[-empyre-] Week 3: Science, Technology, Art and Fakeness

Wed Jun 21 21:56:59 AEST 2017

Hi all,

I thought I’d chime in here. Kevin, thanks for the mention!

In reference to your question regarding our role via practice to combat climate change, is an interesting one for me personally. In fact tomorrow I’ll be speaking at the ASLE conference in Detroit on this very subject.

I’ve been battling with whether an art practice does anything other than inflate the ego or diminish the guilt of the artist making work on the topic in actually enacting any kind of social cultural shift. At the moment I can say this. Artists are often at the forefront of technological innovation. Additionally, many are also on a sort of margin of culture; a place whereby they can be disproportionately affected by marginalizing forces, whether we are speaking of legislation, climate change, or some other form of violence enacted by systems of power. I think there is great power in not just representing these systems, but also using the tools and technologies of these systems as a form of resistance. Whether the message transmitted by the work only reaches “those in the the know” (the art community/cultural producer community) or somehow have the ability to transcend that limited circle of viewership might not matter as much as I once thought. Works like Pau’s Suspect Inversion Center provide a language and aesthetic for scholarly and cultural conversation that demonstrate the falibility of entrenched power hierarchies. By reframing the language, and the potential for citizen engagement, this re-representation of the science and influence of the output we are, at worst, bearing witness to a moment, and at best, providing a moment of reconsideration of what is possible. 

I think that as important as reframing the cultural conversation is, perhaps it is notice by the institutions enacting systemic marginalization that the greatest work is being done. Art, especially in the genre we are loosely speaking of, is fringe, but perhaps it does carve out a what if moment within these institutions where they ponder whether this pulling back the veil on the technologies of violence may mainstream pushback against them. Worryingly, in the political climate of the moment, it may not matter as facts are apparently not a thing. 

I guess all this rambling leads me to this: I think the power in the tactical/subversive use of the technologies of marginalization is of greatest importance. The aesthetics draw in interest, and scholarship and dissemination with re-imagined language redraws the borders of power.

I’ll be so smug and talk about a project I’m currently working on for a moment. It’s an extension of Open SourceEstrogen called Cyborg Avifauna of Estrogenic Paradise. It’s a large (7m diameter) drone blimp with a host of on board sensors and an incubator and deployment system for a biosensor that can help in the detection of estrogenic compounds. The blimp patrols airspace, mapping areas of high estrogenic compound concentration above what is commonly considered sovereign airspace. The project idealistically, yet still though a dystopia lens, at the possibility of a Jetson-esque paradise above political borders where the residues of neoliberalism (pollution) can be detected and harvested toward the production of DIY hormone therapy. The project capitalizes on the aesthetics of military drone technology.

Anyway, in working on this project, I’ve been battling with whether it actually does any cultural good. I think with the spectacle of using military-esque aesthetics with proven DIY tech onboard, it can capitalize on the lure forbidden tech and draw in viewership, but the proven DIY technologies become realistically possible for amateurs to construct, giving them the tools to map endocrine disruptor pollution in their own backyards. I’ve come full circle as an artist and am back to my youthful vision of art as a tool of (tactical) inspiration.

Ok, I’ve got to drive to Detroit.

Thanks for the conversation!

Byron

— 
Byron Rich 
Assistant Professor of Electronic Art, Intermedia & Painting
Allegheny College
Meadville, PA

Doane Hall of Art, A204
(o) 814.332.3381
www.byronrich.com <http://www.byronrich.com/>

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Hamilton, Kevin <kham at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hello all - 
> 
> The questions I raised yesterday emerged for me in a panel Renate co-organized at last year's College Art Association conference for the New Media Caucus, on Biology and Art.
> 
> At this panel we heard from some great people, including Maria Fernandez, Paul Vanouse, Natalie Jeremijenko, Byron Rich and Mary Tsang. I was struck by the role of representation, of image-making, at the center of so many of the projects discussed. That shouldn't be surprising for artists of course, especially given the aesthetic and theoretical lineages these artists draw from. But images may be a surprising plane on which to argue with science.
> 
> One might explain that through constructing their own "fake" images using DNA, for example, Paul and his collaborators reveal the way these "fingerprints" gain legal and scientific authority as cultural products. Such a "reveal" of how science builds credibility can then help introduce a larger conversation and critique about how, for example, the criminal justice system relies on particular approaches to identity and personhood.
> 
> This is one way in among many one might take to critique, reimagine or abolish contemporary trial and sentencing structures. Some critiques of the same system start with how little the victims of crimes figure into retributive justice models. Others take a more historical approach, and narrate the roots of American trial and sentencing culture in slavery.
> 
> The dislodging of unjust structures solely through revelation of root causes and origins will likely get us nowhere. So a critique of the science of identity as applied in criminal prosecution that is based solely on revealing the subjective, constructive nature of its images will likely get us nowhere. Thankfully, I don't think that's where Vanouse and his colleagues stop.
> 
> It might be where the deniers of climate change stop. Such revelation and critique is certainly is where a lot of "creation scientists" spend their time.
> 
> I'll keep going on this line tomorrow, but would of course also welcome other thoughts, examples, and questions!
> 
> All best,
> 
> Kevin Hamilton
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/19/17, 12:33 PM, "empyre-bounces at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au on behalf of Hamilton, Kevin" <empyre-bounces at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au on behalf of kham at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
>    ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>    Hi all - 
> 
>    Thank you for the introduction Renate! And thanks to all for a good month so far on the subject. I'll ask a question to get things going.
> 
>    Here on empyre, we can point to a lively and expansive lineage of art, activism and scholarship that questions basic epistemologies of modern science. Much of this work builds on science studies, feminist theory, and postcolonial critique to illuminate and re-imagine the role of "big science" in the structuring of biopolitical regimes across medical, military, and agricultural domains. 
> 
>    **What do these practices offer our efforts to reduce climate change, at a moment when the truth-claims of scientists have been undermined for very different reasons?**
> 
>    As in so many other moments this century, we find ourselves with some structural homologies among the efforts of groups working towards very different political ends. Climate-change deniers and critics of big oil and big pharma have been taking similar swipes at the foundations of western science for years. 
> 
>    It matters who is doing the swiping, and to what ends, so I don't mean to draw a false equivalence. But at a moment when public discussions about climate change have become so predictable and even pre-determined, what could we learn from the efforts and examples of Beatriz da Costa, CAE, Faith Wilding, Paul Vanouse, Natalie Jeremijenko and others working in biology and art? Do the rhetorical and representational strategies of these or other artists offer help in shifting public conversations toward shared action? Contrarily, are there examples from among these bodies of work that we should take care to avoid in the present moment?
> 
>    I have some thoughts on all this that I'll share more over the week as the opportunity emerges, but thought I'd introduce this line of questioning for starters.
> 
>    All best,
> 
>    Kevin Hamilton
> 
> 
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    empyre forum
>    empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>    http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20170621/56e8d998/attachment.html>