No
Harmful side effects KIT and Rachel Chapman @Platform 2, July/August
2000
On June 11
this year I was anxious. I knew death could come strangely and quietly
if things went wrong with an experiment (1) that was beginning on the other side of the
world, in a facility called the "Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider",(the world's most powerful particle accelerator) in
Long Island, New York (in theory, "RHIC could have triggered the runaway
formation of a poorly understood breed of subatomic particle known as
a strangelet, which "eats" all matter it encounters, a chain reaction
that would consume everything everywhere") (2) . The monumental audacity of this project
reminds me of the now famous activity by Louis Slotin during the Manhattan
project in 1941 termed "tickling the dragon's tail" (bringing together
two hemispheres of plutonium and uranium as critically close as possible
without starting a chain reaction(3) .
As scientists
play with dangerous toys we, the general public, are often unaware (as
no doubt are they) how close to peril this activity might take us. Governments
which finance and sanction research in particle physics, and a myriad
of equally dangerous research projects do so under the banner of "national
security".
The meme
"I need security" has infected everyone who has the means to do something
about it. Financially and socially advantaged communities articulate
their pursuit of a secure life within a conundrum of contradictory strategies
and technologies. On the one hand they are gravitating towards sheltered
architectures (pun intended) in the form of the automobile , the secure
home, the "gated community" ( an entire lexicon of new terms around
automotive and domestic security and safety features has evolved in
recent decades), the multi-function polis and ultimately, perhaps, the
"off- world outer space community" introduced in Ridley Scott's "Bladerunner".
On the
other hand the same communities actively, or at least passively support
a system which seeks to discover more and more diverse technological
means by which mass extermination becomes possible. Beyond nuclear we
have the cheaper, less noisy and far more terrifying biological and
chemical military tools of destruction.
We are
caught in the monkey trap(4). We want security, personal, financial, national
even global but the very agents, protocols and technologies we invent
for this purpose and to which we cling like life itself can often leave
us in a more vulnerable state. The task of providing security for the
individual and the collective is not unlike the one given to Sisyphus
by the gods: endless, in essence unproductive and ultimately completely
pointless.
This proem
brings us to the specifics of my discourse.
The title
of the exhibition "No harmful side effects" can be interpreted in a
number of ways. Consistent with my introductory comments I choose to
interpret the title as an alert . If we place a question mark at the
end, we are closer to a useful entry point to discuss these artistic
projects by Armstrong and KIT. "No harmful side effects?" can fill us
with silent dread because we have all witnessed a myriad of assurances
where apparently safe and harmless products or conditions ended up compromising
the very condition they were intended to provide.
Most commuters
will probably never even notice these provocative works displayed in
a subterranean passage that feeds into a busy railway station as they
hurry past. I've observed them: shrouded in a sagging confidence in
their highly centralised, sterilised, mechanised, urbanised post industrial
lifestyle. Voluntarily subjects, submitting to the dumbing down of every
important issue by the media, politicians and big business, they have
steeled their hearts and minds against the provocation's of difficult
thoughts and difficult art by cultivating the art of rejection and not
looking.
But lets
imagine they stop and contemplate (you did); what is this project all
about?
Here are
my thoughts (not intended to be prescriptive).
Territory/boundary/containment Rachel
Chapmans fungal spores(5) negotiate boundaries and territory in several
ways. Initially riding the air currents of the atmosphere and, once
localised with growth structures that remind of the territorial maps
of nations and states. Seemingly arbitrary lines signifying claim over
space are drawn, reinforced and actively policed. Yet a growing variety
of viruses, many deadly to humans, respect neither boundary nor quarantine.
They come (in Australia's case) from the North, have names like the
Nipah virus, Japanese Encephalitis, Hendra virus, Lyssavirus and Menangle
Virus and piggyback their way across vast distances on carriers(6) . Many of
us will be reminded of the glowing claims by writers such as Damien
Broderick who assert that we are well on the way to immortality as we
are medically augmenting and repairing our disease and age prone bodies(7) (if we happen to belong to the technology
and information rich contingent at least) are challenged by microbial
pathogens. To dismiss spores as somehow less dangerous than viruses
is possibly optimistic. Evidence suggests that spores are capable of
causing harm to us and other species(8) .
Despite
their worrying potential, the fungal spores cultured by Rachel Chapman
in unusually large petri dishes are not only fascinating but beautiful
in their strangeness. This beauty has even captured the mind of scientists.
Scientific American featured a paper two years ago entitled "The artistry
of micro organisms"(9) which commented on the aesthetic symbiosis
between bacteria and environment.
Rachel
Chapmans large vitrines which allow environmental phenomena to negotiate
its aesthetic mark- making remind me of Marcel Duchamp decision to collect
"New York dust" (1920) as a component for his "Large glass". In both
cases the microscopic collects (contextialized and controlled by the
artists choice of location/duration and scale) and makes itself visible
as a visual and aesteticised phenomena(10) .
While
it is tempting to continue this analogical thread by forming conceptual
relationships between the mechanical homage's by Duchamps good mate
Franzis Picabia and the exposed mechanical components situated around
the issue of "crash" by KIT, I'll resist that temptation.
(Another)
law of thermodynamics : "any system expands indefinitely until it meets
resistance"
The KIT
exhibit which consists of an automotive air-bag, laundromat lint as
it's "stuffing" and seatbelts straps as suspending devices for the object
as it's in displayed in a vitrine in a caricature - like state.
The airbag,
usually neatly concealed and folded into a minute artefact (strangely
dissociated from its name which describes a state it achieves for only
a fraction of a second and only once in its life. During most of its
existence an air bag is really an air-less bag. Georges Bataille reminds
us of the inherent problem with taxonomia(11) : A dictionary begins when it no longer
gives the meaning of words, but their tasks. Thus formless is not only
an adjective having a given meaning, but a term that serves to bring
things down in the world, generally requiring that each thing have its
form(12) .
The taxidermal
approach used by Kit gives the airbag a static, sculptural form. The
exposed and de-activated container has lost it's mechanical purpose.
It's display is now reminiscent of de-commissioned military hardware
which, ranging from tank to howitzer, is often found outside RSL clubs
or in the middle of country towns. It shares a sense of "being out of
place" with these objects/instruments but at the same time, it/ they
serve to remind us about an earlier function, when the apparat could
take or safe lives.
Airbags
too can kill and injure. Claims as to actual numbers of people saved
by airbag systems are difficult to verify(13) whereas the numbers of injured or dead airbag
victims are easier to come by(14) .
If the
question arrises: "are airbags safe?" the answer must clearly be "no,
not absolutely". But then again what is? I suspect KIT is not so much
interested in the Ralph Nader terrain of automotive safety. Instead,
I propose the airbag is aesthetic and conceptual bait to draw is into
a discursive analysis of issues around the crash and its broader socio-cultural
implications.
When Kit
declares a necroscopic(15) interest in the crash its seems clear to
me that this interest is not informed by the morbid curiosity that typifies
the bystander at a crashsite, but instead because the social and cultural
dimensions of the crash have narratives that significantly extend beyond
where our culture has drawn its line of interest in the matter.
We measure
life and death issues routinely using statistics. Statistically we have
a similar risk of dying if we had visited the Melbourne aquarium since
it opened or drove an airbag equipped vehicle.
So, when
a watertower ends up signifying the same potential to kill us as some
lunatic mass-murderer with a semi-automatic, we understandably perceive
this environment less and less as the architecture of some technology
augmented Shangri-La.
That inflames
our ability to worry! We harbour angst about our security because of
radiation, pollution, new viruses, cancer and now airbags and fungal
spores. But clever marketing strategies have suggested a way out for
the individual: overcompensate domestic and personal hygiene to the
point of absurdity. So in the end we take control (the little we have)
and become fetishistic anti - bacteria Rambo's in our domestic space.
We reach into the arsenal of bugkilling aerosols at the slightest hint
of bacterial or insect presence and eliminate the bastards by the millions.
Feels good doesn't it?
Footnotes.
(Please use the back-button on your browser to return to the section
of text you were reading
1
Ivan Carvalho "Dr.Strangelet or: How I learned to stop worrying and
love the big bang" in Wired 8.05, May 2000, pp 254-255
2
loc cit. Some scientists - among them Frank Wilczek of the Institute
for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey - have said that, in theory,
RHIC could trigger the runaway formation of a poorly understood breed
of subatomic particle known as a strangelet, which "eats" all matter
it encounters, a chain reaction that would consume everything everywhere.
Fortunately, most experts aren't worried. MIT physicist Bob Jaffe says
the chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are "exceedingly rare" bordering
on nil, but as he admits, "you never know."
3
In 1941, the quiet existence of 31-year-old Louis Slotin was shattered
when the United States entered World War II. Winnipeg-born Slotin, a
brilliant nuclear scientist, was working at the University of Chicago
when he was asked to join a group of scientists experimenting with nuclear
fission. The team and its work became known as the "Manhattan Project,"
and would soon build the world's first atomic bomb. Louis Slotin's specialty
was "tickling the dragon's tail," bringing together two hemispheres
of plutonium and uranium as critically close as possible without starting
a chain reaction. Slotin's life came to a tragic end at the age of 35
following exposure to a lethal dose of radiation.
4
A monkey trap consists of a jar tied to a tree. The jar contains a shiny
trinket or a peanut . The jars opening is large enough to allow the
monkey to reach in and grab the content but does not permit the monkey
to retrieve its closed fist. The monkey can save itself from capture
simply by letting go of its new posession. Many monkeys were caught
however.
5
A reproductive cell produced by plants (fungi, moss, ferns) and some
protozoa and bacteria. Bacteria also produce spores as a defensive mechanism.
Spores have thick walls, and are able to withstand varying temperatures,
humidity, and other unfavorable conditions. High temperatures are required
to kill bacterial spores.
6
Penny Fannin (Science reporter) "The new viral timebomb" The Age, Melbourne,
June 3rd 1999, page 22
7
Damien Broderick The last mortal generation New holland, Sydney, 1999
8
An early example is the following account: "The grub, the larvea of
a large moth commonly called the "night butterfly", is subject to attacks
from a vegetable parasyte, or fungi, called Sphaeria Robertsii. The
spores of the fungi, germinating in the body of the grub, absorb or
assimilate the whole of the animal substance, the fungus growth being
an exact replica of the living caterpillar. The fungi, having killed
the grub, sends up a shoot or seed stem; its lower portion retains its
vitality and sends up another shoot the following year. " C. Fitton
, New Zealand Scientific American, February 1899)
9
Eshel Ben-Jacob and Herbert Levine The Artistry of Microorganisms in
Scientific American, October 1998 www.sciam.com/1998/1098levine.html
10
"...so dust might be allowed to settle for a period of three months
(Man Rays famous photo shows the "dust breeding" process) to be finally
fixed with varnish. This "breeding of colours" takes us closest to his
ideal - the glass seen as a "greenhouse" in which transparent colours,
as ephemeral as perfumes, will emerge, flourish, ripen and decay like
flowers and fruits. (And spores of fungi W.H.) Richard Hamilton "The
Large Glass" in Marcel Duchamp Anne d' Harnoncourt and Kynaston McShine
(Eds) Thames and Hudson, London, 1973
11
The activity of classifying and naming things
12
FORMLESS: by Georges Bataille. In Documents # 2, May, 1929. Paris. (Reprinted
in Denis Holier, Against Architecture : Writings of Georges Bataille.
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. 1992 (pp. 46 Ð 55).
13
According to American statistics an estimated 1198 lives were saved
between 1987 and 1995 in the US because of airbags. By 1996 an estimated
30 million vehicles had been sold with airbags fitted. Source: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US Department of Transportation,
Washington DC Third report to congress" Effectiveness of Occupant Protection
Systems and Their Use" , December 1996 www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/208con2e.html
KIT remind
us that some 150 people were killed by airbags in the last 10 years.
STATISTICALLY thats in the range of 1 in every 200 000 occupants of
airbag equipped vehicles.
14
There are numerous websites
15
Examination of bodies after death
© Werner
Hammerstingl, Melbourne 2000
|