----------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-boun...@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au on behalf of 
Hamilton, Kevin" <empyre-boun...@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au on behalf of 
k...@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@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
    http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
    

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

Reply via email to