Re: LIFESCIENCE: twins

["K.D.Thornton" <thornton@proteometrics.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
LIFESCIENCE
Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
http://www.aec.at/lifescience
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Peter,

I am also a latecomer, in that I have been lurking for some time now. As an
artist who works with biology (bacteria, corpses, decay) I feel that I have
a vested interest in how these subjects are perceived. When I began my
pursuit of art, I had no idea that it would be regarded as a separate
endeavour from science, since both center around the insatiable curiousity
and suspicion of "facts" that I have inherent, to my way of thinking.

Your note raised an interesting point for me (as I trusted the yam theory
on the basis of hormonal influences from food) regarding the art/science
dichotomy, though this list may already have exhausted all possibilities of
further discussion of this binary topic.

Your conclusion,

>Don't believe everything that you read (perhaps ask a geneticist...)

inspired my following text as it addresses two of the issues I feel to be
inherent in discussions of science and art, that currently:
1. we look to science for answers regarding the origins of our existence (past)
2. we look to art for the reasons/purpose for our existence (present and
future)

We are, I think, too apt to accept the offerings of science as we are led
to  believe that it will provide the secrets to our origins. All
information which flows from the source of "science" is considered valuable
to the pursuit of this history. Hence the gullibility, and the reverence
for which its offerings are regarded. Science is the new religion, and is
approached with unshakable faith by its practicioners and audience.

In effect though, historically (and I dare to venture, cross-culturally) we
have relied on art and imagination to provide the answers of origins:
Our most popular mythologies rely upon the insecurity regarding our
parentage-- where we come from originally. In these mythologies I include
the Bible, and all other long-standing literatures which attempt to ease
these concerns. Science holds the potential to displace art's importance in
this dilemma. I am forced to guess that art started out here: at the
juncture of magic and the inexplicable. (i am hedging here: as an artist I
do not wish to confront the possibility of obsolescence or redefinition of
my "job description"...)

Often held as the key to self-understanding (an aspiration lauded by most
philosophies), the resolution of the desire to understand our history is
thwarted by our ignorance. Anthropological hoaxes, popular stories of
extraterrestrial life, false/pseudo-science and  belief in an after-life
offer to solve this dilemma: any information will do to fill the perceived
lack.

Fact is replacing imagination.
But there are no reliable facts, only theories. Some theories have become
codified, and present as facts without confirmation, but certainty issues
forth from people hungry for resolution.

Perhaps the paradigm shift here is present in that as human beings our core
priorities haven't changed, but as artists our methods and techniques are
being implemented under the auspices of the new religion [science], in
order to gain sanction and validity. As artists, I think we seek the best
methods, whether intuitively or strategically, to gain respect for our
practices. Art became redefined, at some point, as an "individual pursuit"
while still suggesting that "one man's soul-searching" (and I use gendered
language quite consciously here) will provide answers for all the others.

If the purpose of art has been to ease these concerns and offer
explanations for the deepest and most un-addressable aspects of our
psyches, then art and science are now twined in purpose, as science evolved
as a different means offering solution to the same problem. The problem is
now that the roles are displaced:
Faith, once the agent of imagination and religion, has become a double agent.

Apologies to the list if I am digressing and/or merely paraphrasing
previous discussions.

KD

>---------------------------------------------------------
>ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
>LIFESCIENCE
>Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
>http://www.aec.at/lifescience
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Being a latecomer to this netsymposium, I am reluctant to get involved in
>speculation about genes and nutrition, etc.  Worse yet, as a composer, and
>not a geneticist, I was of a mind all too similar to those seduced by the
>romanticism and glamour of cloning, engineering, etc., to say nothing of
>how such little knowledge of the actual science combined with the ego of an
>artist can create distortions beyond recognition of the field.  Furthermore
>my best friend, with whom I collaborate, is a board certified PhD in
>genetics (one of less than only 300 worldwide, BTW) as well as a MD.  How
>could I pretend to speak with any authority regarding genetics even after
>countless conversations with someone who has devoted his life to studying
>his subject as I have mine?  Can I possibly cite data from articles to
>support my art as fact without having the prior experience or discipline of
>an actual scientist?
>
>Isn't it our responsibility as artists to dismiss sensationalist news
>stories?  Or, do we naively disseminate them?  Do we continue to believe
>fiction like how the use of cellphones causes brain tumors, and that those
>who live near power lines suffer higher incidences of cancer?  Are we going
>to allow ourselves to be mesmerized by predictions from quack "clonemakers"
>like Richard Seed from Chicago, a physicist yet?
>
>Nonetheless, as a father of twins I must say that my interest has been
>piqued.  Here's what I can humbly submit:
>
>-More women in the "modernized" countries are have multiple births simply
>because they are waiting longer to have children -- with or without eating
>yams.  What possible relationship can there be between the way tuberous
>plants spread and the human reproductive system?  Ridiculous.
>
>-Regarding puberty: women who begin menstruation early simply have more
>eggs than those who start later, and they (those who begin early) well
>reach menopause later as well.  Hair straightener?  Come now.  However, it
>is common knowledge that menses is often delayed in female gymnasts because
>most of them have less than 5 percent body fat.
>
>- Bearing Identical twins is not hereditary -- only some fraternal cases
>are, and without the father's family influence.
>
>-Michael Jordan is of normal parentage.  Mating him with a WNBA star will
>hardly guarantee that his progeny will produce a potential superstar.
>
>-The best hope for the human race is via random genetic diversity -- it's
>clearly the most interesting as well.
>
>-Mutations, good and bad, are a necessity of evolution and they are
>constant, with or without nutritional idiosyncrasies, drugs, pesticides,
>etc..
>
>-Don't believe everything that you read (perhaps ask a geneticist...)
>
>
>As artists we are afforded a certain degree of arrogance, but when we
>presume to suggest that we should create life....then we are going WAY
>above our swelled heads.  Oh, and I'm an atheist so I claim no moral or
>religious reasoning for my thoughts.
>
>Respectfully,
>Peter Gena
>
>******************************
>* Peter Gena, Professor  mailTo:pgena@artic.edu
>* Chair of Art and Technology  http://widow.artic.edu/webspaces/ats/
>* School of the Art Institute of Chicago
>* 112 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL  60603
>* ph:312-345-3564,  fax ph:312-345-3565
>* http://widow.artic.edu/webspaces/arthi/faculty/faculty/pgena/pgena.html
> -----------------------------------------------
>"I am plagued by doubts.  What if everything is an illusion and nothing
>exists?  In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet"  -- Woody Allen.
>________________________________________
>The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the SAIC
>***********************************
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE
>To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to
>lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe')
>Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE
To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to
lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------