Lost in Translation: Ratio to Ordinal Categorizations
Initially, this week’s unit on Biotechnology and Art partially seemed like an extension of the last unit on Medicine, Technology and Art. Much of this was because we mentioned many of the same artists as Unit 4 such as Orlan, Stelarc, Eduardo Kac and Kathy High in addition to a few artists exclusive to this unit such as Joe Davis and Adam Zaretsky. [1] [2] [3] Another reason for this seemingly continuous experience may be stemming from a human inclination to create divisions and discrete units where clean splits do not actually exist. What most intrigued me most this week came from a realization of how difficult it is to define biotech art and their artists and more generally, how feeble any attempt is that discretizes the continuous.
 |
| Discretizing the Continuous or how computers understand audio, etc. <http://revolution-computing.typepad.com/.a/6a010534b1db25970b017c3755470d970b-500wi> |
Categorizations seem to drive our understanding, as our brains are evolutionarily wired for it, but they also create issues in themselves. [4] Like the genres of our music, the dewey decimal system of our libraries, the pixels of our screens, the departments of our universities, and the units of our courses we often create these buckets for smaller constituents without ever questioning the divisions themselves for they provide much utility in our ease of storage, re-call and communication. [5] When our divisions fail us, we often blame the difficulty of categorization on the unit itself instead of the system. It’s much more convenient to label the thing, such as the platypus, as elusive, than unroot our entire system itself for inadequacy.
 |
<http://i.imgur.com/SPpuf.jpg> |
In Ellen Levy’s essay "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Categorizations", she quotes Edward Shanken, stating that there are “biases built into current scientific methodologies. These hidden judgments often underlay acts of categorization.” [4] Much of this need for categorization, however, seems to stem not so much from a blatant attempt to impose power over the subject, but rather to formulate an understanding of how they fit together in the universe, or more specifically, the universe we construct in our minds. This seems to be built upon an assumption, however, that the universe is already cleanly arranged and our discovery is merely an attempt to find the right point of view that allows us to simply look up to reveal an underlying division from which it all folds outwards.
 |
| Dewey Decimal Categories. The dilemma: where do the materials for this class belong? <http://slworkshop.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Dewey_Decimal_System_Poster.jpg> |
It is simultaneously beautiful, necessary and dangerous that humans have the need to simplify the universe in an attempt to understand it. By creating these bite-sized units of life, we can package them up and digest them in our minds easily. I believe that understanding the world discretely is a natural human bias, driven from our individualistic understanding of the world. If our consciousness were more communally driven like bees, slime molds or even siphonophores, perhaps we would be more inclined to acknowledge how even our own existence relies heavily on the multitudes of bacteria living in our guts; in fact, our very bodies are comprised of 10x more bacteria than “human” cells. [5] The trouble with discrete categorizations is most apparent when trying to find a place for these very things that straddle the lines. Where should the readings for this class be stored in a Dewey Decimal based database? (see third image)
[1] Vesna, Victoria, narr. “BioTech Art Lectures Part I.” N.p., . web. 5 Nov 2012.
[2] Vesna, Victoria, narr. “BioTech Art Lectures Part II.” N.p., . web. 5 Nov 2012.
[3] Vesna, Victoria, narr. “BioTech Art Lectures Part III.” N.p., . web. 5 Nov 2012.
[4] "Are Our Brains Wired for Categorization?". ScientificAmerican. ScientificAmerican, n.d. Web. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wired-for-categorization/ >[5] " DESMA 9: Art, Science & Technology Syllabus" Uconline. Uconline, n.d. Web. <https://cole2.uconline.edu/courses/346337/pages/syllabus?module_item_id=6472119>
[6] Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." (2007).
[7] "What the bacteria in your gut have to do with your physical and mental health" Huffington Post. Huffington Post, n.d. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/gut-bacteria-health_n_6480580.html>
It was very interesting to read about your idea of division. I personally haven’t thought about it much since week 1 but it was fascinating to see how you saw it in this week’s lectures. Categorization is definitely we do something as a society, and as you said, it’s a way for humans to understand the human experience in a more clear way. However, what if we didn’t conceptualize things with this categorization idea, what would the world look like to us? It’s a very intriguing subject. What our universities would look like, how we’d classify animals, etc. I loved your sentence, “The universe is already cleanly arranged and our discovery is merely an attempt to find the right point of view that allows us to simply look up to reveal an underlying division from which it all folds outwards.” This summed up your ideas perfectly and you’re right, it is cleanly arranged but as humans, we have a human bias.
ReplyDeletei found your blog to be very interesting. I really enjoyed your connection between this weeks topic and last week's. I also like your point how it is convenient for us to label things and place them in a system that makes sense for us.
ReplyDelete