----------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@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
