Wednesday, September 11, 2013

(In)Visible Dialogues - Grenoble

We have started taking the first steps towards the next incarnation of (In)Visible Dialogues in Grenoble in France. Here are some notes:

(In)Visible Dialogues is neither art nor science, but a platform for both fields to meet and interact. It brings together leading specialists from the two fields from different European countries to dialogue about nature and the boundaries of our lives and if these can be stretched or expanded. (In)Visible Dialogues was initiated by artist Per Hüttner and Elias Arnér, professor in biochemistry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm in close collaboration with Anhata in Grenoble. The project is a continuation (In)Visible Dialogues that took place at Konstakademin in Stockholm in spring 2011. (

During three days in May 2014, dialogues will take place at Anahata in Grenoble. The audience will not be able to see the audience and vice versa. Instead the audience will be looking at the daily life in Grenoble and they also become the focus of the gaze of the citizens of the town as they will be seated in a shop-window.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The Amazing Louis Bec

Louis Bec was a great friend of the great Philosopher Vilem Flusser. He creates amazing artificial life models that could exist - maybe they do. You can read more about Louis Bec here and about his creatures here. Finally something more intelligent than X-men who acknowledges that evolution is not finished. Below you find the beginning - a taster for future enjoyments.


A Lesson in Epistemological Fabulatory

1) Background
~Artificial life is a construct that accommodates a tensorial space.
~Thus it is the result of marked tension between the living and the technologically created near-living.
~Its techno-ecosystemic niche presents as a 'potential' for chimerization.
~It is subject to a tension existing between life defined as an intrinsic property of matter and life redefined as a technological simulation device.
~This tension describes a distinctive trajectory in the overall relationship between the arts and the sciences.
~Thus it opens up entirely new fields of exploration and plays a part in the current reconfiguration of knowledge and forms of expression.
~This trajectory traverses the scientific, artistic and technological domains, in all their diversity, evolutions and mutations. Via the multiplicity of interactions thus generated it gives rise to offset 'epistemological and esthetic tensions.'
~The areas of representation and modeling of the living are explored by elasticity deformation. The newer areas of interactivity, digital information and networks, the programming of processes relating to movement, real time, virtual space and man/animal/machine interfaces, are explicitly designated as fundamental activities for experimental creation.

Louis Bec. Malaskunodousse, 1997-99, artificial life model, softimage.

~In fact, artificial life is inhibited by the animate schema of the living.
~Its role is that of an autonomous behavioral agent, in techno-sensorial interaction with the fluctuating environment of that knowledge out of which, patiently and via its own learning capacity, it develops its behavior and its inventive adaptation.
~The artistic and scientific convergences and divergences artificial life testifies to are based on a primeval tremor.
~An imperceptible tremor of the living, a vibration going back to time immemorial. By giving rise to a logical proliferation wave, it compels recognition of the 'pro-creation' of techno-biodiversity as a fundamental mode of human expression.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Maurice Maeterlinck

"Lack of hope is founded upon what we know, which is nothing, and hope is based upon what we ignore, which is everything"

-Maurice Maeterlinck.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Roald Hoffman on Curiosity

Our abilities to remain on the move and to embrace fluidity has becomes important qualities that define our lives. We want to be like water, present everywhere and with an ability to shape shift depending that which surrounds us. Our restless search for change is probably one of the aspects that marks our time most. In a text for American Scientist, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and writer of poetry and drama, Roald Hoffman reflects on the nature of curiosity. He starts out by noting that the Latin root of the word ‘interesting’ means being ‘in between’ and moves on to reflect on a liquid metal: “The observer first has to know what is normal, in order to care about what is not. Lithium tetramine (Li(NH3)4) is a bronze-colored metallic liquid (that combination of properties is interesting by itself) that crystallizes into a metallic solid at 89 degrees Kelvin (–184 degrees Celsius). That is a low temperature, but so what? Other elements and molecules solidify at lower temperatures: molecular hydrogen (H2) at 14 degrees Kelvin and helium not at all. But none of these other atoms or molecules is a metal. Li(NH3)4, a liquid and a metal, has a freezing point nearly 150 degrees lower than that of any other liquid metal. How am I to think about the way intermolecular forces (responsible for solidification of all compounds) interweave with the free motion of electrons that is the hallmark of being a metal, to make (Li(NH3)4) melt at such a low temperature?” In other words, what is important here is less which atoms make up the molecule, but rather what holds it together. No, not even that, but what is different about these forces from the other forces. What are the forces that hold us together as human beings and where does the power of the artist fit into this? What should we be in between to be interesting?

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Michel Cassé a true inspiration

“…je dirai que la réalité est une convention stupide établie par des êtres sans humour, ni scrupules, et que je réclame pour moi le droit de me contredire, à l’instar du poème moderne.”

"…I would say that reality is an agreement made by stupid people with no sense of humor, no scruples, and I state that I have the right to contradict myself like a modernist poem.”

“…la lumière que l’on a toujours fait figurer, sous l’étendard de la pureté est en fait un agent de désordre : ‘l’ordre se constitue dans se qui brille, car ce qui brille rayonne le désordre. La constitution de la matière requiert par conséquence que la lumière se sépare de l’objet qui s’organise. L’astronome pareillement se dégage de la terre."

"... light that was always used under the banner of purity, is in fact an agent of disorder : order is constituted in that which shines, because that which shines radiates disorder. The constitution of matter therefore requires that the light is separated from the object that it illuminates. The Astronomer similarly distances himself from the earth. "

Michel Cassé, p.14, Le psychanalyste, le physicien et le réel, 1987, Radio France/Éditions Poiesis ISBN 2-905525-06-1

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Art and science equality?

"In rough and naïve men, one conviction also predominates in their mores and even in their tastes: they are the best possible. In cultured people there reigns a certain tolerance in this respect: but one holds all the more rigorously to one's own criterion of Good and Evil: according to which one wants to have not only the most refined taste but also the only legitimate one. This is commonly reigning form of barbarism: that one doesn't even realize that morality is a matter of taste."

-Pierre Klossowski

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Visible Dialogues

Hello Everyone,

I have been looking at Deleuze's Dialogues II and it is interesting, because it was supposed to be part of a series of interviews, but he refused to be interviewed and looked at a situation of a dialogue instead. Here is what he has to say:

"The art of constructing a problem is very important: you invent a problem, a problem position, before finding a solution. None of this happens in an interview, a conversation, a discussion. Even reflection, whether it's alone, between two or more is not enough. Above all, not reflection. Objections are even worse. every time someone someone puts an objection I want to say 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else'. Objections have never contributed anything. It is the same when I am asked a general question. The aim is not to answer the question, it's to get out, to get out of it."