_Leonardo Electronic Almanac Discussion (LEAD): Vol 14 No 8_ Wild Nature and the Digital Life Special Issue, guest edited by Dene   Grigar and Sue Thomas :: Live chat with artist Jennifer Willet. :: Chat date: Wednesday, January 17. :: Author Biography Jennifer Willet is an artist, a faculty member in Studio Arts and a   Ph.D student in the Interdisciplinary Humanities program at Concordia   University (Montreal, Canada). Her work explores notions of self and   subjectivity in relation to biomedical, bioinformatics, and digital   technologies with an emphasis on social and political criticism. She   has exhibited and presented her research extensively across Canada   and internationally. Since 2002, Willet and Shawn Bailey have collaborated on an   innovative computational, biological, artistic, project called   BIOTEKNICA. BIOTEKNICA has been exhibited in various forms at the   Break 2.3 Festival, Slovenia (2005), Biennial Electronic Arts Perth,   Australia (2004), The European Media Arts Festival, Germany (2003),   La Société des arts et technologiques (SAT) Montreal, Canada (2005),   and The Forest City Gallery London, Canada (2004), amongst others. In   addition, BIOTEKNICA has been presented in interviews and conferences   at multiple venues across Canada and in France, Australia, Scotland,   Germany, and Spain. BIOTEKNICA research has been conducted during   residencies at The Banff Centre for the Arts in Banff, Canada (2002)   and SymbioticA, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia   (2004, 2006). http://www.bioteknica.org/ Tran_script_ Ryan_Griffis: Welcome to the 3rd chat in the series for the Wild   Nature and Digital Life special issue of the Leonardo Electronic   Almanac, with contributor to the issue, Jennifer Willet. Jennifer_Willet: Thank-you it is a pleasure to be joining you for   this discussion. RG: Her work (with collaborator Shawn Bailey) can be found online at   http://www.bioteknica.org and her contribution to the LEA issue at: http://leoalmanac.org/journal/Vol_14/lea_v14_n07-08/jwillet.asp She's writing from Montreal, Canada where she teaches at Concordia   and is also a PhD candidate in Interdisciplinary Humanities. I have a general opening question... In your essay for the LEA issue, Jennifer, you propose a shift in   methodology (from the theoretical to the practical)... instead of   identifying the specialist, analyzing and theorizing the   circumstances of biotechnology... you propose a model for critical   engagement where artists, and business leaders, and mothers, and   students are invited to participate and be implicated in the   biotechnological processes. I'm wondering if you can discuss the benefits of this shift in terms   of looking at the distributed practice of biotech, as opposed to the   more conventional forms of critique and engagement that we usually   adopt with technology - specifically biotechnology I think you do this through the examples of artistic practice in your   essay, but maybe we can expand on that here? JW: Yes, Ryan, I am interested in proposing a critical participatory   methodology where non-specialists in the arts and humanities engage   critically with the sciences through first order experience rather   than second or third order analysis of the field.  In other words,   often analysis of scientific protocols by non specialists without   first hand experience misses some significant aspects of the   protocols in question that can only be gained from working directly   with science. For example, before I ever gained laboratory experience my   understanding of several biotechnological protocols was purely   theoretical in nature and therefore subject to prevalent _meta_phors in   swaying my interpretation of those protocols. RG: How does the relationship to first order experience become   reconciled with historical knowledges in developing a critical   relationship with a field and discourse like biotech in your work? -   and could you elaborate on how your exposure to the protocols in   practice effected a change in how dominant _meta_phors swayed your   interpretations? Maybe something concrete related to that last part of your response. JW: To answer the first half of your question, after I gained   laboratory experience, I found that I had a greater connection to   texts written by theorists who were either scientists themselves or   had some experience in the field.  For example, Bruno Latour, Thomas   Kuhn and Evelyn Fox-Keller - rather then texts I had previously   relied upon coming from more traditional arts and humanities   backgrounds. To answer the second half of your question.  After my first   experiences working in the laboratories during a residency at   SymbioticA at the University of Western Australia it was made   immediately clear to me that in a general sense Biotechnology is a   technology that mobilizes living systems in an industrialized way. I was overwhelmed by this first hand knowledge - by exposure to the   cells, animals, bacteria that serve as both biotechnological subjects   and tools. Marcus_Bastos: How does your work with performances fit in this context? JW: Shawn Bailey and myself have agreed to conceptualize the entirety   of our BIOTEKNICA practice as an ongoing performance.  This includes   performances in gallery sites, but also actions in the lab, and the   discussions and administrative negotiations necessary for us to this   type of work. RG: For me, someone who doesn't work in lab contexts, but nonetheless   remains entirely fasinated and interested in genetic tech, something   like Sheldon Krimsky's survey of the beginnings of the transgenic   sciences (as in Genetic Alchemy for MIT Press pub 1985) has been   highly influential in understanding how the science and legislative   process came together to produce the environment in which we   currently find biotech evolving, from a political economy analysis. JW: I am not familiar with this text - my own research tends to lead   me away from the genetic and towards other forms of   biotechnology...   However, any investigation of contemporary   biotechnology, involves not just an analysis of the science, the   protocols - but also the industrial, economic, ethical, health and   ecological contributers/outcomes - contingencies. RG: WIth Bioteknica, you and Shawn adopt an industrial identity,   something done for many reasons by many artists/collectives... could   you discuss that in context with biotech as an industry - what are   some of the reasons you found it productive? ...by industrial, i mean corporate, but also productive in an   industrial sense... JW: When Bioteknica was conceived we were more focused on the   discrepancy that we saw between the representation of Biotechnology   in public discourse - and our understanding of what was occurring in   biotechnological research behind closed doors in corporate and   university laboratories. We chose to deploy the corporate facade as a means of unravelling its   authority and asking people to think critically about important   scientific decisions being made within the context of financial gain   rather than humanitarian or ecological concerns. Though we still continue to utilize the facade our emphasis has   shifted towards enacting a critical participatory methodology -   rather then continuing as a media studies project. RG: This is very similar to aspects of the conversation we had in the   first chat of this series... where we discussed practices like Brett   Stalbaum's work with C5 among others that explore a critical position   that is not parody or irony in its performance Of course, related to the biological sciences, CAE and others like   subRosa have been exploring this pedagogical territory that yourself   and people like Adam Zaretsky, whom you discuss along with TC&A   (Tissue Culture & Art Project - Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr), are   taking in even further directions. JW: Yes certainly, and my research owes a great debt to a number of   these artists.  I conceive of us as second generation bio-artists, in   that our foundation comes from cross pollination with other   pioneering artists, even more so than scientists. I would also say that Bioteknica is not inherently pedagogical,   instead we are engaging in a body of research and making the   specificities of those experiences available to the general public. MB: could you name some of theses artists? maybe Kac or Reva Stone?   how does the 1st generation differs from yours? JW: Certainly our collaborators TC&A (Oron Catts, and Ionat Zurr),   and Adam Zaretsky.  In terms of the theorization I am very interested   in the writings of CAE (Critical Art Ensemble) and Natalie   Jeremijenko.  And I must include George Gessert, as a model for   direct engagement in the biological sciences outside of an   institutional context. In terms of some of the differences I see between our practices,   Bioteknica is not only defined as a BioArt practice - rather an   interdisciplinary one.  We have come to wet biological solutions   within a larger chorus of contemporary art production including;   installation, video, digital print, performance, and theoretical   writing. In other words, we come from a weighted art background versus a   weighted amateur science background as seen in some of our   predecessors.  Of course, this is a generalization. RG: Is there a discussion occuring in bio-art circles that is similar   to the one in new media that is concerned about the   institutionalization and formalization of the technology and how that   might compromise the ability to be critical as a cultural producer?   The discussion seems to have more potential now, as positions not   seemingly available before, are being explored. JW: Yes, there is discussion in BioArt circles concerning the   reification of critical biological practices into the perpetuation of   corporate biotechnological drives.  In other words, there is concern   that if these practices are not contextualized well they will only   serve as advertisements towards the aestheticization of the Biotech   future. RG: I remember some discussion around the Paradise Now exhibit a few   years back... where Jacqueline Stevens and Natalie Jeremijenko mounted some counter   events with those concerns. JW: yes, and CAE writes directly about these concerns in their book   The Molecular Invasion.  They say that they are concerned that some   artists seeking to improve the professional standing of their career   may possibly be drawn to BioArt practices due to its cache rather   than a deep investment in these important ideas. RG: In certain activist/scientist circles (esp the ETC group) a lot   of recent emphasis has been placed on synthetic genomics (related   to the Venter start up) and the convergence of bio and nano-tech, as   a new chapter in the biological sciences. Is this something that is   finding _expression_ in your own work or any artists you're aware of?   The high investment in biodefense, as CAE's MI project you mention   discusses, seems to be getting some cultural attention. JW: Not in my practice per se ... RG: ... I have yet to discuss the synthetic genomic developments with   anyone in the arts, so i was just curious. i'm still coming to terms   through reading about what exactly is happening, and have been   wondering if it's had any impact on people working more directly with   the science and lab environments. JW: However, Natalie Jeremijekno writes extensively about military   incursions in biotechnology and argues specifically in her article   called the BioTech Hobbyist that pressure for artists (particularly   CAE) not to engage in biotechnology is a military rather then   corporate desire. RG: And with things like the newly formed US Biodefense Advanced   Research and Development Authority, specifically created to funnel   money to biotech/pharma start-ups, that line (military/corporate) is   sometimes really blurry. JW: Yes, I agree, particularly in the US, the line between military   and corporate drives is often  blurry. JW: I do not specialize in synthetic genomic developments.  However,   I would imagine that Eugene Thacker has a full understanding of this   field.  Additionally, there is an art science network in Switzerland   who I believe is making connections between artists and scientists   working in nanotechnology - these are fascinating developments for   future projects.  They are called AIL Artists in Labs.  http:// www.artistsinlabs.ch/ RG: Thanks so much for chatting Jennifer, it's been great! JW: Thank-you very much for inviting me to participate in this live   chat, it was my pleasure.