BookOfHackteria

Publisher: Dock18, Editors: Mario Purkathofer, Olivier Marti, Verena Kuni

Intro/Editorial
Marc Dusseiller: Historisch, Keynote Mario Purkathofer: Olivier Marti: Verena Kuni:

Strange "schiefe" Bio Graphies
... interviews and/or minimal compact portraits here - hacked bios: rather as a last chapter?

Marc Dusseiller, Andy Gracie, Antony Hall, Alejo Duque, Victor Mazon aka Animazon, Stefan Doepner, Verena Friedrich, Urs Gaudenz, Nick Fankhauser, Effi Tanner (portraits)

Projects by participants
Descripe a thing, a tool, a space, a project, a creature, an Idea, vision, dream or an technology (1 Image & Text A5) by

Marc Dusseiller, Andy Gracie, Antony Hall, Alejo Duque, Victor Mazon aka Animazon, Stefan Doepner, Verena Friedrich, Urs Gaudenz, Nick Fankhauser, Effi Tanner, Lisa Thalheim, Erik Reimhult, Gabor Csucs, Tobias Hoffmann, Pei Wen Liu, Kirsty Boyle, Rene Bauer, Olivier Marti, Verena Kuni, Mario Purkathofer, Curt Walter Tannhäuser, Christina von Rotz "Freie Energieroschung?"

angefragt: Marc, Pia, Christina von Rotz, Andreas Hellmann, Shusha

Comic
[Katja Rickenbach http://www.katirickenbach.ch/]

Topics from the Lab
''[VK] Folks, anonymity in sharing cultures may be a nice thing and/or a necessity. However, our purposes and goals here are different. Thus, please: Always include your name and/or initials. Who speaks does matter here. I already tried to link the topics prevoiusly added anonymously back to names - and where I had no idea, I inserted "[Mysterious Anonymous mumbles:]". Feel free to change this into initials as well ;)''

''[VK] While I am still continuing with extracting Lab Topics from my field notes, I will also subsequently extract and add those I'd consider as good points to continue with for further reflection to the Topics & Questions / Statements & Answers-Section. I already added a related chapter/paragraph and will fill it step-by-step... ''

Platforms
Alejo: Live CD mit allen Inhalten. Kampf der Plattformen. Hackteria. Dock18. Jeder ist seine eigene Plattform. Das Buch ist eine Plattform. Plattformen für wen? Wer soll uns lesen/ausführen/kopieren?

Cultures of Sharing vs. Originality of the Artist
[VK] May I also dare to say: The culture of sharing needs not only openness - but also quite a bit of commitment and discipline: in documentation, reflection/editing, publication pf protocols, proceedings, research questions, methods and results ...

''[VK] dares to ask: a) Who introduced this and in which context? Pls. expand ... b) "originality of the artist"? Yee-ha! So we are into archaeology of artist's myths as well, right? Seriously, I think this may indeed be a good topic to bring up. If you like, I could also insert some passages from essays I wrote on the issuec... Btw: The artist-as-scientist is a - if not THE - top fashionable role model these days ... (and this could be also said for the scientist-as-artist, btw.)''

[Mysterious Anonymous mumbles:] Only Pornostars are more fashionable ...

''[VK] No, I don't think so. They may sell better, but there is a difference between a role model and someone you consider as a star you can buy/admire for your personal pleasure, right? You will like the tits of the porn star and you may wish you would earn her salary. However, you neither want to look like her nor to be looked at by others like she is. And I am quite sure you would not wanna make her job. And you don't want your daughter/son to become a porn star. (Even in case you rightly wish to be/come an alert, intelligent, straight forward business women like her, earning your money with poor hormone driven xy chromosome errors of nature).''

''[VK] OK, this debate may be continued in the gender section of this chapter. Except for we would proceed into a debate about the gendering of the role model/image of 'the' artist, 'the' lab scientist, 'the' artist-scientist-universal-genius. Who is, indeed, usually conceived/depicted as male. While the female gender/sex is on the side of the object (scil: model, muse, bacterium). By mentioning this, I do not want to suggest at all that any among the Hackteria lab participants would believe in or act according to old fashioned stereotypes like these. However, based upon experience these stereotypes are still very present in the common public perception, if not dominating it (including the public perception of Art & Sci projects). Thus, it is an issue that can aptly be raised in this context here.''

Ethics (formerly known as: Gewissensbildung)
''[VK says:] OK, this was indeed a returning issue, we had plenty of that in the evening discussions, on the panel and in the chats. Thus more on that a.o. in the protcols section (forthcominng)''

Gender
Effi: Neue Mischwesen und Hybride werden geschaffen? Neue Formen der Existenz, Lebewesen mit/ohne Wahrnehmung mit/ohne/ausser Kontrolle. Räume in Verbindung mit Körpern, Ratten mit Elektronik, magnetisierte Tiere, gespaltene Enzyme, Elefanten mit Heissleimwolken, ... die Suche nach neuen Lebensformen kann beginnen ...

''[VK says: Very good point(s)! Ah, and a propos gender - this leads me to add some more topics/questions below as well.. - but in these case rather related to the question of Lab Polictics (gender relations among the humans) ;))]''

''[VK adds: Another link we can make to gender issues that came to my mind. Sex-Gender-issues in bacteria are of course very different from those in humans. I would not really call it 'hybrid'. However, if there is no need for sex to reproduce (well, some do this DNA exchange with special organs that are similar to sex organs???), what can we say about the bodily encounters of bacteria? Sure, some are connecting in cluster/swarm manner - and as far as I know its not even sure if this is for social reasons, survival strategies or whatever. But there are 1:1 encounters as well. Ok, these are very loose thoughts only, but I wondered if anybody else went into that as well?]''

Sensation and Perception
''[VK says] This is a topic I would like to introduce. We had some loose threads during the lab discussions as well (forthcoming in the protocols section). However, I think this is also a topic from the lab that should be kept and further researched....''

Lab Sneak Peak
''[VK] While I am still continuing with extracting and editing stuff from the chat prots etc, I will also subsequently extract and add those I'd consider as good points to continue with for further reflection to the Topics & Questions / Statements & Answers-Section. I already added a related chapter/paragraph and will fill it step-by-step... ''

April 7, 2010

[copy aus chatmonolog an wildprovider]

[19:39:24] miss.gunst: ahoi mario, [19:40:04] miss.gunst: sehe euch als abwesend? [19:41:03] miss.gunst: dachte ja, ihr haettet gerade die offene cam session auf dem plan [19:42:17] miss.gunst: jedenfalls: sinnvoll waere es, ich koennte ein bisschen gucken [19:43:21] miss.gunst: ansonsten stelle ich eben erst mal ein allgemeineres fragenpaeckchen ins wiki + auf die liste. [19:44:54] miss.gunst: da koennen dann alle nach belieben heute nacht noch oder morgen ueber den tag antworten schreiben [19:46:10] miss.gunst: und, nach wie vor: individuelle skypechat-kontakte (jedenfalls bei denen, die ihre rechner im lab dabei und online haben) waere eben auch sonst ueber den tag ff fein [21:21:00] miss.gunst: huhu? [21:23:00] miss.gunst: ok - pingt mich einfach mal an, wenn ihr nochmal ein fenster aufmacht heute. ansonsten wuerde ich sagen: [21:24:41] miss.gunst: a) weise doch bitte die leute auf die BookOfHackteria-Seite hin. Da sammele ich naemlich die topics und fragen - und es hat eigentlich jetzt schon genug stoff, dass sich alle hinreichend damit vergnuegen koennten fuer den rest der zeit [21:25:08] miss.gunst: [ich werde aber trotzdem heute und morgen noch einiges hineinpacken] [21:25:46] miss.gunst: b) waere super, wenn vielleicht doch morgen einige ihr direktes persoenliches chat-fenster aufmachen koennten [21:26:10] miss.gunst: c) und wir dann auch mal ein gemeinsames gucken mit cam einrichten koennten [21:26:18] miss.gunst: merci merci

[Note: The next sections are only excerpts from our protocols, for 1:1 prots are nice and in a way fit to scientific lab prot rules, yet I'd think roughly edited and -in case the original was in German - translated (!) chat stuff is more fruitful for our purposes here).

''Topics for further debate are highlight in bold letters // comments inserted in italics... [VK]''

[23:14:09] miss.gunst: now stefan and his 'maze'

[Stefan expands on his idea to buid a maze from anorganic (and in case) organic particles as a 'playground'-like environment for bacteria, perhaps tardigrades or magnetic bacteria (the latter, as he expects them more prone to interaction via magnetic/electromagnetic stimulation and manipulation)]

[23:15:01] miss.gunst: ok, a maze - like a maze for lab rats? ... [23:15:09] miss.gunst: only with tardigrades, in this case? [23:15:17] miss.gunst: i'd assume, they would hate you

[so far for the utopia of interaction >> probably we'll have to stay with: manipulation-induced reaction(s) as a more precise term so far, right?]

[del: organisatorial stuff]

[23:16:28] miss.gunst: well, this really sounds like guantanamo for tardigrades...

OK: Even if relating the maze/playground concept that directly to humans-against-humans cruelty and torture is going too far, the question of playful manipulation and puppet-mastery could be a serious topic - for artists-in-labs, but for sure not limited to these.

(This is again a topic closely related to "Hackteria Politcs" (see below) and to traditional images of/projections on as well as the self-understatement of 'the' lab scientist and the position the artists-scientists might claim in relation to the latter. However, as I am also into game research and game development/design, my interest here is probably twofold. Puppet-mastery and the position of the puppet master is definitly an important topic in that context as well...)

''[Note: This is still im process/progress. I realised we brought up quite a lot of issues - even considering all the usual chat bulk in between - and it may be worth to further work on it]''

Topics & Questions (Collection for Hackteria Inteviews/Statements/Debate)
[VK]

''Please note I: For statements & answers, please use the next section and (if possible) refer directly to this collection of topics and questions, i.e. by copy-pasting the complete topic line (with numbering). Do not forget to include your initials (i.e. [MD] for Marc Dusseiller), for a) the publication will be cc-by and b) "Wer spricht?" does matter. Definitely.''

''Please note II: Come back to this section from time to time. I'll add tpoics & questions step-by-step (and perhaps others will add some as well).''

''Please note III: Yes, dear two-legged artist-researcher bacteria. I'd really like to interact with you ''

I General:
''Please imagine questions like: "Are you interested in/concerned about... ?" and/or "What is your interest in ..." and/or "Do you relate your work with ...? And if so, how?" under each of the following sub-topics.'' ''I do not expect everybody to write statements related to all topics nor to answer all questions collected here. However, I would be happy in case you choose at least some.''

I.1. DIY Access to Science & Scientific Research/Methods

I.2. Relations, tensions & convergences between academic science, popular science & amateur science

I.3. Alternate approaches, methods and tools

I.4. Instruments of Imagination & Philosophical Toys

I.5. How-to’s of How-to’s & Skill Sharing

I.6. Playing and/as learning

I.7. Potentials & Problems of Inter/Trans/Para/Pata-Disciplinary Work

II Art & Sci:
II.1. What is the position/the role of ...

a. ... art / artists

b. ... images (notabene: not necessarily limited to artistic images)

c. ... aesthetics within these (s.a.) fields?

II.2. What can we expect from approaching/entering another field of profession and or merging into it?

a. In case someone has a professional background as a scientist: What are the moviations for an interest in artistic methods/approaches (or: methods/approaches one would rather consider as artistic than as scientific)?

b. In case omeone has a p professional background as an artist: What hat are the moviations for an interest scientific methods/approaches (or: methods/approaches one would rather consider as scientific than as artistic)?

''(Note: these questions return posed in a more personal way in paragraph IV - and indeed you coud easily exchange "we" against "you" and "someone has" against "you have"... However, I'd assume these question should also be considered from a broader perspective, as whatever one considers as his/her personal attitude is strongly influenced by cultural traditions, social commons etc.

''I. e.: What is 'the' image of the artist/scientist - What is usally considered as 'artistic' method/approach in 'contrast' to 'scientific' methods/approaches. '' Indeed:

II.3. Is there a difference (betweeen artistic and scientific methods, however parallel proceedings might seem)? And if so, should it be kept or blurred/dissolved?

II.4. Is Hackteria a research about borderline positions? If so, what are the risks? What may be the gains? And what the losses?

III Hackteria politics:
III.1. Will the wetware please stand up?

(Note: This question is loosely referring to the title of Sandy Stone's essay "Will The Real Body Please Stand Up? Boundary Stories About Virtual Cultures", in: Michael Benedikt (Ed.): Cyberspace. First Steps. Cambridge/Ms.: MIT Press, 1991; however, another text I had in mind in this context is Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's "Can the Subaltern Speak?", in: Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Eds.): Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Chicago: Illinois University Press, 1988. Both for good reasons. In case you've read one of these or both, you will know why.)

III.2. Hackteria Gender Politics

AnyBody willing to contribute statements on this issue?

Note: I am not so much thinking of bacteria gender - but rather about gender issues among the ab researchers/artists.

This is not directly related to Hackteria, but to the nascent community of biohackers that Hackteria is kinda sorta a part of. It's also extremely subjective and poorly defined.

''[VK whispers: Well, at least I would think this is definitely related rather directly at least to what I was thinking of when raising gender issues under the topic Hackteia gender politics. I am happy you (who? why don't you add a name to your voice?) are raising these points. More below...]''

There is very interesting research into different thinking styles and their impact on how technology is done. The keywords here are butch and femme thinking. These are thinking styles that do not neatly map onto sex or gender, but there seems to be some correlation. The current picture seems to be that butch thinking is somewhat more prevalent among men and femme thinking more prevalent among women. (reference lost... does somebody know the research I'm talking about?)

''[VK: Sure. I might also browse my shelves for the references in case you think this would make sense? Personally, I was and still am not that comfortable with the butch/femme thing, as it still strongly reated to traditional gender dichotomies and provides according modes of behaviour, even in the sense of role models. Yet at the same time I'd absolutely agree with politics of difference, including the acknowledgement of people's need in case to define themselves according to role models I myself feel not that easy to assign...]''

Butch and femme thinkers approach technology differently. They view it differently and they want different things from it. To briefly summarize, the butch style of thinking is more about technology as a means of control and power, and about ultimate technological solutions. The femme style is more about augmentation and small but very practical tools to support humans in their tasks, about technology that integrates well into people's lives but doesn't necessarily dominate it.

Now, biology is traditionally a field with a high percentage of women in it. Considering this, it is interesting to note that biotech and biohacking seem to be a lot more male-dominated - not as extreme as, for example, computer science or oldschool computer hacking, but noticeably so. The point is that there seems to be a butchification of biology as it evolves into a technological field. The biohacking scene in particular and its values - what is considered cool and worthy of effort - seem to be developing into a rather butch direction.

We may want to think about this development for two reasons. Reason one: with the current state of affairs - more women into femme thinking, more men into butch thinking - we have another evolving society-transforming technology of considerable expected economic impact, developing into a direction that is alien to many women's thinking style, which makes active participation a lot more difficult for them.

Reason two: another result of the aforementioned research was the insight that femme thinking is a lot more compatible with sustained development and a more conscious approach to the risks of new technologies.

So, question: Is it possible to influence these evolving fields of biotech and biohacking such that they end up being inclusive of everyone - butch-thinking women and men, as well as femme-thinking men and women?

''[VK says: My answer would be/is. Hopefully, yes - just as in any other field of profession. However, I'd think this is not so much - or maybe better: only as one string among many others - a question of technology/technologies, but rather one of individual and social concepts, attitudes and practices. Inclusion needs acknowledgment of difference. Active engagement in politics of difference. Which is not an easy task, for all of us...]''

''[ VK: (This is kind of extra BookOfHackteria, as it's the recommendation of a recent exhibition and event) May I perhaps recommend in this context the lecture of Judith Jack Halberstam on April 25, 2010 at Corner College in the context of the show [http://www.ichtier-dumensch.ch ich tier! (du mensch) – du tier! (ich mensch) i animal! (you human) – you animal! (i human)] - note there's also a short interview with Halberstam on site]''

IV Personal / Detailed Questions (Systematic)
''Pls. note: I do not expect everybody to answer all questions collected here. However, I would be happy in case you choose at least some. And: Yes, you can of course add questions you'd like to be answered by others and/or by yourself.''

IV.1. What is your interest in Hackteria (in general) and in active participation in Hackteria Lab?

IV.2. What do you expect from your participation? What might others expect?

IV.3. What is your personal access (and attitude) to the whole Art & Sci thing?

IV.4. Do you consider yourself as (a) an artist (b) a scientist (c) both (d) none (e) else: _____ (pls. insert)

IV.5. In case...

a. you consider yourself as an artist: What do you expect from science/scientists?

b. you consider yourself as a scientist: What do you expect from art?

c. you consider yourself as an artist and scientist: Are you just fine with it or are there conflicts as well?

d. you consider yourself as none of these: How would you describe your position within this field?

e. you choose the option "else": Great. Let us know more...

IV.6. How important is professionality (in terms of education, background, skills) for your work? (See also above, I.2.)

a. your own professionality

b. the professionality of your collaborators

IV.7. ... (more to come)

V Personal / Detailed Questions (Project-Related)
Note: This Section will done in p-mail fornat / personal txt chats and transferred to this area later

VI Questions of the Day
VI.1. What were your personal highlights of the day?

VI.2. What were the collective highlights of the day?

Section for Answers & Statements
''Pls. insert your statements & answers to the topics/questions raised in the section above here.''

''Pls. refer to the numberation, simply use copy'n'paste to do so''

''Pls. do not forget to add [YourInitials]''

Thanks!

'Note: This section is the playground. The bootcamp section for the obligatory exercises follows below.'

In response to: III.2. Hackteria Gender Politics

'[VK: Please note the section below is also to be found above, thus I copied my comments/adds from above below as well... Should we keep both or is this too confusing perhaps - which one should be kept?]'

This is not directly related to Hackteria, but to the nascent community of biohackers that Hackteria is kinda sorta a part of. It's also extremely subjective and poorly defined.

''[VK whispers: Well, at least I would think this is definitely related rather directly at least to what I was thinking of when raising gender issues under the topic Hackteia gender politics. I am happy you (who? why don't you add a name to your voice?) are raising these points. More below...]''

There is very interesting research into different thinking styles and their impact on how technology is done. The keywords here are butch and femme thinking. These are thinking styles that do not neatly map onto sex or gender, but there seems to be some correlation. The current picture seems to be that butch thinking is somewhat more prevalent among men and femme thinking more prevalent among women. (reference lost... does somebody know the research I'm talking about?)

''[VK: Sure. I might also browse my shelves for the references in case you think this would make sense? Personally, I was and still am not that comfortable with the butch/femme thing, as it still strongly reated to traditional gender dichotomies and provides according modes of behaviour, even in the sense of role models. Yet at the same time I'd absolutely agree with politics of difference, including the acknowledgement of people's need in case to define themselves according to role models I myself feel not that easy to assign...]''

Butch and femme thinkers approach technology differently. They view it differently and they want different things from it. To briefly summarize, the butch style of thinking is more about technology as a means of control and power, and about ultimate technological solutions. The femme style is more about augmentation and small but very practical tools to support humans in their tasks, about technology that integrates well into people's lives but doesn't necessarily dominate it.

Now, biology is traditionally a field with a high percentage of women in it. Considering this, it is interesting to note that biotech and biohacking seem to be a lot more male-dominated - not as extreme as, for example, computer science or oldschool computer hacking, but noticeably so. The point is that there seems to be a butchification of biology as it evolves into a technological field. The biohacking scene in particular and its values - what is considered cool and worthy of effort - seem to be developing into a rather butch direction.

We may want to think about this development for two reasons. Reason one: with the current state of affairs - more women into femme thinking, more men into butch thinking - we have another evolving society-transforming technology of considerable expected economic impact, developing into a direction that is alien to many women's thinking style, which makes active participation a lot more difficult for them.

Reason two: another result of the aforementioned research was the insight that femme thinking is a lot more compatible with sustained development and a more conscious approach to the risks of new technologies.

So, question: Is it possible to influence these evolving fiels of biotech and biohacking such that they end up being inclusive of everyone - butch-thinking women and men, as well as femme-thinking men and women?

''[VK says: My answer would be/is. Hopefully, yes - just as in any other field of profession. However, I'd think this is not so much - or maybe better: only as one string among many others - a question of technology/technologies, but rather one of individual and social concepts, attitudes and practices. Inclusion needs acknowledgment of difference. Active engagement in politics of difference. Which is not an easy task, for all of us...]''

''[ VK: (This is kind of extra BookOfHackteria, as it's the recommendation of a recent exhibition and event) May I perhaps recommend in this context the lecture of Judith Jack Halberstam on April 25, 2010 at Corner College in the context of the show [http://www.ichtier-dumensch.ch ich tier! (du mensch) – du tier! (ich mensch) i animal! (you human) – you animal! (i human)] - note there's also a short interview with Halberstam on site]''

Section for Minimal Compact Q+A Portraits
''Please, please each lab participant should fill this tiny little minimal package, consisting of the two elements below - the "Minimal Compact Lab Protocol" and "The Chosen Object". Did I write "please"? Wrong. Whoever forgets and/or fails will be punished with being the one who has to clean up the dishes and the petri dishes and the tartigrade cages each day during the next five Hackteria Labs. Ah, and btw. you should also expect to be 'invited' to additional clean up sessions in my kitchen. Naked.''

Copy and Paste the empty form and fill it. Now.

[Very deadly deadline: Fri April 9, 2010 late afternoon]

[Looking forward to all the happy lab slaves for the next Hackterias we'll get into contract this easy way ;))]

''Update: OK, relax. As of April 9, we decided to postpone the whole book proceedings. Accordingly, the implicit menace immediatly transmutes into a friendly reminder. And the cleaning-up-the-kitchen-naked thing into a gracious job offer (unpaid, but for your pleasure).''

[start form]

MINIMAL COMPACT LAB PROTOCOL
Name:

Profession:

Location (aka City/Country, Galaxy, whatever):

The project I brought with me to Zurich Hackteria Lab:

The question(s) I brought with me:

My fav findings of the Zurich Hackteria Lab Days:

My fav questions / problems of the Zurich Hackteria Lab Days:

What I want to continue with / further explore:

THE CHOSEN OBJECT (SUBJECT)
1. picture (photo and/or sketch)

2. text (title and/or tag(s), comment

[end form]

Pics from the Lab


Lactobacillus c. (PR pic), as imagined by miss.gunst

Journalistic Experiments (text,bilder)
Materials, Ideas, Portraits, Sketches, Advertising, Playground, ...