His goal to highlight ecological artists that "reorient art from narrowly human concerns to the larger community of life" (p. 17) is admirable and I enjoyed learning about the artists in the article. I understand Gessert's assertion that contemporary art is ecologically "out-of-date," but I think it is a very narrow scope to measure by. I thought it was interesting that he uses Darwin's Origin of the Species as the time benchmark and how Darwin's writings questioned that human-centric order. The interweaving of art and science is novel to me, and the fact that Steichen considered plant breeding a fine art is interesting. I would consider it more of a boutique hobby, and likely place it in the category of biology rather than art. Also, I question considering artists engaged in genetic engineering as ecological artists. Actually, I can't think of anything more anthropocentric than a human trying to shape another species according to their own design. It sounds more like mad scientists a la Jurassic Park (or rather Jurassic Art?). Gessert writes, "genetic engineering lends itself to the megalomanias that thrive on collective hubris" (pg. 18), though can we call humans genetically altering nature "ecological?" Doesn't ecology have to do with organisms and their natural environment? I prefer Thomas Grunfeld's strange hybrid taxidermy sculptures to living artwork that has actually been genetically modified, but I guess the line between science and art is fluid and blurry. Grundfeld questions the successes of genetically modified foods and animals in his 'frankenstein-like' creations.
Thomas Grunfield – Misfit (cow), 1997
I'm not sure what Gessert expects from biotechnology when he states that "no one should be surprised if biotechnology… favors forms of expression that do not intrinsically challenge old, man-centered views of the world." To my knowledge, biotechnology has one goal – to discover things to advance science (in order to make money). Scientists succeed because they have to think in unorthodox ways, but it seems like scientists are always challenging man-centered views of the world, starting with Darwin and up through today's scientists who condemn human-caused global warming. They seem to acknowledge that humans are an essential part of the world's ecology.
Also, I'm not surprised that art in the last 140 years is ecologically out-of-date, considering that modern genetics and the modern conservation movement has only been around for 40-50 years. Maybe there was very little ecological art because the concept of ecology was still evolving? I am surprised that the article fails to mention land art which challenges the concept of museum space and the permanence of art objects, e.g. Andy Goldsworthy.
Evelyn Fox Keller's article The biological gaze was an interesting combination of the history of biology and visual theory. I'm sensitive to the concept of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty being applied to photography, particularly documentary photography, but Evelyn Fox Keller's article drives the point home when she explains that passive observation is nearly impossible. Her connecting different methods of microscopic techniques to the handling and disruption life was enlightening. I have a little bit of background in the sciences and have passively accepted that in order to observe specimen under slides that we kill them when we stain it. After reading Keller's article and her explanation, I'm surprised I haven't thought about how intrusive it is. I also recall attending a poetry reading and a retired doctor explaining that as a young medical student she spent more time with her medical cadaver than her husband. I think it's easier to be shocked when we see a human form manipulated for the sake of science such as in Vesalius's anatomy drawings or in bizarre science exhibits like Body Worlds, or the artist in Gessert's article who was genetically engineering animals for the sake of art. However, on the microscopic scale, is it more palatable to "disturb the object at which we gaze"? It's interesting to think about how this applies to photography, because both scientific and photographic observation are trying to get to some sort of 'truth' about life. I appreciate the visibility and activity complementary relationship that Keller invokes (p. 119).
Maybe aspirations of documentary photography can apply here. Maybe level of manipulation along the y-axis and "accuracy" of observation along the x-axis.
I'll see you on the scientists have been challenging the idea of a man-centric nature, view of the world and raise you an Andy Goldsworthy. I think the reason land art is left out of the Gessert article is because a lot of land artists fail to acknowledge how science is rooted if at all connected to their work and concept. Goldsworthy for example is more connected conceptually to a tradition of landscape developed by romantic painters of the late 18th and early 19th centuries than he is to biology.
ReplyDeleteI think we should try to define "accuracy" for the sake of your graph. I would argue my abandoned project "never never land" or kelli connell's project might disprove its' results. Both had massive amounts of manipulation however, the level of photographic accuracy could still be claimed to be accurate because the image(s) are individually unaltered (but compiled and layered).
Great point, Mike. I should be more specific not only with "accuracy" but also "manipulation." The accuracy I had in mind was in the realm of photojournalism/documentary, and the 'manipulation' I had in mind was photoshopping news photos or arranging things beforehand and claiming them as spontaneous moment in front of the camera.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Goldsworthy, it seems that the impermanence of some of his sculptures has to do with science and ecology. I hadn't realized he was connected to the landscape painting tradition, but this makes sense to me. I'll look up some romantic landscape painters to see the connection...