online - 2006/05/01 17:38hi everyone, I'm online and will be happy to discuss the peper and any aspect of The Tissue Culture & Art Project oron
| | The topic has been locked.
Angelo Vermeulen
Visitor
Re:online - 2006/05/04 09:36Hi Oron,
I have some reflections on your abstract, but first let me shortly introduce myself. I am a visual artist with a background in biology (ecology and developmental biology). I create installations with living organisms, quite often algae and other forms of "simple" plant life. Basically, a lot of the pieces I create are systems with intense lighting, audio input, pumps and water spraying nozzles to create conditions within an art context where organism can take over (the space, the expectations of the artist and/or public, etc.) It’s not all that I do, but I mention this approach because it's pretty close to your work.
I quote from your abstract “The extend body can be seen as an amalgamation of the human extended phenotype with tissue life.” That is quite an fascinating point of view. I have to say I agree with this, but maybe not completely. Indeed, if you were to give out tissue to be cultured in labs all over the world, these ever expanding tissues could be conceived as phenotypes (with the same genotype) – another version of “you”. But, then again, how do you look at the notion of “emergence” (in a philosophical sense). Do you consider a tissue as having a sort of unity (beyond the formal), something that emerges beyond the mere mathematical sum of individual cells? What makes us more than a mere coagulation of different tissues? What is your stance on this? Or do you have a rather scientific view on the world, and if so, how do you reconcile this with art making?
Second quote: “The need of re-examining current taxonomies and hierarchical perceptions of life.” Hmm, interesting. Why do you believe there’s a need for such re-examination? You don’t seem to believe in hierarchical structures in biology. Is that so?
Most curious for your reaction.
Cheers, Angelo
| | The topic has been locked.
Inke Arns
Visitor Moderator
Posts: 6
Karma: 0
who owns the extended body? - 2006/05/07 05:43Hi Oron, hi Angelo and Joel,
sorry, being not familiar with the system I posted my introduction to all the abstracts to just one topic - hopefully we can disentangle this.
Thanks a lot for your statement/s – I would like to pick up on several topics here.
The topic of responsibility in the context of „semi/living cells or tissue“ is indeed a very complicated one. It is an extremely tricky topic that has been brought up in discussions of gene technology and its effects (especially facing the possibility of new medical treatments, but also in the context of the reproduction industry).
I would like to know – and I saw that Angelo has formulated a similar question - why should the current classifications of life be re-examined at all? Why to you believe this is necessary?
You are quoting Thacker: "Can there be a politics that effectively takes into account these nonhuman actants, entities that are much more than inert objects and yet much less than autonomous organisms?“ How can you talk about a politics when talking about nonhuman actants? OK, because you (or rather Thacker) are talking about some kind of political behaviour that needs to be developed towards these cells/particles. This brings us to the question: Where does life end, and where does it begin?
But isn’t this rather a question of „quantity“ than of „quality“? Isn’t it rather about asking how far can the notion of life be extended? Can it be extended to „semi-living particles“ or not? Do we really have to „re-examine“ the current classifications for that? I would doubt this.
The question of responsibility then is very closely tied to whether you consider something as being part of life or not.
But let me ask you another thing I would be interested in: When you talk about the „extended body“ – which implies an amalgamation of the human body with semi living particles and tissues supported by technology – who would OWN such a body? When we look at so called life sciences today we see a big business (patenting of genes, etc.). So, what about the economical interests involved? Who owns the semi-living cells and particles the human body is intermingling with? Wouldn’t the extended body tend to become a semi corporate body?
Greetings, Inke
Post edited by: iarns, at: 2006/05/07 05:45
| | The topic has been locked.
Angelo Vermeulen
Visitor
Unity or entities - 2006/05/07 08:34Reading the post by Inke, I better understand the ideas Oron put forward about considering tissue cultures as part of an extended "body". If you look at it this way, the cultures become part of a larger unity and hence the need for specific politics seems to evaporate. There's no sense developing politics towards different body components (whatever they are). That would simply be highly unpractical and in fact, rather absurd.
On the other hand if you look at tissue cultures and cells as independent entities, you can develop politics, but at the same time you loose the concept of one extended body. They all become individual bodies.
It seems a choice has to be made here.
And a last question: how can different parts form one body if there is no connection/communication between them. Obviously the main body and all the derived cultures are completely separated. There has only been connection in a "historical" sense (during the time before the cells where separated from the main body). So, is there actually an extended body?
Best, Angelo
| | The topic has been locked.
Inke Arns
Visitor Moderator
Posts: 6
Karma: 0
Re:Unity or entities - 2006/05/07 13:12Indeed, I would agree with Angelo, what would the connection between the (human) body as one entity, and the semi autonomous tissue / cells be like? Could you elaborate on how this connection could possibly function, quite practically? I think this could add significantly to the "ontological device" ... Curious, cheers, Inke
| | The topic has been locked.
Jon Ippolito
Visitor
Re:who owns the extended body? - 2006/05/09 09:19Hi all,
Apart from the philosophical issues raised by Oron and Ionat's abstract, I think Inke is right to focus on the question of ownership. As the case of John Moore's spleen demonstrates, regardless of their ontological standing snippets of organic tissue already circulate profitably in our economic and legal systems. It's enough to make me reconsider being an organ donor.
An aunt of mine died last month and her liver went to a guy who wouldn't have made it through the night otherwise. (Now the 29-year-old donee has the liver of an alcoholic 78-year-old...but, hey, beggars can't be choosers.) At the funeral another aunt of mine said she'd be happy to donate an organ directly but didn't want to have her body used for "science," e.g., anatomy lessons. She remembered dissecting a cat in high school and always felt bad that the cat never made it back into the ground to feed the worms. This aunt didn't want her parts to be left in a formaldehyde jar gathering dust on some shelf after she was dead. "I don't want to be inventory," she said.
It strikes me that we might as lay citizens want to take a proactive role in determining how the law treats our excess and effluvia. You can't sell your organs, but maybe you could license them. I'd like to copyleft my spleen, for example, to make sure its biogenetic information remains accessible to the broader public instead of paying for some doctor's yacht.
