解开活力、绿色和自然性的纠缠

Hauser Jens
{"title":"解开活力、绿色和自然性的纠缠","authors":"Hauser Jens","doi":"10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.4.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their technical nature, humans tend to culturally hyper-compensate for what they feel they have lost. This media archaeological talk discusses two case studies. The first concerns contemporary art forms that employ biotechnologies in actual practice. Paradoxically, they emphasize both their ‘aliveness’ and authenticity on the one hand, and their explicit technicity and artificiality on the other. This article aims at performing a parallel deconstruction of two positively connoted tropes in cultural history and in the arts: aliveness and greenness, terms both putatively non-technological, and often uncritically associated with the idea of naturalness. The first concept, aliveness, can be analyzed against the background of the trans-historical pattern of ‘enlivenment’ in artistic practice. With the advent of software, hardware and wetware in the late 20 th century, artistic practices have demonstrated that the concepts of ‘life’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled. First, art employing soft and hardware has dealt with the animation of the technological ; later, art that is employing wetware implies the technologization of that which is already animate. Both trends together imply that ‘alive- ness’ cannot stand in for ‘naturalness’ any more. We encounter a similar problem with the culturally pervasive greenness trope: Aliveness and greenness are linked through ‘biofacticity’, the idea of biological artifacts that at the same time grow and indeed are technically constructed from the beginning – the concepts ‘green’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled as well. ‘Green’, symbolically often associated with the ‘natural’, will be addressed as the most anthropocentric of all colours, crucial in human self-understanding beyond colour, as percept, medium, material biological agency, semantic construct and ideology.","PeriodicalId":216595,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of PNRPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law.","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disentangling Aliveness, Greennes and Naturalness\",\"authors\":\"Hauser Jens\",\"doi\":\"10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.4.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their technical nature, humans tend to culturally hyper-compensate for what they feel they have lost. This media archaeological talk discusses two case studies. The first concerns contemporary art forms that employ biotechnologies in actual practice. Paradoxically, they emphasize both their ‘aliveness’ and authenticity on the one hand, and their explicit technicity and artificiality on the other. This article aims at performing a parallel deconstruction of two positively connoted tropes in cultural history and in the arts: aliveness and greenness, terms both putatively non-technological, and often uncritically associated with the idea of naturalness. The first concept, aliveness, can be analyzed against the background of the trans-historical pattern of ‘enlivenment’ in artistic practice. With the advent of software, hardware and wetware in the late 20 th century, artistic practices have demonstrated that the concepts of ‘life’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled. First, art employing soft and hardware has dealt with the animation of the technological ; later, art that is employing wetware implies the technologization of that which is already animate. Both trends together imply that ‘alive- ness’ cannot stand in for ‘naturalness’ any more. We encounter a similar problem with the culturally pervasive greenness trope: Aliveness and greenness are linked through ‘biofacticity’, the idea of biological artifacts that at the same time grow and indeed are technically constructed from the beginning – the concepts ‘green’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled as well. ‘Green’, symbolically often associated with the ‘natural’, will be addressed as the most anthropocentric of all colours, crucial in human self-understanding beyond colour, as percept, medium, material biological agency, semantic construct and ideology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":216595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of PNRPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law.\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of PNRPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.4.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of PNRPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2019.4.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在他们的技术本性中,人类倾向于在文化上过度补偿他们感到失去的东西。这次媒体考古讲座讨论了两个案例研究。第一个问题涉及在实际实践中使用生物技术的当代艺术形式。矛盾的是,他们一方面强调他们的“活力”和真实性,另一方面又强调他们明确的技术性和人为性。本文旨在对文化历史和艺术中两个积极内涵的比喻进行平行解构:活力和绿色,这两个术语都是非技术性的,并且通常与自然的概念不加批判地联系在一起。第一个概念,活动性,可以放在艺术实践中“活动性”的跨历史模式的背景下分析。随着20世纪后期软件、硬件和湿软件的出现,艺术实践表明,“生活”和“自然”的概念需要解耦。首先,艺术运用软、硬件处理了动画的技术;后来,使用湿软件的艺术意味着已经有生命的东西的技术化。这两种趋势合在一起意味着“活力”不能再代替“自然”了。我们在文化上普遍存在的绿色修辞中遇到了类似的问题:活力和绿色是通过“生物性”联系在一起的,生物制品的概念同时也在生长,实际上从一开始就在技术上构建——“绿色”和“自然”的概念也需要分离。“绿色”通常象征着与“自然”联系在一起,将被视为所有颜色中最以人类为中心的颜色,作为感知、媒介、物质生物代理、语义结构和意识形态,在人类超越颜色的自我理解中至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disentangling Aliveness, Greennes and Naturalness
In their technical nature, humans tend to culturally hyper-compensate for what they feel they have lost. This media archaeological talk discusses two case studies. The first concerns contemporary art forms that employ biotechnologies in actual practice. Paradoxically, they emphasize both their ‘aliveness’ and authenticity on the one hand, and their explicit technicity and artificiality on the other. This article aims at performing a parallel deconstruction of two positively connoted tropes in cultural history and in the arts: aliveness and greenness, terms both putatively non-technological, and often uncritically associated with the idea of naturalness. The first concept, aliveness, can be analyzed against the background of the trans-historical pattern of ‘enlivenment’ in artistic practice. With the advent of software, hardware and wetware in the late 20 th century, artistic practices have demonstrated that the concepts of ‘life’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled. First, art employing soft and hardware has dealt with the animation of the technological ; later, art that is employing wetware implies the technologization of that which is already animate. Both trends together imply that ‘alive- ness’ cannot stand in for ‘naturalness’ any more. We encounter a similar problem with the culturally pervasive greenness trope: Aliveness and greenness are linked through ‘biofacticity’, the idea of biological artifacts that at the same time grow and indeed are technically constructed from the beginning – the concepts ‘green’ and ‘nature’ need to be uncoupled as well. ‘Green’, symbolically often associated with the ‘natural’, will be addressed as the most anthropocentric of all colours, crucial in human self-understanding beyond colour, as percept, medium, material biological agency, semantic construct and ideology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信