Leonardo reviews Leonardo reviews of observation, two different viewers nologies, Terminal (2008), and Living Editor-in-Chief: Michael Punt stepped in front of Jill Scott’s The Electric in Sim (2009). However, as one viewer Managing Editor: Bryony Dalefield Retina (2008) and—experiencing remarked, this parody has already pene- the work in a manner I suspect Scott trated the commercial market, as simi- Associate Editors: Dene Grigar, never thought of—looked at the pro- larly marked jars are available in novelty Martha Blassnigg, Hannah Drayson jector light. While this may have acci- shops. This produced a lack of tension A full selection of reviews is pub- dentally resulted in some knowledge in the piece that softened the critique lished monthly on the LR web site: of the malfunction of the eye, what the of pharmaceutical companies’ social <leonardoreviews.mit.edu>. oversized projector-eye had to offer was construction of disease and treatment. not interactive (and in another context Other pieces, such as Main’s Metazoa would not have seemed to be). But (2008) and Leah Heiss’s Drift (2009), mixed with interactive pieces and with were easier to interpret as interactive. Exhibition no text or technical cues to suggest how For Metazoa, viewers donned fuzzy to distinguish the interactive works, hats that enabled the interactivity of the installation situation turned The the work and encouraged new iden- uperhuman evoLution s : r Electric Retina into a puzzle rather than tifications with other life forms, from of the species a point of reflection on function and single-celled organisms to birds, as Australian Network for Art & Technol- malfunction of the body, particularly viewers controlled these organisms’ ogy (ANAT) and the Royal Melbourne the eye. movements through their own. Heiss’s Institute of Technology (RMIT), RMIT Jonathan Duckworth’s Elements hand-held devices, albeit very much Galleries, Melbourne, Australia, 5 (2008) was shown only as video docu- like blue iMac computer mice apart November–5 December 2009. mentation depicting the use of his from their texture, did as promised in system in physical therapy: Users play the catalog, beckoning us to pick them Reviewed by Hannah Star Rogers, with color and form to improve coor- up, and in return offered their glow Science & Technology Studies, Cornell dination. The video concluded with a and sounds, which seemed to vary from University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. short celebratory media clip about the user to user. Viewers seemed to under- E-mail: <[email protected]>. successes of the piece in therapy. This stand the inconsistent responses in two seems an increasingly common rhetori- ways: For some, different results for The Superhuman: Revolution of the cal strategy for some artists working Species exhibit represented a number in new media: News media coverage of important Australian artists working is sufficiently important to include in Reviews Panel: Kathryn Adams. Nameera with science and technology. Nearly the exhibit, so that the work is praised Ahmed, Katherine Ancher, Fred Andersson, Wilfred Arnold, Jan Baetens, Niran Bahjat- all the works credit scientists in their within its own presentation, and simul- Abbas, Brian Baigrie, Jenny Bangham, John acknowledgments, and many works taneously this points to impact outside F. Barber, Jon Bedworth, Roy R. Behrens, were the products of prolonged engage- the gallery. Katharina Blassnigg, Martha Blassnigg, Barry ment by artists in scientific contexts. Duckworth’s pieces demonstrate Blundell, Catalin Brylla, Annick Bureaud, The exhibit treated a fraught theme: a potential role for artists that differ Franc Chamberlain, Chris Cobb, Ornella Corazza, Geoff Cox, Sean Cubitt, Luisa Para- how we should think about technology markedly from Angela Main or Scott’s guai Donati, Hannah Drayson, Anthony Enns, in terms of the future of human beings implicit suggestion that artists working Jennifer Ferng, Enzo Ferrara, George Gessert, and human bodies. The naturalization with science and technology might help Thom Gillespie, Luis Girao, Allan Graubard, of this idea, even through the idea of viewers explore and reflect on the role Dene Grigar, Diane Gromala, Rob Harle, Craig Harris, Paul Hertz, Craig J. Hilton, Jung A. revolution rather than evolution, still of science and technology in our soci- Huh, Amy Ione, Boris Jardine, Richard Kade, leaves considerable problems. In fact, ety. Duckworth offers instead a model John Knight, Mike Leggett, Helen Levin, Kieran however, most of the selected artists of the relationship between art and sci- Lyons, Roger Malina, Jacques Mandelbrojt, did not address this theme; instead the ence in which artists work in the service Florence Martellini, Eduardo Miranda, Rick show was successful in displaying a vari- of science to deliver more palatable Mitchell, Robert A. Mitchell, Christine Morris, Michael Mosher, Axel Mulder, Frieder Nake, ety of conceptions of how artists should devices and treatments to the public. Maureen A. Nappi, Angela Ndalianis, Martha engage with scientific materials. Works More critical, and with a welcome Patricia Nino, Simone Osthoff, Jack Ox, Naren- represented potential roles for artists hook of humor, was Justine Cooper’s dra Pachkhede, Jussi Parikka, Rene van Peer, ranging from playing with new techni- Havidol (2007), a fictional drug cam- Giuseppe Pennisi, Cliff Pickover, Patricia Pisters, paign, displayed as ad campaign videos, Michael Punt, Kathleen Quillian, Harry Rand, cal possibilities to becoming knowledge Sonya Rapoport, Trace Reddell, Hugo de Rijke, producers. posters and a computer-based self- Stefaan van Ryssen, Sundar Sarukkai, Laura Superhuman’s installation and the diagnosis tool, along with a logo hoodie Salisbury, Lara Schrijver, Bill Seeley, Aparna curatorial decision to provide limited and pillbox. This might best be thought Sharma, George K. Shortess, Chris Speed, text and interpretative materials caused of as an initial exploration for Cooper’s Yvonne Spielmann, Eugene Thacker, Pia Tikka, David Topper, Nicholas Tresilian, Ian Verstegen, some confusion about which works much more interesting follow-up pieces Claudia Westermann, Stephen Wilson, Brigitta were interactive. In less than 10 minutes working with medical simulation tech- Zics, Jonathan Zilberg ©2010 ISAST LEONARDO, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 503–516, 2010 503 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LEON_r_00066 by guest on 30 September 2021 different users were intriguing, while know whether it is living or not. Choos- Drawing together so many people others simply took them as inconstant ing not to check the cell and simply to from the digital media, biological arts interactivity. With such different use- maintain a list of mediums that includes and new media scholarship communi- result patterns, we might speculate that living materials puts us in a precarious ties, the installation issues point to the if we could have seen the objects in position, one that may convert an inter- need to consider whether documenta- Heiss’s hands they might have become est in encountering the living materials tion is enough, or if for one to really something else entirely. The phenom- into a guessing game not dissimilar experience these artworks they need ena of the differences in workability from the Schrödinger’s cat proposi- to be “working.” Just as other formerly of technologies fit in easily with Lucy tion. Schrödinger’s suggestion is that, new media have tested the boundaries Suchman’s analysis of Kismet: The tech- although we may not know that the cat of the art system, these works offer new nological object’s agency is relational is dead without checking, we in essence technical challenges. If we value these [1]. Suchman’s work makes one won- know that it is dead because of the novel forms of engagement and the der how an emotional technology such conditions under which we have placed content and questions these artworks as Drift functions when Heiss herself is it. If viewers become aware that, as in can offer us, we have to be prepared for handling these glowing pods. the case of NoArk II, lists of mediums the technical demands that are specific Two pieces in the show featured that include “living” cells are not to be to them. living material: Donna Franklin’s Fibre trusted, the frame the viewers have for Reactive (2004), a fashion piece grown encountering the piece may be ren- References and Notes from fungi, and Tissue Culture & Art dered mute. 1. Suchman, Lucy. 2004. “Figuring Personhood in Project’s (TC&A) NoArk II (2008). The problem comes down to whether Sciences of the Artificial,” published by the Depart- NoArk II delves into questions about the art practitioners working with science ment of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster construction of classification systems and technology should place value on LA1 4YL, U.K., at <www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociol- ogy/papers/suchman-figuring-personhood.pdf>. and the unclassifiable “semi-living,” whether a piece does what they are which is the focus of these artists’ suggesting it does: in essence whether 2. Art historian Pernille Leth-Espensen has suggested that Sabrina Raaf’s Translator II: Grower (2004, not practice. Oron Catts of TC&A has com- “working” matters. Working may, of present in this show), a device that paints green plained about the difficulties artists course, mean different things in dif- stripes in proportion to carbon dioxide levels, can working with biological materials face ferent contexts. Considering the cat- be thought of as an inscription device. because of their being categorized as egory of inscription device can offer us new media and presented with digital another way to read works such as Paul works. According to Catts, most venues Vanouse’s Latent Figure Protocol (2007, and curators “have little understanding not present in this show), which offered DVD of the radically different technical and a new way of seeing what is represented expertise requirements for the presen- in a stable inscription technology, gel he orLd ccording tation of living biological materials.” electrophoresis [2].