency -- after all this,a small number of artists, here represented by Eduardo Kac, seem to beorienting art and culture now towards a discussion of the very biologicalcondition of the species.

THE BIOLITHIC REVOLUTION

In a recent book on the changes that mankind is undergoing thanks tothe latest discoveries and inventions in the fields of new biology, medicine,cognitive sciences, robotics, bioengineering, and Artificial Life, theFrench writer Hervè Kempf (1998) proposes the hypothesis that weare closing the Neolithic era, as we have succeeded, in a sense, in masteringour environment. He argues that we are now entering a new era, which hecalls the Biolithic revolution (from the Greek bios = life and lithos =mineral), when mastering our own body and the living organisms in generalwill be one of our main tasks. In this new era we will be also transferringto machines and inorganic matter properties which until now have been specificto living creatures. "Instead of changing the world -- explains Kempf(p. 9) -- we are going to change the being." Like any other change,the passage to the Biolithic seems apocalyptic at first, because it embracesrather controversial novelties such as genetic engineering, cloning, biocomputing,and artificial biodiversity (creation of new species). Undoubtedly, wewill face new kinds of troubles and dangers in this new era, but we canalso see it as a time when living beings, natural environment, and machinesare not necessarily destined to be rivals anymore, or even to seem to beas entities essentially unlike each other.

Some examples of this revolution stand out. On the one hand, interventionsinside the human body have gained increased attention: the discovery ofbiocompatible materials, which can cohabit the living body's moist andaggressive milieu, the manufacture of artificial bones and synthetic blood,the cultivation of human skin outside the body, the creation of artificialorgans, the cloning of embryonic cells (the Dolly affair), artificial insemination,and pregnancy outside the female uterus. These are some steps towards alife manufacturing process, i.e., an integral assembly of the human. Onthe other hand, we are also bearing witness to the increasing invasionof the human body by implantable electronic devices. There is already aspecialty in medicine -- Bionics -- which principally concerns itself withthe challenge of integrating electronic functions into the living body,to assist or increase an organ's performance.

The pacemaker has been successfully used in medicine since 1958. Today,the world-wide average amounts to more than 400,000 implants a year (Kempf,1998). Other new devices have also been implanted inside the human bodyin the last few years. For instance: electrode arrays for making electricalconnections to spinal roots, in order to stimulate paralyzed organs (aftera murder attempt which turned Larry Flynt into a paraplegic, the editorof the pornographic magazine Hustler recovered his virility thanks to theimplantation of one of those devices), and the incredible implant of artificialeyes (in fact, CCD cameras wired to image processors) for the blind byAmerican ophthalmologists John Wyatt and Joseph Rizzo. The human body,which until now has been considered the private subject of the physicianand the biologist, from now on will undergo the intervention of the engineer,the specialist in electronics and -- why not? -- the artist. If to dateit has been difficult for the biologist to say exactly what life is, itwill be harder than ever from now on to distinguish between the livingand the lifeless.

In fact, beginning with Norbert Wiener in the early 1950s, scientistshave been asking themselves if there are any ontological differences betweenhuman beings, living organisms in general (animals and plants), mineralmatter, and the machines made by mankind. If such differences exist, theyare certainly related to the level of complexity which defines each organism.Life is perhaps a property of the organization of matter and if we areable to duplicate its dynamic process in some other medium, we can synthesizea living organism. This would mean that we could "create" life,even if "artificial", or yet, if this expression sounds ratherpretentious, we could, at least, create something that satisfies our owncriteria for aliveness (Levy, 1993: 116-120). Today we are transferringwhat we know about machines to living organisms and vice versa. That iswhy we sometimes refer to bodies as machines, and to machines and technicalprocesses as a kind of life (Artificial Life).

Artificial Life, or ALife, is a research field devoted to design andcreation of lifelike organisms in non-organic environments. "Life",in this field, is a general denomination that designates the conditionof complex systems which are endowed with the capability of self-organizationand self-reproduction. They can learn from their experience, understandtheir own needs, perceive their milieu and choose the best behavior forsurvival, by developing group dynamics and adaptive strategies. The conceptof complex system is a key component in ALife and it refers to those systemswhose component parts interact with such an intricacy that they cannotbe predicted by linear equations. The overall behavior of a complex systemis irreducible to the sum of the behavior of all its elements and can onlybe understood as the result of the myriad interactions that occur withinit. "Living systems epitomize complexity, so much so that some scientistsnow see complexity as a defining characteristic of life" (Levy, 1993:8).

We can better duplicate or "mimic" living systems by integratingeverything we know about biological mechanisms and the state-of-the-artof digital computing. At this moment, synthetic creatures are not yet livingin vitro, but in silico, although a biochemical computer, capable of employingDNA molecules instead of electrical impulses, will probably surpass thecurrent restraints. Good examples of life mimicry are the programming techniquescalled neural networks, which simulate the parallel processing of the brainand the dialogue between the neurons; genetic algorithms, which mimic sexualreproduction and natural selection; and also computer viruses, which imitatereal life viruses in the way they infect the organism and reproduce themselves.

In the future artificial beings won't be distinct or disconnected from"organic" beings. Just like as today we see electronic devicesinside the living body, tomorrow we will see biological "organs"implanted in machines. Robots will be able to use organs as bioelectronicsensors, or have bacteria and DNA molecules as component parts. The experimentperformed by Raphael Holzer of fixing an electronic device on the backof a cockroach, after having replaced its feelers by electrodes and linkedthem to the insect's nervous system, made it possible to control the cockroachremotely. After the cyborg -- the human with mechanic or electronic componentparts -- we are going to know the biobot (a concept first introduced byEduardo Kac in the ISEA '97 catalog), that is, a robotic creature whichis part animal or plant.

A MICROCHIP INSIDE THE BODY

For the past few years, artists like Orlan and Stelarc have broughtforward a cultural and political discussion of the possibility of surpassingthe human through radical surgical intervention, through the interfacebetween flesh and electronics, or with robotic prostheses to complementand expand the potentiality of the biological body. More than just anticipatingprofound changes in perception, in our conception of the world, and inthe reorganization of our sociopolitical systems, these pioneers foreseefundamental transformations in our species. These transformations couldconceivably alter our genetic code and reorient the Darwinian evolutionaryprocess.

An important landmark of this current took place on November 11, 1997,at the cultural center Casa das Rosas (São Paulo, Brazil). On thisthat day, Eduardo Kac implanted in his ankle an identification microchipwith nine digits and registered himself with a databank in the United Statesvia the Internet. Replacing the traditional branding with hot iron, themicrochip -- a transponder tag -- is used to identify and recover lostor stolen animals. It is connected to a coil and a capacitor, all hermeticallysealed in biocompatible glass to prevent the organism from rejecting it.The number stored on the chip can be retrieved with a tracker, a portablescanner that generates a radio signal and energizes the microchip, makingit transmit back its inalterable number. The microchip implant in the anklehas a precise symbolic meaning: it is an area of the body that has traditionallybeen chained or branded.

The description sketched above is oversimplified and incomplete. Kac'swork, entitled Time Capsule, also included several other elements thatwere directly or indirectly related to the implant. The physical spaceat Casa das Rosas was converted temporarily into something like a hospitalroom, with surgical instruments, a doctor to assist with possible complications,and an emergency ambulance (parked inside the premises by the front doorand visible from the street). There were also seven original photographson the wall -- the only surviving mementos of the artist's grandmother'sfamily, who were entirely annihilated in Poland during World War II. Inthe space we also saw computers that provided access to the database inthe United States, allowed the artist's body to be scanned via the Internet,and transmitted the event worldwide as a webcast. The next day an X-rayshowing the position of the microchip inside the artist's body was addedto the site next to an enlargement of the database record. There was alsoa live broadcast of the whole event by a commercial television station(Canal 21), two more taped broadcasts by other commercial television stations(TV Cultura and TV Manchete), and huge response in the local press beforeand after the event. The artist himself may not have been able to anticipateand contemplate all of the implications and consequences of his intervention.Due to the broadcasts and the press coverage, for example, the implantand netscanning of the artist's body went beyond the intellectual ghettoand acquired a public dimension: the next morning the strange story ofthe man who had implanted a microchip in his own body was told and retoldin cafes, subways, and in corporate offices by people who do not even remotelyfollow developments in the art and science worlds.

Kac's intervention touches on difficult and uncomfortable points inthe debate on the philosophical, scientific, and ethical future of mankind.One month before the realization of Time Capsule at Casa das Rosas, theevent had been commissioned for the exhibition Art and Technology by theInstituto Cultural Itau, also in São Paulo, and then canceled bythe same institution under the pretext that a microchip implant in a humanbeing could bring serious legal problems for the sponsoring institution.In the United States, important research centers requested copies of thevideotape of the broadcast to analyze the event. The fact that the workbecame polemical both inside and outside the country in which it was realizedis a clear indication that Kac's intervention touched on something important.As the placement of a foreign body (Duchamp's urinal) in the sacred spaceof the museum had unpredictable consequences for subsequent art, the implantationof a microchip inside the body of an artist will intensify the debate onthe paths that both art and the human species will travel in the next millennium.

Because Eduardo Kac is an artist and not a scientist or a politicalactivist, the event he realized at Casa das Rosas remains open to multipleinterpretations. One can read the implant as a warning about forms of humansurveillance and control of humans that might be adopted in the near future.The Brazilian press approached the event mostly from this point of view.The scenario evoked is that a microchip implanted in our body from birthcould become our only form of identification. Whenever we needed to beidentified we would be scanned, and immediately a databank would show recordsrevealing who we are, what we do, what kinds of products we consume, ifwe are in debt with the Internal Revenue Service, if we are facing criminalcharges, or if we are hiding from the judicial system.

In fact, the implantable transponder, associated with a satellite monitoringsystem such as GPS (Global Positioning System), allows the owner to locatelost animals. Electronic surveillance of prisioners is also under considerationin several countries. The French law provides for the use of bracelet-shapedtransponders by ex-convicts, in order to monitor them while on parole.The police of Florida and Pennsylvania are now trying a new monitoringtool called Pro Tech, which is also a bracelet monitored by satellite andcompulsory for ex-convicts on parole. When the bracelet user enters a forbiddenarea or leaves his or her allowed area, the satellite triggers an alarmat the police station. Both the French law and the Pro Tech project admitthat the replacement of the bracelet by an implantable microchip is a matterof time: in a few years, ex-convicts will have a transponder implantedin their bodies, like animals. This can be taken as a step towards a generalizationof the practice. Jeremy Bentham's dream of a society fully monitored bysurveillance devices is closer than we might think (Machado, 1992 :43-64).

However, one can also read Kac's work from another perspective, as asign of a biological mutation that might eventually take place, when digitalmemories will be implanted in our bodies to complement or substitute ourown memories. This reading is clearly authorized by the associations theartist makes between the implant of a digital memory in his own body andthe public exhibition of his familial memories, external memories materializedin the form of photographs of his ancestors. These images, which strangelycontextualize the event, allude to deceased individuals whom the artistnever had the chance to meet, but who were responsible for the "implantation"in his body of the genetic traces he has carried from childhood and thathe will carry until his death. Will we in the future still carry thesetraces with us irreversibly or will we be able to replace them with artificialgenetic traces or implanted memories? Will we still be black, white, mulatto,Indian, Brazilian, Polish, Jewish, female, male, or will we buy some ofthese traits at a shopping mall? In this case, will it make any sense tospeak of family, race, nationality? Will we have a past, a history, an"identity" to be preserved?

A NEW ECOLOGY

Before realizing the implant in São Paulo, Kac conceived threeother events directly related to Time Capsule. One of them was premieredat ISEA '97 with the collaboration of Ed Bennett, a hardware designer specializedin robotics. Entitled A-Positive, the event promoted an intravenous exchangeof body fluids between a man (Kac himself tried it first, but anyone coulddo it) and a robot. The human body donated blood to the robot, which extractedfrom it the oxygen it needed to fuel a small flame. In exchange, the robotgave back dextrose to the human body. Both the body and the robot (in fact,a biobot) were wired via intravenous needles connected to clear tubingand fed one another: the body kept the flame "living" in therobot, while the robot kept the body living by feeding it.

We are used to models generalized by conventional science fiction inwhich robots are portrayed as slaves or rivals of humans. Kac, however,puts us in the realm of a new ecology in which people and machines livein a delicate relationship, occasionally creating symbiotic exchanges.Machines, on the one hand, are becoming more and more hybrid devices thatincorporate biological elements with sensorial and metabolic functions.On the other hand, technological devices penetrate the sacred boundariesof the flesh, enabling new possibilities of therapy and surveillance. Kac'swork seems to suggest that emerging forms of human/machine interface aredeeply changing the ground of our anthropocentric culture, by reconcilingthe human body not only with the whole biosphere, but also with the technosphere.As Kac pointed out in the ISEA '97 catalog, "The problem of ArtificialLife is that it has been explored so far mostly as a software-based issue.A-Positive gives material expression to the Artificial Life concept, furtherblurring the lines that separate real (physical) and artificial (virtual)organisms.(...) In this sense, one might speak of the ethics of roboticsand reconsider many of our assumptions about the nature of art and machinesin the biobotic frontier" (1997: 62).

These ideas have been dear to Kac for years. He has been working withrobots since the mid 1980s and has often given them animal names. But hisvision of the human/animal/machine interface perhaps first came to himwhen creating Rara Avis, an interactive telepresence installation, in whicha telerobotic bird simulating a Brazilian macaw cohabited a large cagetogether with real birds and artificial plants. Outside the aviary, viewersusing a virtual reality headset could see the entire scene from the pointof view of the macaw, as if they were the bird on the other side of thechicken wire wall. The telerobotic bird had stereoscopic color camerasfor eyes and could move its head according to the head movements of theviewers. The piece, first installed at Nexus Contemporary Art Center inAtlanta (1996), was also made available to everybody via the Internet.Kac originally conceived Rara Avis as a comment on the relativity of notionssuch as identity and otherness (Kac 1996: 393). This was the first timein his work that humans could share the body of a bird which was at thesame time a machine, and live the experience, at least in a psychologicaland metaphorical sense, of "being" a bird and a machine.

It was however in a modest installation made for Siggraph 96 that Kacsucceeded in creating his best metaphor of the Biosphere's new ecology.One of the purposes of the installation was, as stated in the Siggraphcatalog (1996), to take "the idea of teleportation of particles (andnot of matter) out of its scientific context and transpose it to the domainof social interaction enabled by the Internet." Significantly, theinstallation's title -- Teleporting an Unknown State -- was a poetic fragmentextracted from the title of the first scientific paper on teleportation.But what the installation really achieves is, starting with the idea ofremote transmission of light, to bring before our eyes and minds the newcondition of life in a technological milieu. The piece connected the physicalspace of the New Orleans Contemporary Arts Center to the non-located spaceof the Internet. In the gallery, we only saw the lens of a video projectorfacing a pedestal, on which a single seed laid on a bed of earth. At remoteplaces around the world anonymous people surfing the Internet were encouragedto point digital cameras to the sky and transmit sunlight to the gallerysite using videoconferencing software. The content of the images was notimportant. What counted was the conveyance of light with the purpose onlyof enabling real biological life in the installation space. As the imagesof sunlight arrived at the gallery, they were projected onto the pedestal,illuminating it. The seed began to germinate and a youthful plant sprangup before our eyes. The entire process of growth was transmitted live backto the world, again via the Internet, allowing the participants to followthe results of their help.

Until recently humanity was understood, both philosophically and atthe level of common sense, as essentially opposed to machines and to prosthesesthat simulate biological functions. Human essence seemed to reside exactlythere, where the robot failed and revealed its limitations. However, withthe development of robotics, biobotics, and Artificial Life, the automatonhas progressively acquired competencies, talents, and even sensibilitiesthat we once considered unique to our species, forcing us continually toredefine our notions of what constitutes our own humanity. More dramaticstill, the development of wet and biocompatible interfaces are enablingthe insertion of electronic elements inside our own body. Kac's emblematicevent Time Capsule seems to suggest that in the future the machine andthe robot, so often presented in science fiction as invaders usurping men'sand women's places, might be inside us -- might become ourselves.

References:

Eighth International Symposium on Electronic Art, the (catalog) (1997).Chicago, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Kac, Eduardo (1996). "Telepresence Art on the Internet". Leonardo,vol. 29, n. 5.

Kempf, Hervè (1998). La Rèvolution Biolithique: HumainsArtificiels and Machines Animèes. Paris: Albin Michel.

Levy, Steven (1993). Artificial Life. London: Penguin.

Machado, Arlindo (1992). "La Culture de la Surveillance".Chimaera, n. spècial 2.

Visual Proceedings: The Art and Interdisciplinary Programs of Siggraph96 (catalog) (1996). New Orleans: ACM Siggraph.

Originally published online in Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol. 6,N. 4, May 15, 1998.

Arlindo Machado is a critic, curator, and professor at the Universityof São Paulo, Brazil. He published several books on art, culture,media, and new technologies and received the National Photo Award fromthe Brazilian Foundation for the Arts (FUNARTE) in 1995.

Back to Kac Web