Originally published in Third Text, N. 49, Winter 1999, pp. 93-97.
Life Science: A Review of Ars Electronica '99
John Byrne
"Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowlof the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."This patriarchal statement, biblically sanctioning humanity's supremacyover nature, was taken by artist Eduardo Kac as the starting point forhis most recent transgenic art installation "Genesis" (1). ForKac, Genesis "explores the intricate relationship between biology,belief systems, information technology, dialogical interaction, ethics,and the Internet". (2) The installation itself centred on the productionof a "synthetic artist's gene" by Kac himself. This was accomplishedby converting the above biblical statement into Morse Code (the historicaluse of radiotelegraphy which, for Kac, represents the dawn of the informationage) and the further conversion of this into the base pairs of a DNA code.From here, the "synthetic artist's gene" was cloned into plasmidsand transformed into bacteria. Two kinds of bacteria were used in the installation.One type contained the new synthetic "genesis" gene in a plasmidwhich also coded for cyan fluorescence (Enhanced Cyan Fluorescent Protein,or ECFP). The other contained a plasmid that coded for yellow fluorescence(Enhanced Yellow Fluorescent Protein, or EYFP) and omitted the "Genesis"gene.
Within the installation, viewers were able to see a digitally enlargedvideo projection of the two kinds of microscopic bacteria growing and mutatingin a Petri dish exposed intermittently to UV light. During bacterial reproduction,the plasmids also mutate naturally. As a result of this, the viewer wasable to witness the development of cross-bacteria reproduction giving riseto new colour combinations including green bacteria (where yellow plasmidsand blue plasmids had conjugated) and ochre coloured bacteria where cellshad lost their colour plasmid altogether. Two computers were also presentwithin the installation making the display available over the Web. Onecomputer acted as a server, enabling participants to interact with theinstallation by requesting that the UV light be turned on, thus disruptingthe DNA sequence in the plasmeids and accelerating their mutation rate.The other synthesised DNA music via a programme which transcribed the physiologyof the Genesis DNA into musical parameters by responding directly to thegrowth rate of the bacteria on display. Requests to turn the UV on (andtherefore mutate the bacteria) also changed sound parameters in real time.
This work summed up the main themes and issues under review at "LifeScience", the twentieth "Ars Electronica symposium and exhibitionheld in Linz, Austria. For Gerfried Stocker and Christine Schopf, the Directorsof Ars Electronica, the past twenty years have seen the development ofartworks which represent "the effort to traverse boundaries by artiststaking digital technologies as their implement, their medium, as well astheir subject matter"(3). Both the exhibition of work and the "LifeScience" symposium presented a breadth of work, ideas and criticalinterventions which are clearly beyond the scope of a review such as this.For those interested the Ars Electronica catalogue presents some four hundredand fifty pages of information regarding the event. In addition, the ArsElectronica 99 Web site and Web debate are still available at the timeof writing (4).
The strength of Ars Electronica 99 was its symposium. Here, a rangeof speakers whose undoubted expertise in the field of Life Science, orthe use of technologies to facilitate genetic research and engineering,presented a critical framework of debate which cut through more culturallymediated reception of this field available through documentary, televisionand tabloid news reportage. Amongst the first speakers, for example, wasRobert Lanza whose company "Advanced Cell Technology" is developingtransgenic cloned cells and tissues for application in cell and organ transplanttherapy". The symposium raised a set of themes and issues which were,in themselves, quite ground breaking news. This enabled one to make a readingof the artworks available in Ars Electronica 99 within the context of thesedebates. Further to this, such readings of the work facilitated a criticalconsideration of the symposium's content to be made. This was undoubtedlythe strength of A E 99.
In response to this, I would like to outline some of the themes andissues which emerged in the symposium itself and the effect which thesemay have had on the reception of the artwork presented for public view.I intend to do this by reviewing the debates developed by three of thesymposium's speakers. Cultural polemicist Jeremy Rifkin, Lori B Andrewswho is Professor of Law, at Chicago Kent College of Law and R. V.Anuradha who is Darwin Fellow and a practising Lawyer in Delhi seem topresent a political, legal and cultural cross section of the issues assteak within the future of global "Life Science" developments.In the light of this, I will examine the installation work of Gina Czarnecki,the generative installation "Sound Drifting" which was co-curatedby Colin Fallows and Hedi Grundmann, and the public installation EthnicBleaching by Harwood and Mongrel. Finally, and in the context of this,I would like to return to the above mentioned work "Genesis"by Kac.
Life Science Symposium: Issues Raised.
For Jeremy Rifkin, founder and president of the Foundation of EconomicTrends in Washington DC, the digital revolution is merely a herald of theage of genetic commerce, providing little more than the electronic capacityto process biological information on an unprecedented scale. However, thissynthetic age, or "second Genesis" also raises a set of moral,ethical and political and legal questions which, for Rifkin, we can notsimply ignore. Genetic changes which could be made to human foetuses inorder to correct deadly diseases and disorders could, for example, be madeto enhance mood, intelligence, physicality and behavioural traits. If Dr.Ian Wilmut, who was responsible for cloning Dolly the sheep, is grantedthe patent which Rifkin claims he has filled on all cloned animals includinghuman embryos, then both he and his corporate partner PPL will be ableto claim all cloned human embryos as their intellectual property right.As well as the Frankenstinian nightmare of human cloning, Rifkin claimsthat a battle is already raging between the technologically advanced nationsof the North and the developing nations of the South over the shrinkingglobal gene pool. Bioprospecting, whereby the genotypes of isolated indigenouspeoples are being sampled and global copyrights sought over the "discovery"of unique and useful DNA strands, is increasing. For Rifkin, we risk bothgenetic pollution and irreversible damage to the biosphere if governmentsrefuse to control or legislate against such practice. In the decade tocome, he warns, "we night well barter ourselves away a gene at a timein exchange for some temporary well being"(5).
Such emotive polemics, it seems, are not unfounded. For Lori B. Andrews,increasing scientific expertise in reading the code of the human genomenot only has implications for the individual who's genetic future couldbe read, but for interested third parties such as employers, schools, themilitary and courts. We are now all familiar with the use of DNA evidenceto settle course cases. As Andrews pointed out, the use of such evidencein the O.J. Sympson trial was intended to link the accused with a pastevent. The difficulty now lies in the use or such evidence for "prospective"cases. Already it appears that many American women who have a strong familyhistory of breast cancer, face the new dilemma of DNA testing. If a testwere to establish that they have inherited the genetic mutation which posesan eighty per cent risk of the disease, they would then run the risk ofloosing the health insurance they may need so much as future protection.
Further to this, Andrews pointed to the problematic use of DNA codingto allegedly identify individual and group traits such as intelligence,behaviour and race. As researches now claim that they can distinguish betweenBlacks and Whites on the basis of three genes out of the 100,000 in eachhuman's DNA, the risk is that the legal application of "scientificprecision" in identifying such borders will "potentially undermineconceptions of equality of opportunity and individual and social responsibility"(6).Alarmingly, Andrew's went on to site the recommendations by Texas LawyerMargery Shaw that states adopt policies to prevent the birth of childrenwith genetic diseases. Further to this, it seems that Shaw has alreadysuggested that parents who do not terminate children with serious geneticdefects could be criminally guilty of child abuse. Apparently "inthe case of Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories 106 Cal. Appl 3d 811(1980), a California appellate court stated in dicta that a child witha genetic defect could bring suit against her parents for not undergoingprenatal screening and aborting her"(7).
In response to such legal dilemmas, the immediate legal solutions tosuch problems, for Andrews, would necessitate the development of a three-pointapproach to combat infringement by interested third parties. First, grantingindividual control over the genetic information generated about them. Second,granting individuals control over the unique property of their DNA makeup and, furthermore, that an individual's consent be required before anysuch information is accessed or used. Third, that any discrimination basedon genetic information is prohibited.
Moving beyond the civil liberties of individuals in Europe and the USA,R.V.Anuradha examined the cultural, political and economic problems facedby agriculturally dependent nations in the face of companies developinggenetically modified crops. In one example Anuradha cited the implicationsof using Bacillus Thrunginiensis or Bt (a naturally occurring soil bacteriaused as a traditional pesticide) in the genetic makeup of crops themselves.Such genetic engineering encourages a rapid response from pests which lose"susceptibility" genes and develop "resistance" genes.Though the inevitable result of this would be further genetically modifiedBt crops, the damage to the agricultural biosphere is evident, as is theloss of the bacteria's effectiveness as a traditional and harmless pesticide.For Anuradha, this would also present one more factor in the reductionof crop diversity in the Third World and the necessity for financiallydisadvantaged farmers to return to the Corporate seed market at regular,even seasonal, intervals. In the light of this, Anuradha raised severalethical objections to the "patenting" of life and the plunderingof natural ecological systems as raw materials.
Although the Earth Summit of '92 passed resolutions that would suggestthe assessment of biologically modified crops (and their potential environmentalimpact) be carried out before they can be marketed, laws dealing with biotechnologyusually adopt a risk assessment approach. For Auradha, this leads inevitablyto differences in opinions as to the risk involved in introducing suchcrops. Not surprisingly, many Western governments perceive little riskin introducing GM modified crops into the Eco systems of developing nations.Evidence of this was provided by another speaker, Zangliang Chen, Directorof the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Member of the ChinaNational People's Congress. Faced with the problem of feeding twenty sixper cent of the world's population with only ten per cent of the world'sarable land available (a ratio which is increasing due to the rise in populationand the subsequent need to develop land for housing) China, unsurprisingly,is embracing the technologies of genetically modified crops. Although therewas a deep irony present in seeing such a speaker argue his case by showingslides of golden, genetically modified wheat fields, one was equally ata loss to suggest an alternative under the present conditions of corporateand political monopoly.
Life Science, the Exhibition.
In the light of this, making a reading of the various projects on displayat Ars Electronica 99 seemed to necessitate a contextuallisation of theworks within the parameters of debate outlined in the "Life Science"symposium. The majority of exhibits were displayed in three sites acrossthe city of Linz; the Brucknerhaus, the O.K. Gallery and the Ars Electronicacentre. The Bruknerhaus (which is primarily a concert venue) played hostto both the Life Science symposium and a range of work which, though interesting,sat rather uncomfortably in this environment. This difficulty seemed lessto do with the excellent organisation of Ars Electronica 99 and more todo with the assumption, on the part of both artists and audience, thatinstallations, unless public or site specific, should be displayed andread in a gallery space. Because of this, a cyberport consisting of severalartists groups, whose projects were primarily NET based, encouraged visitorsto ask about artist's work and to literally be shown around their sites.This ironic use of virtual interactivity, primarily used for the connectionand interaction of remote geographical sites, to enable an intimate audience-artistinteraction worked well. Both members of the audience and artists tendedto engage and respond to the themes and issues raised by the symposiumin and through a critical debate regarding the nature of their work. Thisformed a highly successful model for the productive engagement betweenthe "academic" section of a conference and the "practical"work of artists involved in the same field which, unfortunately, does notalways seem to be the case at such events.
Of the more traditional installations available at this sight, the workof Gina Czarnecki stood out as a providing an absorbing and critical engagementwith the problematic impact of the Life Sciences on our traditional notionsof individuality. In her piece "Stages Elements Humans", sevenlife size figures confront the viewer and engage with their disarminglyquizzical stares. They seem both aware yet unmotivated by their nakedness.As the installation progresses, one begins to realise that they are not"real time" videos of individuals but digitally produced compositeswhich grow, change and deteriorate as they confront you across the boundaryof their world, the membrane of their projection screen. As such, Czarnecki'swork plays with our responses to, and prejudices concerning, modern usesof life Science to promote cosmetic bodily modification, prosthetics andgender alteration. The abstract use of mixed tones in the accompanyingsoundtrack further developed the feeling of isolation and entrapment ofthese mutated specimens. As these figures become more aware of their surroundings,the viewer experiences a transition from a position of acknowledgementand engagement to the alienation of voyeurism.
The use of sound in Czarnecki's work points to a shift in the productionof technologically facilitated artwork deploying sound as a primary artisticresource rather than a polite background supplement. In the ambitious project"Sound Drifting", a work co-curated by Colin Fallows and HeidiGrundman sounds and mixes from sixteen remote sites, including Liverpool,Australia, Vancouver and Belgrade, were streamed over the Internet andinvited to join together and interact in the "Sound Drifter".This is a programme developed specifically for the piece which allows soundsto generatively interact and mix themselves within the constantly shiftingparameters and boarders of the programme itself. The result, within theexhibition space of the O.K Gallery, was undoubtedly the best sculpturalsound installation which I have experienced. That this work was also broadcaston Austrian radio and through giant speakers suspended over the Danubeas part of Linz's OMV Klangpark (8) pays testimony to the enviable regardwhich new cutting edge cultural production is given in Europe. One of theradio broadcasts, which, like the seven day sound sculpture itself wasalso accessible over the NET, featured a live mix by Echo and the Bunymen'slead guitarist Will Seargent. This marked the welcome introduction of anothertalented musician into the developing world of sound art.
As part of the public exhibitions programme Harwood and Morngrel's piece"Ethnic Bleaching" used digital editing techniques to producea range of images which sought to question both the reproducibility ofdigital imaging and the racial sanity of corporate imaging. A number ofposters, displaying the cut, pasted and juxtaposed features of differentracial and gender stereotypes were intended to question the "rationalisationand elitism of most art events" and to critique the "multi culturallets get on with each other and get happy number" which "has for a long time been one of themain tactics for hiding hard, difficult debates"(9). However, in comparisonto other works on display in AE 99, this work failed to sustain a criticalengagement which its catalogue explanation sought to initiate. The confrontationalnature of this work seemed, on one hand, to run the risk of confirmingsuch stereotypes whilst, on the other, the legitimate critical target ofthis work was made safe by the lack of engagement which it required ofa public audience. This may be the result of the debates in and around"digitisation" which now appear to be quite dated. More interestingly,it could be a difficulty caused by the nature of audience participationwith work in new media that professes to address such important issues.Once that decision to engage has been made by the artist, the work itselfcarries some responsibility to inform, question and communicate. The useof relevant media to facilitate this intention then becomes crucial. Whatemerges is the need for artwork using new technologies, and for a criticalappraisal of such work, to be dialectical enough to comprehend as interactionthe relationship between issues addressed and their physical distributionand reception. Within such an environment, the presentation of problematicdifficulties as facts does not contribute to the development of understandingthrough debate.
In the light of these issues, I asked Eduardo Kac whether or not hesaw a relationship between his intention, outlined above, to explore "relationshipsbetween biology, belief systems, information technology, dialogical interaction,ethics and the internet" and equivalent shifts in the role and functionof new audiences. The question of individuality, subjectivity or collectiveparticipation through a distributed public realm is, for Kac, subordinateto the nature of this participation. As we now often regard our interactionwith technologies, such as the Internet, as having little or no consequencethen the production of a "transgenic" work such as "Genesis"has, for Kac, more to do with "creating an ethical shift, an acutesense of consequence and responsibility"(10). On reflection, Kac'swork does just this. I found myself able to make a reading of the workwhich developed, in tandem with participation in the "Life Science"symposium, as a debate between myself, other members of the audience, andthe work on display. Not only did I come to regard Kac's work in a differentlight during this time, I became very aware that my own ideological outlookhad been tested and changed as a result. In tandem with this, the geneticmutations which developed in the "Genesis" gene were translatedback into English at the end of the week long Ars Electronica 99 Exhibition.The final text read:
"LET AAN HAVE DOMINION OVER THE FISH OF THE SEA AND OVER THE FOWLOF THE AIR AND OVER EVERY LIVING THING THAT IOVES UA EON THE EARTH"(11)
Footnotes:
1) Full information on this and other projects by Eduardo Kac are availableon http://www.ekac.org/transgenicindex.html
2) Eduardo Kac in the Ars Electronica 99 Catalogue, "Life Science"eds. Gerfried Stocker, Christine Schopf, Springer Wien New York, Austria,p. 310. Further information is available from the Ars Electronica Centre'sWeb Site http://www.aec.at
3) Ars Electronica 99 press release pack, p.3.
4) http://www.aec.at/lifescience
5) Jeremy Rifkin, The Biotech Century, Genetic Commerce and the Dawnof a New Era" in Life Science, eds. Gerfried Stocker, Christine Schopf,Springer Wien New York, Austria, p. 50.
6) Lori B. Andrews "Genetic Predictions and Social Responses"in Life Science, eds. Gerfried Stocker, Christine Schopf, Springer WienNew York, Austria, p.91.
7) Lori B. Andrews "Genetic Predictions and Social Responses"in Life Science, eds. Gerfried Stocker, Christine Schopf, Springer WienNew York, Austria, p.92.
8) This is a an anual international project whcih aims to explore andpush the boundaries of "art in public spaces" which this yearfeatured Michel Nyman and the Recombatant 99 project. The OMV Klangpark'sopening also co-incided with the civic openning of Linz's international"Burcknerfest" which was very well attended by both Ars Electronicadelegates and members of the public.
9) Harwood and Mongrel, "Ethnic Bleaching", in Life Science,eds. Gerfried Stocker, Christine Schopf, Springer Wien New York, Austria,p.325.
10) email conversation with Eduardo Kac.
11) From Eduardo Kac's Web site op.cit.
Further Information.
Ars Electronica '99 Catalogue, "Life Science" eds. GerfriedStocker, Christine Schopf, Springer Wien New York, Austria. Further informationis available from the Ars Electronica Centre's Web Site http://www.aec.atAlso, an excellent guide to the twenty year history of Ars Electronicahas been released in conjunction with MIT Press - "Ars ElectronicaFacing the Future" edited by Timothy Druckrey with Ars Electronica,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.
Back to Kac Web