[spectre] Arts and Sciences

[Aliette]

Hello Friends, Hello Andreas,

Just I said my congratulations to Melinda and it was not of my personal
attraction to laboratories as well in matter of art as well in matter of
society. But of the large view in Australia just at the moment there are
both repressive acts here and there, I congratulated to host successfully
Kurtz in an environmental art event. In my view it was his best chance to
leave USA for this moment.

For another part I want to tell of the cognitive question which without any
substance or changing aspect makes its way as plasticity of the collective
intelligence, that reminds the invisible hand of economy (Smith) by a
strange vision in between a silent God and the matter. This part suggests a
post productive vision of intelligence with experimentation to the control
of collective cognitive process, of which Stanford studied since more than
twenty years, but it becomes to grow in Europe under the influence of French
sociologist Latour (he worked to several exhibitions in Kassel). For a hand
it is the "cognitive capitalism" (Stengers) and for another hand it is a
research hope to build a new anthropology of collective plasticity -society,
mind, knowledge, and so on..

For my part I have given my point of view to day but in French, sorry
Free translator online
http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html

http://www.internetactu.net/index.php?p=4426

# Par Aliette G.Certhoux (l'éditeur alternatif), le 18 février 2006 à 23:29

Toujours le mouton noir, je suis. Pardon, que personne ne se vexe, je ne
suis qu¹une empirique curateure de poïeses publiées ou d¹événements vivants
de la mise en oeuvre artisstique ou poétique à plusieurs. ³Certains
développements récents de la sociologie et de l¹histoire des sciences
(Callon, Latour, Stengers), éclairent sur les processus effectifs de
production de connaissance dans la communauté scientifique et fournissent de
précieuses indications sur les mécanismes concrets de l¹intelligence
collective sur un terrain clé.²

 Toute la question est celle du ³terrain clé². Qu¹est-ce que le terrain
clé : une invention ? un territoire ? une méthodologie ? un groupe
d¹individus ? un objectif ? Pourquoi vouloir tout estimer contôlable, utile
ou productif, ou penser appréhender le tout disloqué en retrouvant par les
fragments, dans une révélation de leur complexité logique, l¹idée même de
l¹unité ? Comme en quête de nouveau entre le paradigme divin et la main
invisible d¹A. Smith ? Et de plus sans considérer qu¹une question du
développement de cette vision plastique de l¹intelligence collective soit
celle de l¹intégration des données spatiales ou temporelles, ne serait-ce
que paraspaciales ou paratemporelles du domaine virtuel - même en
simulation : l¹entropie est un paramètre incontournable du dispositif sauf à
l¹instant même de l¹activité en temps réelŠ à moins que l¹on sorte du
domaine des A pour entrer dans le non A des structures imaginaires post
euclidiennes et autres.. Mais alors qu¹en advient-il socialement autrement
que penser ? Tout les possibles dont les pires - sectes, millénarismes, et
même accroches des croyances New Age.

Ou encore, à croire retrouvée la pertinence de la flèche de Zénon, car la
description même de telles constructions est ici une construction abritraire
qui énonce une structure formelle en quête de vérité révélée. Disant rendre
compte de la construction non arbitraire d¹une potentialité de la
transmutation du groupe humain dans sa virtualité intelligente, déjà on
modélise. De la sublimation à la transmutationŠ.

Je trouve tout cela absolument fantastique mais quelque chose de très
inquiétant, du laboratoire des dispositions humaines me choque profondément
dans certaines phrases de l¹ensemble des propositions autour d¹un tel
projet. Je ne vais pas parler d¹idéologie puisqu¹on nous oppose la science.
Mais bon, Stanford travaille là-dessus depuis combien d¹années et nous
qu¹allons nous encore en faire ?

L¹intelligence en activité est-elle l¹objet d¹un laboratoire, ou le fait
dynamique d¹un ensemble de paramètres vivants localisés et délocalisés et de
toutes façons pour partie externes à leur propre miroir ?

Ce qui me gêne ici c¹est non pas le tracé mais l¹obsolescence des objectifs.
Non que les objectifs soient la réalité même de l¹intelligence collective
après la cognition que l¹utopie ne se réalise pas - ou autrement - du moins
l¹information d¹un engagement des propositions collectives, et l¹horizon
critique à partir duquel les déviations cognitives elles-mêmes peuvent être
évaluées comme avancées collectives même s¹il ne pouvait s¹agir de
régressions..


 


On 18/02/06 23:26, "Anna Munster" <A.Munster at unsw.edu.au> probably wrote:

> Jose,
> You raise some important distinctions that have to do with an approach and
> critical relationship to science within bioart (or indeed within any
> art-science collaboration). Just like any artistic practice there will be
> a range of political relations to the 'object' or 'discousre' with which
> we are collaborating (or dissenting against). This is true of bioart where
> a numbar of artists are simply interestede in gaining access to science in
> order to make beautiful images or objects etc. Then there are more
> oportunistic collaborations in which artists use the space, equipement,
> lab etc to getsome funding but do their own thing. then there are DIY
> approaches etc.
> 
> One of the more interesting strategies to emerge has been that of Critical
> Art Ensemble's 'amateur science'. By engaging with actual biotechnologies
> (although at a rather high school level of biology) and in collaboration
> with sympathetic and radical scientists (they do exist!), CAE create
> performances that engage in the process of demystifying the practices and
> claims of biotechnological corporations and state support of these
> (http://www.critical-art.net/biotech/index.html). CAE claim that amateur
> science can  use scientific techniques to create different knowledge about
> current scientific claims that can then be disseminated to the public.
> This is also the startegy of artists such as Natalie Jeremijenko. In a
> sense this is a DIY approach but it collaborates with scientists and also
> requires the artists involved to become fairly sophisticated users of
> biotechnologies. It also requires the artists to be aware of the history
> and politics of biotech.
> 
> Another approach comes through the Tissue Culture and Art Project
> (http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/) - an Australian artist group who work within
> an art-science lab in a university in Australia. In order to get into this
> position they have had to buy into the current funding for sciences thrust
> that is part of Australian research culture. However, their position is
> that they are not scientists but are artists who are critically
> questioning the hype, politics and ethics of biotech by engaging with and
> making work that is biotech. One could say they are in a privileged
> position. However, what they have doen with that privilege is to set up an
> entire residency program for international artists to apply for in order
> to come and live and work with the laboratoty. They also hold regular 'wet
> lab' mobile workshops in Australia, UK and US where up to 15 or so artists
> can come and learn some basic biotech, discuss the politics and ethics of
> art-sci work and develop projects.
> 
> So, what I'd like to say here is this - while it is useless to put forward
> a grand plan of art-sci collaboration, it is also uninformed to dismiss
> the art-science relationship. What we need instead are concrete histories
> and discussions about who is doing what, where and why. the debate around
> these issues is really becoming very sophisticated within the bioart
> arena. the Tissue Culture people, for example, do not claim to be
> scientists at all but rather to be creating a critical discussion about
> biotechnology by engaging biotechniques. I also think that we should not
> make blanket statements about science and what scientists do. the life
> sciences, for example, are incredibly contested in terms of framework -
> neo-Darwinists vs. palentologists vs, complexity theorists vs,
> symbioticists etc etc. there is rigorous and heated discussion here and
> there are a lot of scientists 9although not enough) who are radically and
> politically engaged with the practice and politics of contemporary science
> (see, for example the Union of Concerned Scientists
> http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction/home.html).
> 
> Lastly, I agree however, that the area in biotech and in bioart that has
> rarely been thoroughly thought through is that of  biotech and so-called
> developing nations. This is something that could really be a point of
> constestation and intervention for critical art-science intervention.
> Theer's a good interview on why it is that issues of biotech and
> developing nations are always pushed aside by Nikolas Rose
> (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1539272.htm),
> cheers
> Anna
> 

>