[Synapse elist] definitions of bio art

Pier Luigi Capucci plc at noemalab.org
Tue Mar 25 21:04:19 CST 2008


Il giorno 24/mar/08, alle ore 08:11, roger malina ha scritto:

> Pier Luigi
>
> re your diagram = i also thinks is a useful categorisation but I  
> would think that within each category (transgenic, genetic,biotech  
> art, bio art...) one should find the study of theoretical objects or  
> processes in that class ie Artificial life is a transverse  
> theoretical discipline of 'life as it could be' used within the  
> context of creation of art of all kinds dealing with living matter  
> ie artificial life art research also provides the theoretical  
> grounding/interpretation structures for bioart which is shown in the  
> overlap in your venn diagram but maybe is not clear


Roger

thank you for your considerations. Indeed in making that diagram I was  
interested in emphasizing the matter that bio artforms are based on  
and the organic ground of bioart, and trying to place the many bioart- 
based definitions. The diagram also shows that there is a relation, a  
bridge, between organic and inorganic, which are often considered as  
realms in opposition. Otherwise said, art can cross and merge that two  
worlds (organic and inorganic), and so in some ways art could give a  
glimpse of the future lifeforms and at the same time maybe  
recapitulate life's origin as well.

The context of the diagram was the introduction (written by Franco  
Torriani and me) to Jens Hauser (ed.), "Art Biotech", Bologna, Clueb,  
2007 book. That introduction was republished here (sorry, only in  
italian):

http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/capucci_torriani_biotech.html


> and like you i think the relevant distinction is between life forms  
> and their environments and not between man and nature = here is it  
> assumed that even though the 'environment' of life forms includes  
> other life forms, one can make a resilient distinctions between  
> matter organised in ways that is self replicating etc) and matter  
> which isnt organised in a way be ' living' (we come back to neo  
> vitalism)


Yes, I agree. But, and this is the point for me, "man is nature" opens  
up an "unpopular" series of considerations (i.e. all the devices,  
machines, instruments... he builds up are nature...). But maybe here I  
am off topic.

Thank you all and best wishes,

Pier Luigi

--
Pier Luigi Capucci
e-mail: plc at noemalab.org
web: http://www.noemalab.org/plc/plc.html




More information about the eList mailing list