Ed Dunkel Posted March 3, 2004 She should get a T. bridgesii monstrose (Penis Plant) and put some human hair genes in it!?!!? http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinte...FCFC?id=ns24361 Laura Cinti Laura Cinti's transgenic cactus has been shown at the University of Hertford, UK, and Fresh Art 2002 in London. She is researching interactive art at Goldsmith's College London, and her next art project - c-lab - in collaboration with Howard Boland will begin online. She grew up in South Africa and lives in London. Why a cactus with human hair? Cactuses are not known for their beauty, and they are seen as fleshy, meaty and monolithic. I'm interested in the anti-sexuality that these phallic stems with extruding spines signify. Hair is a sign of reproduction, a sign of our bodies changing, becoming or being sexual. So the cactus with hair becomes a sexual symbol. I think this perversion resonates with the cultural climate surrounding genetic engineering: transgenics is seen as anti-sexual, asexual, because it directly interferes with the natural reproductive process. The Cactus Project brings that perversion into focus and reverses it. The cactus with its hairs coming out is showing all the desires, all the signs of sexuality. It doesn't want to be trapped. It wants to be released. The desire is to enter the world as a species from a mythical landscape. I'm interested in this desire, this wanting to come out. What did you do to the cactus? It is a transgenic artwork involving the fusion of human genetic material into the cactus genome. The result is a cactus that expresses human hair. What has been the public reaction? Bald men are particularly interested in the work. There has been lots of negative reaction. Someone described the cactus as an organic dodo. Someone else found it humorous. People confront me with, "What do you think you're doing, playing God?" One scientist screamed at me that my work showed an extremely negative view of biotechnology. I wanted people to be involved in the whole project so I showed the cactus, the lab reports, emails about the work. Lots of people have tried to buy them - but they're not for sale. What has it been like working with scientists? The response from biotechnologists in the US was phenomenal; from those in the UK it was largely negative. They said that genetics should be used only to serve an ever-growing population. I ended up working with biotechnologists in the UK, but there are problems for an artist. I am disadvantaged by my lack of technical understanding. I have no ownership over the technical processes and my contract means I cannot name the lab, and that I have to be supervised when I want access to the cactus in the lab. I had a lot of debate with them. There were originally eight cactuses. How many are alive? Two. They've been imploding, shrivelling. What's your ambition with this project? I'd like to set one of my cactuses free. Do you plan to do more work with bioengineered life forms? Transgenesis has become an important part of our existence. Transgenic crops are part of our landscapes, transgenic animals populate farms. It was imperative for me to work in the medium of genetics. All of a sudden myths, reality and borderlines were here. I'm working with a collaborator, Howard Boland. We are planning a transplantation project, which includes planting a transgenic in the wild, not as a political work, but to highlight issues and processes by being subtle and violent. What was going though your mind while you were making this piece. My ideas evolved as the project evolved. At the beginning it was fascination. I was constantly documenting the work. I became very close to the cactuses. My work is about research and exploration. Is beauty part of your artistic aim? You can see it in some of my work. The cactus itself is soft and succulent. Homepage http://www.geocities.com/transgenicart/ [ 03. March 2004, 17:14: Message edited by: Ed Dunkel ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M S Smith Posted March 4, 2004 "I'm interested in the anti-sexuality that these phallic stems with extruding spines signify......" Ok, excuse me for being so uncultured, but if it wasn't for her words about the subject this wouldn't be art about anti-sexuality at all, but rather closer to science. Take away the words and I doubt that anyone would view the plant in any manner similar to her own. Instead everyone might look at it, admire it or revulsion in it, find beauty, curiosity or ugliness in it, study it, and might even take notice of the penile aspect of it,...but "anti-sexuality." That's what I don't like about modern art, it often lacks a story itself, but rather needs the artist to interprete it for the viewer through the artists own words, whether that be a placard next to the art, or an article to inform others what it is and means. I think I will stick with admiring art that stands on its own and makes some sort of universal sense without the artist suggesting what it is I should interprete it to mean. That to me is not art at all, but rather using suggestion towards others to make a personal statement that the art itself fails to provide. Personally I find it a bit on the revulsive side. ~Michael~ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darklight Posted March 8, 2004 M S Smith: Ok, excuse me for being so uncultured... Don't take it so personally, some ppl just had waaay too much Freud as a child, and I suspect the artist was one of them. Camille Paglia was another Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smogs Posted March 8, 2004 i think your right smith... i can see how it could be interpreted as an anti sex object... big phallic like pillar (regarded as good) mixed with messy hair (seen as a bad thing). BUT i would have thought that one species expressing a different species genes is much more creepy. Simular to when they grew the ear on the back of a rat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
