|
ART IMITATES LIFE-SCIENCE (page 6) The next day, during the daylong symposium, which takes place in a small lecture room upstairs, Orlan speaks out against Patrick Prunet, a scientific researcher at the University of Rennes. He has been talking about frivolity in bio-art and has flippantly told the audience, "We see fluorescent animals under our microscopes every day." Orlan defends the motivation of artists in their biologically fueled explorations. Prunet, a small-framed man with a thin pale face, seems to back-peddle after being confronted by the matron of body art. He wraps up his speech diplomatically making a plea from the scientific community to the art community, "Spark our imaginations because we scientists have a hard time engaging in daydreams." Ultimately, one line in his forty-five minute talk seems to stand out: "I'm not sure there's such a great difference between scientists and artists." Precisely. Why do some feel the need to compartmentalize different disciplines. Why is it art or science? Are we that simple-minded? If you go deep enough into any topic, be it art, spirituality or religion, science, doesn't it lead you into more complex interdisciplinary realms? Prunet's comments seem fragile, almost guarded compared to the outright disdain voiced by the traditional world of tried-and-true art that is practically an unquestioned institution here in France. "The established art community seems to be the most conservative in regards to the mode of transgression we are offering in our work," says Oron Catts. Jens Hauser agrees: "The greatest hostility comes from the art world." I too have found evidence of this in an October 2000 New Yorker critique of the 'Paradise Now' show (of which Eduardo Kac was part). In a jaded and sarcastic tone befitting an outcast from the Algonquin Roundtable, art critic Peter Schjeldahl snaps: "Actually, judging is seldom called for with thematic stuff like this, which has the shelf life of milk. If you wish it would go away, you'll be gratified anon." But almost three years later, bio-art has hardly 'gone away,' but is just starting to really take off in many directions. Apart from the Nantes show, other cities are also following suit. The California Institute of Technology has teamed up with the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California for 'Neuro: An Art and Science Collaboration." The New York Academy of Arts & Sciences has just presented the exhibit "From Code to Commodity: Genetics & Visual Art." The Art Gallery of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) has just hosted "Genomic Issue(s): Art and Science." Ruth West teaches a course at the University of California Los Angeles called "Genetics & Culture: from molecular music to transgenic art." And of course, Eduardo Kac is creating an atelier for bio-art at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Bio-art is an exciting, culturally relevant and relatively accessible medium to the average person via the flood of information out there and its digital language. It therefore makes sense that this is art 'for the people' and not for the regimented and been-there-done-that members of the mainstream art world, who think (or hope) it's just another gimmick with fifteen-minutes and counting. Science is, after all, just one of those cryptic things that the art community (and its critics) is not inclined to understand (or so a generation has been led to believe). |
"The established art community seems to be the most conservative in regards to the mode of transgression we are offering in our work." - Oron Catts
Portrait of Three Bio-Artists: From left to right, Ionat Zurr, Adam Zaretsky and Guy Ben-Ary relax their eggheads with some wine, cigarettes and rebellious irreverence
If "L'Art Biotech"'s symposium in Nantes is an indicator, there's a general sense that critics from the traditional art world are wearing their grandmas' glasses, unable to see beyond the limited vision of what's in front of them. It is much easier, after all, to reside in the 'big fish-small pond' comfort of knowing all, than to learn and adapt to a new hybrid language of creativity. For the more visionary examiners who have chosen to shed their limiting spectacles in favor of peripheral vision, there's a whole other world out there, the world we live in. And what is art for if it doesn't comment or pose questions on life? This year is the anniversary of the publishing of James Watson & Francis Crick's findings on the DNA double helix. Today, biotechnology is a vital part of our agriculture, the scientific research of incurable diseases and yes, our culture at large. We have become so closely tied to our biological and electronic technology that it's safe to say that we too are modified creatures. Bio-artists are posing questions about this brave new world. And some are giving answers as well. Symbiotica's tissue-cultured frog steaks offer new possibilities to an ecologically self-effacing world daunted by famine. Joe Davis' MicroVenus asks us to present an image of life on Earth to extra-terrestrials by re-examining who we are. These are some pretty hefty topics that can't be measured through one artistic canon. They require reflection, open-mindedness, and time…a hell of a lot longer than fifteen minutes.
|
