At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than
in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in
regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes
an interview with him is published in Technoetics (2007). But that
probably explains some of your thinking because the fine arts is
pretty much turned off to transhumanism and infers an elitism
stemming from the ideas of people who support argumentation and
indefinite lifespans.
That is almost amusing as the Fine Arts are not exactly known for
absence of elitism. Has our intellectual environment universally
succumbed to some PC reactionary meme set?
It is a complex paradox.
The group of bioartists under the influence of Critical Art Ensemble
has a self-rightous attitude and political opposition to capitalism
and consumerism. Most European artists would agree it seems. CAE
has taken a strong lead in the field of bioart because of their
laboratory in Australia and some of their productions which, on one
had criticize others for doing exactly what they are doing, and on
the other hand use hyperbole to gain momentum and attention. Much of
their productions which are dramatic are beautifully
executed. Albeit, if one takes the time to read carefully it is easy
to see that they are making rash assumptions based on fallacy. In
the academic world this is totally unacceptable and they ought to be
called on it. However, CAE claims to be working with tissue in
unique ways but they are merely doing what medicine has been doing
for years. Many other bioartists are aware of the situation within
bioart and vying for attention and position because it is a new
field/genre and gaining a lot of momentum, especially the artist who
coined the term "bioart" (Joe Davis).
Most of my colleagues are professors in art institutions and we
discuss this frequently and at length. In fact, I gave a lecture
at the NABA in Milano last month and 80% of the student body said
they wanted to live to 50 maximum.
That is one of the saddest and most vile things I have heard in
quite some time. Were the reasons why they said this explored?
Another complex issue. First, the students are in the early 20s and
at that age most of us though that anyone over 40 was "old." Second,
there is the issue of the students being catholic and harboring the
idea that old die, go to heaven, and make way for the young. (We
know this psychology all too well) But it would seem that artists in
Italy would be educated, aware, and willing to explore the cyborg and
the transhuman. Cyborg is known, of course, but transhuman requires
more intellection and exploration.
But, yes, all in all it is quite sad and annoying that this field is
so damn slow to catch on, and when it does -- it shouts
"elitism" "haves over have-nots" "capitalists and consumerism"
rather than actually THINKING - using the brain to explore,
investigate and understand what is actually happening. My reason for
going back to university was because of this very fact. I decided
that rather than staying in the world of science and technology, I
would return to the arts and kick up some dust.
Natasha
<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty
of Technology
School of Computing, Communications and Electronics
Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts
If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=90236514-737d4d
