IsayUsaySsay

Name   : Irene de Groot
Time   : 14.00-16.00 (V2-exhibition space)
Subject: Debate: digital information and biotechdevelopments
Date   : Sunday 21 January 1996

People that still believe in the existence of nature, not to be touched by mankind, might be deprived of this naïvité by the increasing amount of biotechnological methods. The effects of biotechnology on our conceptions of nature, the human body and the ego are discussed by Stephan Geene of the Minimal Club in Berlin, and members of Knowbotic Research (Cologne).
Stephan Geene is very critical towards biotechnology, which already appears from the poster that he hangs before he starts his presentation: "Abwerten der Medizin: Gentechnik is Halluzinogen". In the video that he shows next, genetics is somewhat ridiculed: "Outside it's raining DNA. Outside it's raining instructions".
Biotechnology largely depends on gene theory that in fact, according to Geene, is an ideology. Geene regards DNA as a tool to control complexities and to convince ourselves that we are able to understand our species. It is a response to mankind's fantasy of omnipotence. As soon as we get to the bottom of the whole gene system, we will be able to 'make' ourselves, so it seems. It is obvious that our self-image of subjectivity is not left untouched by DNA ideology.
Geene stresses that it is unjustified to follow a wait-and-see policy with regard to genetechnology, as it has consequences for the way in which we perceive ourselves. In other words, genetechnology is a part of ourselves. Media artists have the capacity - and almost: the duty - to show that things we take for granted, are in fact ideologies, and they can thus provide us with insight in how we become subjects.

Christian Hübler and Yvonne Wilhelm from Knowbotic Research present a computer aided nature (to which Geene opposes). Basically, they are interested in the computerized formation of knowledge (knowing research) and in the way we make subjectivity. In doing so, they want to move between different models of thinking, no longer sticking to static forms of representation.

This condition immediately reminds me of Donna Haraway's 'partial knowledge' that presumes qualities of association, alliances and the blurring of boundaries. The computerized knowledge formation here presented seems to go well with Haraway's ideas.

The 'knowing research' project is partly based on scientific models but at the same time it is open for participation. It is half controlled and half open in order to avoid determinism. This methodology evokes the critical remark from somebody in the audience that there is a black box. Simply formulated, data are put in a computerprogram, the program shakes the data and spits out the result. What the program actually does remains invisible!

Christian replies firmly that we really should let go the will to control everything. "Why not sending it out in time? Why not create an event?" The aim of Knowbotic Research is not to find a new language, but to open up the existing language. Through art this complex stuff can be made more accessible. Artists are distributing info and at the same time practicing the role of editor.

But: despite their presentation, these artists have hardly been able to make this complex stuff accessible for me!

In the following discussion, including two members from the Critical Art Ensemble (Chicago), the critical role of the artist with regard to biotechnology and the notion of nature is the issue. All three parties find themselves somewhat alone in this discussion. According to Geene, a political position must be taken _outside_ technology because fetishing technology is part of the problem. The Critical Art Ensemble agrees with the latter, but still recommends resistance from _within_ technology. A traditional form of civil disobedience could for example be the manipulation of personal electronic data that are stored in huge databases.

At this point, I find myself wondering whether this subversive resistance still hasanything to do with art.

Anyway, Christian (Knowbotic Research) also advocates political action from _within technology_, but for a completely different reason: there is no outside, or we would enter the field of metaphysics. According to him, there is a need for systems of exchange; you have to be inside to be able to make a connection. Power is nomadic, and so should resistance be. Geene does not contradict this last statement, but still thinks that action must be taken in a socialized way.

What I miss in this session, are the practical interventions that the Minimal Club, Knowbotic Research and the Critical Art Ensemble try to give along with their art works. The highly abstract level of the standpoints and the discussion does not reveal the aims of their art, and whether they succeed in reaching those aims. It gives me the impression that all parties stick to their ideology and can not think beyond it. Why not apply different forms of action from both within and outside technology? For it might indeed very much depend on the works of art itself, which tactics work the best. Maybe that is what media artist should give more attention to: going beyond meta stories and making complex stuff less abstract.

Irene de Groot (igro@xs4all.nl)