Both animators and bio-artists bring the inanimate to life, albeit in very different ways. My question here pertains to The Tissue Culture and Art Project (TCA), a high profile bio-art group based in Australia. For the 2004 piece Victimless Leather--A Prototype of Stitch-less Jacket Grown in a Technoscientific "Body," the TCA grew living cells on a foundational structure in the shape of a small coat. According to their website,
This artistic grown garment will confront people with the moral implications of wearing parts of dead animals for protective and aesthetic reasons and will further confront notions of relationships with living systems manipulated or otherwise....Our intention is not to provide yet another consumer product but rather to raise questions about our exploitation of other living beings.
Engaging with at least 1 quote from Oron Catts's "The Art of the Semi-Living," answer the following questions: What does Catts mean by "semi-living"? Do you think that the TCA's piece Victimless Leather (check out the picture above) encourages discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings" or is itself an example of the exploitation of a living being? If you need more information on Victimless Leather, take a look at http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au/vl/vl.html .
75 comments:
In Catts’ article “The Art of Semi-Living” he refers to the term semi-living as one of the least scientific terms associated with his art form. He also felt that it was the best way to describe it. Semi-Living deals with the growth and function of skin cells apart from the human body. Skin cells are taken from a living or dead body, placed in a petri-dish, and kept in an environment that mimics that of a human body. Semi-Living is a title given to the process because the skin cells are able to grow and “live” on their own apart from the human body. On one hand they are alive, but on the other hand they aren’t associated with a living being—hence the name Semi-Living.
These people have clearly taken every precaution to see to it that their work is seen as a statement against the exploitation of living beings. Catts’ even uses rhetoric like, “the cells are ‘harvested’” in order to give the impression that—although they are taken from a living body—they will grow back next season, and there’s no harm done. When used for things like the Victemless Leather, this stands in stark contrast to our tradition method of making leather clothing: finding an animal and killing it. I think there is some validity to that. I certainly do believe that the intention is to encourage discussion about the issue of exploiting living beings, but I seriously doubt that it will accomplish its goal. The problem with this project is they tried to make it into art for the sake of image and not to further their cause. The reason it is associated with art is because people love the image that goes along with being an artist. They love using words like “culture” and “society” but cringe at the idea of their work being accepted by either. Right off the bat Catts confesses that, “…the use of living tissue for artistic ends is new and mostly misunderstood.” It’s misunderstood because there is no reason for a “viewer” to think of it as art. Maybe this would be art in a world of absolute subjectivity in which everything can be considered art simply because nothing can NOT be considered art, but not in real life.
This project will never encourage discussion past its’ own social circle because in its attempt to combine art with science it fails to be either of the two. If you really want to speak to the masses of people who commercially buy clothing that was made by exploiting living beings then don’t make an art project that will inevitably be misunderstood because it’s just so peculiar. To me this would show that the artists really don’t care about their cause, they just support it to fit an image--which would make them far more close-minded than I am for writing this.
Danny D'Acquisto
TA- Steve Wetzel
In Oron Catts’ “The Art of the Semi-Living”, he uses the word “semi-living’ a lot. When he says this, he’s referring to cells and tissues that are taken from a living thing that are kept alive and allowed to grow. In his words, the semi-living are“[. . .]parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” They are technically living because they’re growing and the cells aren’t dying, but they aren’t attached to the living, and possibly breathing, thing that they once were a part of.
The project isn’t being exploitative of a living being because it’s only using tissues and cells, not the being itself. But at the same time, I don’t really think that they’re going to put into question how humanity exploits other living things, either. That may be their goal with this, but I don’t think that it will work, on the general public at least. It just looks like a science experiment with a little coat-looking thing in a flask of some kind. How that’s supposed to cause discussions about exploitation, I don’t know. It’s too out there and looks like it’s commenting how anything and everything can be made in a lab nowadays instead of how we use parts of animals for clothing.
Katrina Schwarz
TA: Kate Brandt
In Catt’s article, he describes the Semi-Living as “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” He later went on to write and talk about the use of tissue cultures, which is a great example of the Semi-Living. In the beginning, tissues are first harvested, “Either as a biopsy from a living body or from a body that was ‘sacrificed’ for scientific ends,” and then are seeded in a petri dish where they are then kept alive “with the aid of nutrient solution.” As seen above, a part of a living being was taken away, yet at the same time are kept alive and “nurtured” per-say in a petri dish.
As for the Victimless Leather, I personally believe that it definitely encourages discussion regarding the “exploitation of other living beings.” Grown from “immortalized cell lines,” this project is meant to “deconstruct our cultural meaning of clothes as a second skin by materializing it and displaying it as an art object.” By using these cultured cell lines, a whole new idea of what we wear is put into focus. To me, the main thing that sticks out are fur coats. They can in a sense be seen as the opposite of the Victimless Leather, becoming the “Victim Leather.” In all, by use of cultured cell lines and producing a small jacket made of real skin, the materialization of being in someone else's skin becomes more of a reality.
Dan Gorchynsky
TA: David Witzling
In Oron Catts’ article “The Art of Semi-Living” he describes the term of semi-living as one of the least scientific terms associated with his art form. Semi-Living deals with the growth and function of skin cells apart from the human body. “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” He describes this when skin cells are taken from a living or dead body, placed in a petri-dish, and kept in an environment that mimics that of a human body. Semi-Living is a title given to the process because the skin cells are able to grow and “live” on their own apart from the human body.
I feel that this project isn't being exploited as living, only because it's not being itself. The project only relates to tissues and cells more than anything. To me this project seems more like an item then a being. Whereas humans are living beings because we move around and are physically capable of doing activities. Cells and tissues move around as well, but we don't actually see them doing anything, even though we know that they are doing something inside of us.
Elizabeth Miller
T.A. Kate Brandt
Catts’s quite simply states that “semi-living” or “partial life” is “a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body”. This would mean that a piece of a living organism is removed and allowed the opportunity to continue with it natural tendencies. In this case, it would be like a starfish that has one of it’s limbs cut off. That limb would normally grow back into a five pointed star, but lets just say that it doesn’t grow the other four limbs back. Let’s say that it continues to live, but it does not regenerate. You would have a piece of a starfish that is not dead, but it cannot be considered a new starfish, just a part of a starfish that is still alive. Victimless Leather does encourage a discussion regarding the “exploitation of other living beings” because it claims itself to be “victimless”. No animal that can walk around, or show what most people would consider to be emotions, was killed to produce the leather. Because the leather never had the ability to feel pain or be “killed” the process is considered to be ethical. So if we can produce leather without killing a cow, why should we continue to exploit them.
Nathan Irish
TA Kate Brandt
Catts identified “semi-living” entities as living tissue growing on 3-dimensional polymer supports that are eventually replaced by the growing tissue. He refers to using frog skeletal tissue as well as neural and muscle tissue as “seeds” for the semi-living entities. He states that he and the others who created the TCA project were “engaged with the manipulation of living systems for the main purpose of generating broad cultural discussions.” (Catts 301) He further states that they “began to shy away from aspects of beauty for deeper exploration of the ethical and epistemological issues raised by their existence and concerns about the life-science industry in general.” (Catts 301) Catts makes a great effort to justify his work and to claim that his intentions were to make people confront the practices of the life-sciences and the exploitation of living beings for the use of humans. I don’t believe the TCA project comes anywhere near provoking ethical discussion or raising the conscience of the viewers to the inhumane practices that Catts alludes to. By using the semi-living entities in the “art project” to make an ethical statement about the exploitation of living beings, Catts is, in fact, contributing to this exploitation just as the entrepreneur who supplies living creatures to laboratories for experimentation and justifies it by saying it’s for the greater good.
TA: K. Brandt
In Oron Catts' "The Art of Semi Living", Catts discusses the idea of "semi-living". What he means by this is that living tissue can function outside of the body. The cells and tissue are gathered. The cells are placed on a petri dish and from that point, the tissue and cells survive through nutrient solution and are supported in conditions that try to equal their original environment. Catts says, "Through tissue culture, a new type of body is created on which to grow the cell."
I think that the TCA's piece encourages discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings". When it says, "The artistic grown garment will confront people with the moral implications of wearing parts of dead animals," the author is stating that people might feel guilty wearing items of fur. In addition, the piece illustrates the idea of "relationships with living systems manipulated". This would make one take into consideration the relationship with a dead animal, for example and the fact that it is killed to be used by the human population. The author also states, "Our intention is not to provide yet another consumer product but rather to raise questions about our exploitation of other living beings."
Rachel Marten
TA: Steve Wetzel
The Concept of the Semi-living is according to Catt's article, "A part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body." (289) Basically meaning as long as the cells aren't dying, they are still classified as living because they're still growing. The whole idea of independent from the body is like, say a heart being able to pump regularly without veins or arteries to help. The heart is able to move and work properly, without the body and not dying. This term has also been called "partial life."
In terms of "Exploitation of Other Living Beings", Victimless leather attempts to raise the idea but I feel will fail to meet it's goal. In terms of leather itself, many people have accepted the fact that leather comes from cows and cows are certainly not endangered. With the whole animal rights thing I feel there's regulation that must take part. We, as humans, are omnivores who evolved from herbivores, and our bodies actually depend on nourishment from meat and not just vegetables. But anyway, the way I look at it, if you're going to kill a cow for it's meat you might as well be efficient and use as much of the cow as possible, like the skin used leather. True the cow is technically the victim but we are part of the circle of life as well just as a lion or a shark.
The exploitation I feel is not effective just because I feel they're just cells, and If, say, we were talking about a heart living by itself, killing it would cause nothing but the cells to die, because it has no central nervous system nor a brain. Manipulation to me in this sense, isn't hurting anything, and exploitation I feel isn't exploitation but would most likely in the end help us learn more about the body itself. "We humans have generated enough enough knowledge to manipulate different levels of life to an extent that requires us to re-evaluate our understanding of the concept of life." (Catts 301)
Andrew Megow
T.A Laura Bennett
In Oron Catts, “The Art of Simi-Living” he describes semi-living as living tissues which can be sustained and grown outside the body. “In other words, parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed”. He also describes the tissues as being “harvested” and seeded, while being kept alive with the aid of nutrient solutions. He also describes simi-living in terms with art. Many artists recently have been using animals or living things to raise emotional and intellectual reactions. They want people to think of how animals are used in research or on the other side of art, use them to bring out a more dramatic reaction, such as the Fish in Blender exhibit. The want to bring life back into art, as Catts puts it.
As for the Victimless Leather, I believe it encourages the discussion of exploitation of other living beings, because of the fact that they did not have to kill anything to make this product. By taking cells and tissues from a living being, they created clothing that is just like the “real” thing. The “real” thing people want. If this takes of, we can save countless numbers of animals and even possible knocking some of the endangered animals of the list. Everybody is out to “make a pretty penny” but still this company is saving lives. They are showing the world that there will soon be no need in exploiting animals for aesthetic needs. They even plainly say that they are not there to create another product but to raise questions of exploiting living beings. If scientists can make leather garments for people who want the “real” thing, then why not? There is no harm in any animal to make such a thing.
Carly Rieder
TA:David Witzling
Semi-living is defined as a growth cell which can grow on its own. The cell is not dependant on other cells of the body or another living being. In his article Catts explains about semi-living demonstrated by the following statement, "Parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed"(p. 298). Semi is a term which denotes parts separated from its wholeness, for example a semi-circle. Catts purports that living beings are living in separate parts or divisions from the whole body. This concept of Semi-living was first employed in the field of science but now there has been a leap in the artistic setting. This use of cells has garnered criticism in that artworks have become semi living beings. “Victimless Leather” by TCA is an example of this.
Victimless Leather is an example of the exploitation of one living being for another. A donor organism was sacrificed give up cells which were then manipulated to grow a new artistic life form. The exploration is derived from the fact that one living being is being taken advantage of for the benefit of another living being. For example, human beings are wearing clothing which is made from animals. Humans are taking advantage of animals to make things for people to use. Humans are exploiting animals, just like one living being is taking advantage aver another living being. A further and more controversial demonstration of this would be the selling or organs or paying organ donors. A person of very high means needs a new kidney. They have the financial means to advertise for and pay a donor for a new matching kidney. The kidney may come at the dawn of the desperate need of another person. The instance perhaps could be the desperate need a person needing money to feed and cloth their family. The kidney then is bought and sold like a commodity. TCA wanted to portray the idea that something living can be grown again with the proper process. This kind of exploitation explained in TCA's Victimless Leather, hopefully, helps the viewers to understand how the hierarchy of life works. Catts states that "We humans have generated enough knowledge to manipulate different levels of life to an extent that requires us to re-evaluate our understanding of the concept of life"(p.301). Catts furthers that we all as human beings need to reconsider just exactly what we are doing to other living beings. We continue exploiting them for ourselves. The discussion about whether it is fair for humans to exploit other living beings will never end on one specific right answer. The concept is difficult and complicated. If we would focus on ourselves as human being and see how we can become semi-living and that we are already going down that pathway. The current pathway which is in progress is called cloning and stem cell research. We often test with other living beings to see the results before we apply it to ourselves. This is another form of exploration also know as exploitation. Human beings are over exploiting other living beings and TCA wanted to show us how we can manipulate ourselves to do such things. His work where few cells grew into leather like "shirt" made me re consider about how we are able design such creations but at the expense of something or someone else. This ethical discussion has and will continue for a very long time there is no limit to what we are capable of doing.
Catie Eller
TA: Steve Wetzel
Catts defines partial life as "a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independant of the body". The semi-living is that which would normally function as part of a whole body, a mass of organisms functioning as a singular entity, but has been removed or grown independant of the whole. The semi-living must be kept within a bio-reactor, a device that mimics the normal functioning of the semi-living's body.
Victimless leather, in an attempt to create prominant discourse in consumer society about the issue of the semi-living, is in itself an example of this manipulation and control over life. While I agree with the ends promoted by the organization (it is very true that this is a prevelant issue, and it is very true that discussion is sparked by the art project) promoting a mindset shift in regards to the manipulation of life by manipulating life is a blatant contradiction that in the end leads to the very bio-power that they are seeking to avoid.
In order for their actions to be defined as an exploitation of a living being, however, it seems we must provide a definition of living. Is the semi-living still living? I would argue that the experimentation and cultivation of living tissue is an astounding representation of dominance and bio-power, and that whether or not semi-life is defined as equivelent to whole life is a non-issue, due to the nature of the action that is being preformed. Desire for control over life is a major issue in contemporary society, our inherent need to play God should be adressed, but playing God is an unsound method.
Andrew Tolstedt
TA: David Witzling
Oron Catts wrote an intriguing article called: “The Art of Semi-Living”. What is semi-living? Catts explains it as “…parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” These parts he is referring to are the cells and tissues of the skin and how they can live with out being attached to the body by living in a petri dish that simulates the human body’s functions. It’s “Semi-living” because they are technically alive and moving but not part of an actual being. Also called “partial life”.
I think TCA’s piece can encourage discussions on exploiting both other living beings and human beings, though I would not take that strong of a stance on that it is actually exploiting beings. It’s using parts of beings, not the beings themselves. But this is where I think the discussion/debate would start, because I can see someone saying that all parts of you are YOU but I would disagree and say once it leaves you its fair game. You wouldn’t say the kidney you donated is still yours when it’s been sewed up in somebody else, would you?
Douglas Mellon
TA: Steve Wetzel
Oron Catts attempts to explain the concept of the “semi-living” by first clarifying his conceptual use of “the body”. He describes the body as the complex organism, a category which comprises all animal life. Catts explains, “living tissue can be sustained, grown, and allowed to function outside of the body.” (Catts 298) Therefor Catts uses the term “semi-living” to address tissue grown apart from a body by scientific means, relying on human interference for sustenance.
As far as Catts' explanation of the “semi-living” goes TCA's “Victimless Leather” can be seen as an artistic statement that addresses the issue of human treatment towards animal life. By using tissue that is not associated to a body the artists create questions for the viewer to address. First, and alternative to the current use of animal bodies as clothing is introduced. Secondly the viewers are coerced into asking themselves whether or not wearing animal bodies is morally correct in the first place. The title of the piece alone imposes a connotation upon the issue. Labeling leather as a matter of creating a victim as though it were crime reveals the fact that many humans find very easy to ignore. Animals are very literally slaughtered in order to create products to be used as garments. I do not think this piece is an example of animal exploitation since the object on display is not associated with a body and therefore only “semi-living”.
Nathaniel Winter
TA: Laura Bennett
What Oron Catts means by "semi-living" in his article "The Art of the Semi Living", is that bits of what was once considered "whole" life can be taken and made into something that is quite its own self or thing. For instance taking skin tissue and putting it in a different environment, which keeps it alive and well, but is detached from its native source of life. To quote Oron Catts, "parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed."
As for victimless leather, I suppose it will create a bit of a discussion on the exploitation of other living beings, but I don't think that creating living skin cell jackets is exactly the best way to go about it. Their point comes across fine, it's just that is it absolutely necessary to create and sell the jackets and not just talk about it. I understand and somewhat agree with their view, but I don't think the issue with them is that people wear animal skins, its more that animals have to die before they are worn. You could argue that they are offering people an alternative to animal skins, but there are other materials that would feel the same and are not grown inorganically, making them easier to make. I think that instead of making a comment on wearing animal skins, they should address the heart of the matter and comment more on the killing of these animals to make it a more direct statement.
Travis Torok
TA: Steve Wetzel
Kevin Witkowski
TA David Witzling
When Catt says semi-living, he is referring to parts of living things taken out of the whole body, and the part taken out is able to survive, to live. When he says this, he is referring to the “tissue culture” which he states in the article. An example would be stem cells. Stem cells are taken out of the human body and grow by itself, and it is essentially living or “semi-living” according to Catt.
When reading about the project from a scientific mindset, you could say that the victimless leather jacket is exploiting living things. They may not be using living animals to create the jackets, but they are still using living organisms to create them. Most people, however, only care about animals being used for garments, not living organisms in general. You would have to be a huge “tree hugger” to care about this project using living organisms. I do believe this project encourages the discussion of using living animals for garments and because nearly all people don’t care about “semi-living” tissues, they see this project as a very reasonable alternative to animal garments.
Kevin Witkowski
TA David Witzing
Oron Catts, author of "The Art of the Semi-Living, states that this type of art refers to how "tissue can be sustained, grown and allowed to function outside of the body (Catts, 153)." The cells are kept alive and given an environment similar to the original host of the cells. All though the cells are alive, the new environment or host is not. This created the term "semi-living."
I think the TCA's piece does encourage discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings." They have decided to use human tissue to make garments. They try to make it seem like a good idea by using words or phrases such as "cultured" and "raising questions." The group wants to "confront people with the moral implications of wearing parts of dead animals. They want their "work to be 'seen in a cultural context, and not in a commercial context." Yet one could see this as an exploitation of a living being. They are using humans as a means to make a point, no matter what the implications are.
Erik Wagner
T.A. Steve Wetzel
Oron Catts’ definition of “semi-living” is an organism that has been created in a laboratory setting, “lives” on the most basic levels (takes in and expels nutrients, grows, etc), but cannot sustain itself. It needs an outside caregiver to keep it living, by giving it the right nutrients and environment to live in. He also calls the “semi-living” organisms “partial-life”. He says, “Parts of what was once perceived as “whole” life can “live” outside of the original body upon which that notion of “wholeness” was imposed” (153). The semi-living can survive outside of its original host, but it cannot fully “live”. It is completely dependent on its external caregivers to keep it alive, being without a brain or other self-monitoring organ. It is also only a small piece of the whole original. Our skin is not a living being in itself, just as our ears, hands, bones, etc. are. our skin is a small part of us as a whole.
I think the Victimless Leather piece encourages discussion about the exploitation of living beings. Since it is only semi-living, and not a whole being itself, I don’t think we can say that the piece itself is being exploited.
Bethany Davey
TA: Kate Brandt
In Catts’s article, semi-living is described as cells and organisms living outside the original body in an environment that provides like conditions. It is, “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” In this way, they are only sem-living, or have ‘partial lives’ because they are only parts of a living thing, not alive beings of their own.
Since we are speaking about only this ‘semi-living’, and the lives of living animals arent’ in question, I wouldn’t say that the “Victimless Leather” idea directly conflicts with animal rights or exploitation. The underlying problem when leather or fur is worn is the knowledge that a living thing has been killed in the name of consumers’ desires. When it’s possible that the same fashion statement can be made without these animal ‘victims’, it seems more intriguing to explore why we see wearing other living things as attractive in the first place. If we acknowledge that killing animals for leather is indeed wrong, the illusion of it seems pointless. The article, I think, is meant to provoke questioning about why living or semi-living things are exploited and if such alternatives have relevant value.
Cassie Hutzler
TA Steve
The term semi-living, describes the context of these art pieces that features living body tissues on displayed and functioning for art and scientific purposes. One of the supporting ideas for this display is to create cultural insight and discussion on the use of body parts of the living but not exactly for the reason that the world is used to, like wearing fur or leather. Catts says “This opens up new discourses about the different relationships that we might form with these new entries, and sheds new light on our perception of life.”(301) the initial goal for this project is to apply a new way of thinking about the living body, to create altered perceptions.
I believe that the TCA’s piece does side with the idea of exploiting the living because of the way its presented. The fact that it’s presented as a little jacket shows how much manipulation is behind this project and it features how the cells are being objectified which happens with animal furs. The image has a scientific approach to it, being in the lab setting and the shape of the object as a jacket seems to suggest that it’s now safe to wear living cells. It looks disgusting to me, but that’s probably how the people of organizations like PETA feel.
Venise Watson
David Witzling
Oron Catts' "the art of semi-living", delves into the concept of bio art and it's practices. He uses the term semi-living in regards to bio art. The art is not alive, however it has qualities of a living organism. It is semi-living because it is not connected to the entirety of the human body, but continues to live on to a certain extent. Catts attests to this, "parts of what was once percieved as 'whole life' can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed," (Catts 153).
I think that Victimless Leather definitely encourages discussion about the exploitation of living beings. It does so by presenting something off putting to people that makes them reflect on their daily use of living beings. Victimless Leather uses living tissue material, in order to shock people into rethinking about their own beliefs regarding the exploitation of living beings. This art project is not an example of living being exploitation, but a protest to encourage people to think about this subject in a new way.
Charlie Ripple
T.A. Kate Brandt
In Oron Catts' article "The Art of Semi-Living" he speaks of his use of the "Semi-Living." What can also be known as a "tissue culture" he defines as "...parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” The basics of this definition are that tissue cells are grown in a sustainable environment outside of a "host" body.
I personally believe that the TC&A's project can bring up thoughts on what we wear as humans, but falls short in the long run. Yes if you imagine wearing a coat made of not cow leather, but human leather, the popularity and "image" of wearing a leather coat would drastically decrease. The reality is that their art project will never reach the masses. It is too small and far too bizarre to ever create change. The project looks like something that belongs on the cover of a science magazine, not on Time. It feels like they did it more so they could say that they made a coat out of skin, not that they were going to change the way people think.
Steve Ball
T.A. David Witzling
Semi-Living is the growth of human cells apart from the human body. They find cells from living people or dead people and place them in normal human conditions. There these cells are able to live and grow as if they were on a real human body.
Since they can grow and live on their own they are considered living. But, because they are not apart of a living being they are only considered semi-living.
I don’t think TCA’s project will encourage much discussion. It’s a creative idea but I don’t think it is an “exploration of other living beings.” It is made out of just cells so it’s hard to believe that it will create much discussion on living beings. I don’t consider this coat to be a living being. I also don’t see this as art. I think it’s more of a strange idea that is designed to shock people more than anything. I think that if a coat like this were put on the market animal rights activists would be happier because the producers aren’t killing animals. Instead they are making their products from the already dead. That way no animals would get sent to the slaughter house for pants.
Matthew Axberg
TA: Katherine Brandt
I believe that when Catts says “semi-living,” he is describing the issues raised by the use of tissue culturing. As Cattts states in the article, “‘Parital life’ as well as ‘Semi-Living’ are less scientific but more fitting in the sense that, embedded within them are the cultural and perceptual conflicts they represent.” By referring to tissue cultures as semi-living, Catts is expressing the stigma normally associated with this incredibly new technology. Human tissue used to be viewed with a sense of oneness, in that only the human body was capable of producing it. Now, with the advent of unprecedented scientific innovations, traditional views of human tissue are coming into question. What was once viewed as simply “alive” must now be reclassified as “semi-living” to reflect the shifting nature of the natural world.
I think Victimless Leather is an excellent piece, in that it encourages discussion on multiple levels. It forces people to confront preconceived notions. How is killing an animal simply for clothing more ethical than growing tissue to create the same product? On the other hand, is the use of “semi-living” tissue truly justified when leather has been used for thousands of years? This argument definitely bares further debate, as the ethicality of artificial tissue becomes an ever-present in modern society.
Joseph Otterson
TA: Laura Bennett
The cell is not dependant on other cells of the body or another living being. Catts explains about semi-living demonstrated by the following statement, "Parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed"(p. 298). Semi is a term which takes parts separated from its whole. Catts believes that people have several living entities. This idiotic concept of Semi-living. TCA is an example of this. Victimless Leather (by TCA) is an example of the exploitation of humans. A donor's organism was sacrificed to grow a new "life form". This idea comes from the idea that one living being is being taken advantage of. The other is gaining benefit for this. An extreme example of this would be abortion. The taking of a life to allow another life to live in a happier surrounding (sometimes). In fact, abortion and the death penalty may be the biggest examples of this exploitation of human beings for the "well being" of others. You could also say organ donation is an exploitation to some extent. Although, organ donation does allow those that give their organs to feel happy for doing so. Maybe they are not feeling exploited. Either way, this is what the TCA is talking about.
Kyle Arpke
Bennett
Bio-art is a piece of art that has a partial living component to it. In Oron Catt’s “The Art of the Semi-Living,” he describes then idea of “semi-living” as “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed. An example of bio-art is the project “Victimless Leather – A Prototype of Stitch-less Jacket Grown in a Technoscientific ‘Body.’” The piece features a small jacket made from living cells. The Tissue Culture & Art (TC&A) Project, the group responsible for “Victimless Leather,” feel that their project will help people realize that garments should not be made from slaughtered animals for the purpose of fashion. They do not want to portray their “jacket” as a marketable product; they simply want the jacket to represent their beliefs on the topic of animals used in clothing. I believe the art piece does not accurately represent the message TC&A is trying to get across. If they are concerned that clothing is made from once living animals, why would they make a coat from anything living in the first place? It may raise some eyebrows and draw attention to the issue, but in my opinion, they are somewhat hypocritical.
Alison Korth
T.A. Laura Bennett
In In Oron Catts’ article “The Art of Semi-Living” he refers to the term semi-living as one of the least scientific terms associated with his art form. Semi-Living deals with the growth and function of skin cells apart from the human body. “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life that can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” (Catts) This means that skin cells are taken from a living or dead body, placed in a petri-dish, and kept in an environment that mimics the environment that the human body would provided. Semi-Living is a title given to this process because the skin cells are able to grow and “live” on their own apart from the human body. The cells are being kept alive but because they are not associated with a living being they can not be considered to be a living organism making them Semi-Living.
This project will never encourage discussion past its’ own social circle because in its attempt to combine this particular art with science it does not accomplish either of the two. The problem with this project is they tried to make it into art while furthering a cause but the art lacks the ability to do so. I believe they tried to explore the idea that anything can be considered art and they try to use this new form of “art” for the sake of using art to portray a message. Catts confesses that using living tissue in this for of art is “new and mostly misunderstood.” The methods of speaking to a mass amount of people can benefit from original ideas and ways of presenting the message but because this idea was so peculiar it failed to accomplish this. You would think of an artist truly cared about this cause they would have really supported the message they were trying to portray through the uses of a fitting image.
Zachery Holder
TA: Laura Bennett
Oron Catts's The Art of the Semi-Living talks about the new art form that uses living tissue for artistic expression. Tissue culture, partial life and semi-living (the term the Tissue Culture and Art Project uses) are terms that describe this new phenomenon. According to Catts semi-living are “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed” (298). “The Tissue Culture and Art Project are engaged with the manipulation of living systems for the main purpose of generating broad cultural discussion” (Catts 298). The harvested cells (both animal and human) are placed in petri-dish and kept alive with the aid of nutrient solution. “[T]he semi-livings are made of living tissues from the body, grown over/into three-dimensional constructed substrates” (Catts 301).
The TCA's piece Victimless Leather is “providing tangible example of possible futures, and research the potential affects of these new forms on our cultural perceptions of life. It is not our role to provide people with goods for their daily use. We would like our work to be seen in this cultural context, and not in a commercial context” (TCA). This is the explanation that I got from reading the web site explaining the TCA project. I feel that the Victimless Leather project is an example of the exploitation of a living being because without the original living being how can there be talk of ‘other’ living beings. The idea of semi-living art is strange to me because when I thing of living tissue or living cells I think of science not art but it is interesting.
Kirk McCamish
TA Steve Wetzel
In regards to Catts's article entitled "The Art of The Semi-Living" he talks about the term "Semi-Living" as, "...less scientific but more fitting in the sense that, embedded within them are the cultural and perceptual conflicts they represent." (153) In other words, he is describing the term specifically as one that represents both cultural and perceptual conflicts much like the Victimless Leather piece. Catts describes the term "Semi-Living" as one that we cannot necessarily see with the plain eye, (hence the word "Semi") but the organisms involved are living and real.
I believe that the Victimless Leather piece encourages discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings" rather than an example of exploitation itself. I believe this because of TCA's explanation as to why they chose to do this, "This artistic grown garment will confront people with the moral implications of wearing parts of dead animals for protective and aesthetic reasons..." Thus, I truly believe TCA when they say that they are engaging in this type of controversial experiment if you will, in order to create a higher sense of awareness about the animals that are killed every day for protective and aesthetic purposes. One main point that TCA is trying to get across is that although animals are different from human beings in many ways, one constant similarity is that we both feel pain. The issue being brought up is: If you wouldn't kill and wear certain parts of a human being for protective or aesthetic purposes why are many animals today an exception?
Connor Murray
TA: Katherine Brandt
Early in Catts’s article (pg. 298) he defines partial life or “Semi-living” as, “a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body.” Quite simply, living tissue extracted from its host and sustained through human intervention. The purpose then of the Tissue Culture & Art Project is to generate discussion and “shed new light on our perception of life.”
I find the work at once engrossing and completely ineffective. A tough position to be sure. While I do not think Victimless Leather in particular is an exploitation of a living being, I do think it is needlessly complicated to convey such a simple message. Catts’s himself later addresses the work’s weakness saying, “People seemed to have some kind of a mental block that prevented them from getting emotionally involved with the work since they were overwhelmed by the instruments.” Appealing to emotion is vital to stirring thought. I think of this work as being both weird and cool, but I also find myself experiencing a mental block, (apathy?) which has, thus far, kept me from digesting the magnitude of this experimental art form. In the absence of mental clarity on the topic I’ll be intensely vague- it’s a little too “out there” for me.
I agree, however, that the perception and value of life in current times is completely whacked, and I applaud any project that makes an attempt to showcase and challenge these perceptions. However, when I think of factory farming and the exploitation of “whole-life” animals that occurs each day for the sake of eighty-nine cent tacos, I find it hard to believe that most people would even think twice about these semi-living organisms (regardless of whether they are shaped like a little leather coat).
Whatever happened to good-old-fashioned throwing red-paint on people wearing fur coats?
Meghan Strobel
TA- Steve Wetzel
When Oron Catts uses the term "semi-living" in his article, "The Art of the Semi-Living," he is referring to a partial life form that was once connected to a larger life form and is now sustained solely by human intervention. Catts's Tissue Culture and Art Project utilizes scientific experimentation on the cells of living creatures to create art and provoke people to question the nature of life.
But is this art project not an exploitation of the very same kind that it seeks to dissect? Catts himself points out in his article: "The sustenance and manipulation of parts seems to be more disturbing because it puts into question the rooted perception of the inseparable whole living being." In short, the "semi-living" calls into question the nature of the 'whole living.' The Tissue Culture and Art Project is essentially using the "semi-living" to provide a critique on 'actual life' (though exactly what type of critique is open for interpretation). But after all, the "semi-living" is still alive. While it is true that the "semi-living" organism needs to be constantly cared for by humans in order to survive, something similar is also true for people. If the sun were to suddenly disappear, humans would not survive very long. We are not self reliant creatures, and so in a sense, we too are the "semi-living." Catts seems to understand this, which leaves me puzzled as to why he would allow the TCA to carry on with their project. Then again, he has me thinking about the nature of life - maybe that was the most important purpose.
Eric Grycan
TA: David Witzling
yAccording to Catts, "semi-living" is having living tissues continue to grow, but outside of the body. He says "cells and tissue are harvested either as a biopsy from a living body or from a body that was sacrificed for scientific ends or from bodies butchered for food." It is kept "alive" by nutrient solutions and are kept in an environment that is close to the original source. The makers of the Victimless Leather are trying to compare the coat thing to people wearing animal fur. They are not trying to create a product that people will one day line up in stores to buy, but consider how the animal fur can be the same as human skin, and be considered wrong to wear, even if no one was killed for it, hence the name Victimless.
I think that the Victimless Leather is an example of exploitation of a living being because it is living cells in the shape of a human torso (coat-like) and I feel that it compares to animal fur. I would never wear animal fur, and I wouldn’t ever want to wear a living cell coat because I think it is the same protective outside and is very comparable. Of course, it also encourages discussion, because everything can encourage discussing, but I mostly believe that it is a exploitation of a living being.
Kaitlyn Murray
TA Kate Brandt
The term “semi-living” refers to the genetic alterations made to real human or animal tissue, but grows separately from the original organism itself. It is an biomedical engineering technique that could be used to create replacement body parts. This concept is referred to as “tissue culture” and has been used not only for biomedical purposes, but also by the U.S military and becoming more popular is the artistic movement that uses real tissue as a medium of self-expression. Tissue culture, in it’s purpose, has provoked cultural discussion. The most important of which is the potential for the culturally problematic: Westerners view of themselves, their bodies and their lives. “Semi-living” organisms provoke possible problems. Catts explains, “The form and the application of our newly acquired knowledge will be determined by the prevailing ideologies that develop and control the technology.” He brings about a critical point in this experiment, human beings are the main contributor to this experiment, thus “semi-living” organisms cannot live without the manipulations done by the scientist/artist. The result of this scientific breakthrough is at the hands of, none other than us. The question then remain… Do we, trust ourselves, and our species to govern over the responsibility of our future? The idea of victimless leather, in my opinion, is a large example of responsible and innovative action. It utilizes the technology that is so readily available to us and creates an industry that is better for our eco-system. It is socially responsible. It is impressive to me that there are those who are not afraid of the unfamiliar.
Christina Gill
TA David Witzling
The term “semi-living” refers to the genetic alterations made to real human or animal tissue, but grows separately from the original organism itself. It is an biomedical engineering technique that could be used to create replacement body parts. This concept is referred to as “tissue culture” and has been used not only for biomedical purposes, but also by the U.S military and becoming more popular is the artistic movement that uses real tissue as a medium of self-expression. Tissue culture, in it’s purpose, has provoked cultural discussion. The most important of which is the potential for the culturally problematic: Westerners view of themselves, their bodies and their lives. “Semi-living” organisms provoke possible problems. Catts explains, “The form and the application of our newly acquired knowledge will be determined by the prevailing ideologies that develop and control the technology.” He brings about a critical point in this experiment, human beings are the main contributor to this experiment, thus “semi-living” organisms cannot live without the manipulations done by the scientist/artist. The result of this scientific breakthrough is at the hands of, none other than us. The question then remain… Do we, trust ourselves, and our species to govern over the responsibility of our future? The idea of victimless leather, in my opinion, is a large example of responsible and innovative action. It utilizes the technology that is so readily available to us and creates an industry that is better for our eco-system. It is socially responsible. It is impressive to me that there are those who are not afraid of the unfamiliar.
Christina Gill
TA David
Throughout the article, Catt’s uses the term semi-living. When discussing the use of this tissue in art, Catt’s defines semi-living tissues as, “living tissues from the body, grown over/into three-dimensional constructed substrates.” This semi-living tissue is grown artificially in laboratories. I personally find this bio-artform incredible, and with scientific research can only expand the artistic possibilities. As far as raising the question of exploiting further livings beings, I agree with the second part that the question. I already feel that living beings are being exploited. While the creativity and art can evolve from this type of technology, I wonder when it will go to far. I feel as if the science behind tissue will eventually be used more for science and artistic sense will diminish simply because the research is too expensive to put to other uses. Catt’s article discusses my same point on whether or not it is morally correct to use living cells to perform art. He states, “our semi-living are evocative objects that raise emotional and intellectual reactions and suggest alternative scenarios for a future.” In order for the bio-art to continue its existence, it will must be ethical and take creativity to its highest level without crossing a the line.
Matt Prekop
TA: Kate Brandt
Semi-living is described as organisms "living" and functioning outside the body of where they might have been formed, in Oran Catts "The Art of Semi-Living". Stated by Catts "Tissue can be sustained, grown and allowed to function outside of the body (Catts, 153)." Catts is simply saying that the tissue can grow and live outside of the body but needs help from something else. Even though it may be living outside of its original source it still needs extra help to function. This is why it is only semi-living and not completely living on its own.
The Victimless Leather piece does encourage discussion. There already is enough discussion about other humans wearing fur, or leather, just think about how society would react to other humans wearing human skin. Even if it is just the skin that was already dead, it is still something I feel that we can more commonly relate to. I do believe that this project was created for the shock factor more than anything else.
Amber Blanchard
TA: David Witzling
Oran Catt's defines semi-living as tissues that are kept alive with nutrient solution, outside of the physical body. These cells are then seeded onto objects or sometimes animals in order to experiment. This would introduce the art known as "biological arts". Biological art deals with the expression of reincarnation and praises of the after life and what remains of the dead. TCA's piece "Victimless Leather" opens conversation regarding concepts of the semi-living. It encourages one to question why would one "sustain parts of the body..manipulate, modify and utilise them for different purposes" (299). Oron Catts article reveals that people being interested with exploitation of living things is not new. It has always been taken upon within laboratories where the best experiences and reactions have been told but not seen. I think the "Victimless Leather" piece aims at how people keep remains from the dead because of its social value or money value. Reminds me of why people kill animals for either money or fashion statement. People want to show and tell what they think is valuable or memorable to them. In this case the "Victimless Leather" was kept for memories, even though it is only composed of cells. The cells once belonged to a person who once lived, therefore kept in remembrance.
Oran Catt's defines semi-living as tissues that are kept alive with nutrient solution, outside of the physical body. These cells are then seeded onto objects or sometimes animals in order to experiment. This would introduce the art known as "biological arts". Biological art deals with the expression of reincarnation and praises of the after life and what remains of the dead. TCA's piece "Victimless Leather" opens conversation regarding concepts of the semi-living. It encourages one to question why would one "sustain parts of the body..manipulate, modify and utilise them for different purposes" (299). Oron Catts article reveals that people being interested with exploitation of living things is not new. It has always been taken upon within laboratories where the best experiences and reactions have been told but not seen. I think the "Victimless Leather" piece aims at how people keep remains from the dead because of its social value or money value. Reminds me of why people kill animals for either money or fashion statement. People want to show and tell what they think is valuable or memorable to them. In this case the "Victimless Leather" was kept for memories, even though it is only composed of cells. The cells once belonged to a person who once lived, therefore kept in remembrance.
Catt’s article clearly defines Semi-living as being “a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body.” In context with this blog it is referring to the Victimless Leather jacket, a jacket grown entirely of living tissue.
To begin tell you what I think about this article, it is important to look at the science behind this study. While looking at the TC&A website I noticed that the research for the “coat” was done by a “company that specializes in tissue engineered cartilage for clinical applications.” This is interesting because I have seen something like this before. In fact, I’m pretty sure that all of us have:
http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/mouse-ear.jpg
Catt‘s states that “we humans have generated enough knowledge to manipulate different levels of life to an extent that requires us to re-evaluate our understanding of the concept of life.” It is interesting to think that this “jacket” can change our perspective on life. Using the example of the mouse we can argue two things: 1. The exploitation of living things is wrong and immoral. 2. The exploitation of living things is a process in which we can advance ourselves medically as we gain a new understanding of science and life. Leather and the living coat fall on separate sides of this argument. I see the manipulation of tissue as being a medical advancement, the moment the living coat harms an animal it can fall into the same issues as leather. This is not to say that I believe leather is wrong and immoral, I have a leather jacket. I believe that using more of an animal is better than using less of an animal. If you slaughter it for meat then you should use the rest of it. I read Dirk McGreggor’s post and he stated this point very well. I was merely trying to separate the two through an outside look at both examples.
In conclusion, they are two different things. The exploitation of living is very different than the exploitation of dead. The uses presented by both can be very similar however, they can both be used for survival. Whether it be for medical uses or for shelter from the cold they both can be used to keep us alive. So, the ambiguous question presented in this blog has almost defeated me. I don’t find anything morally offensive on either sides of the argument so I find it hard to see which one exploits the living more. So, I think I might be able to put things into perspective by leaving you with one thought. I have someone very close to me who just went through chemo therapy for leukemia. Stem cells, used to grow tissue like the one in the TC&A project, saved his life. They are entirely responsible for him being alive today. There are side effects from the chemo, however. He now has an inability to eat resulting in low body fat. To keep himself warm in the winter he wears a leather jacket.
Kyle Jenkins
T.A. Kate Brandt
Semi Living is defined as "living tissue" that "can be sustained, grown and allowed to function outside of the body" This deffiniton means that as long as cells are growing they are still living. This can be seen when organs are removed or grown independently. As long as the organ's life is sustained and the organ continues to grow, its alive.
I feel that the Victimless Leather campaign is stupid and contradictory. Sure you're no longer wearing a dead cow's skin, but instead you are wearing a coat made from living cell's whose sole purpose is to be worn. So instead of wearing a cow you are wearing a smaller organism. I think that it is an exploration of another living being. I also feel that even if we stop using cow's for leather then we would be wasting a lot of he cow. We would still kill cows for their meat, so if we didn't take their skin for leather, what would we do with it? It would go to wast, so by growing this coat, we are wasting resources, to do something that we do so we don't waste.
Kate
After reading Oran Catts article called “The Art of the Semi-Living,” it is easy to define what he thinks of as semi-living. “parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed." – Catts. Basically he means that things once outside the body can still live on in different environments. Take for example skin tissue taken from a human, if it is placed in a Petri dish in a different environment, it can still live and grow on its own for sometime. As long as the cells are not dying, then there is still life to it.
When reading on this project about victimless leather, I can conclude in several different ways. However, I think that this piece does encourage the exploitation of other living things. I mainly think so because people may feel guilty of wearing skins of dead animals on themselves, but with this project, they are taking the cells of humans and using them for clothing. They are not killing any animals in the process, but instead just recreating what we already have through cells. They are not taking beings themselves, but instead, parts of beings.
Kyle Probst
Laura Bennett
A believe that the definition of “semi-living,” is laid right out by Oron Catts. The way he puts it is “a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body.” (p.298) Meaning that skin cells have the ability to grow and progress when removed from its natural host. So I've you remove skin cells from a dead or living body and place it in an environment that will act as its natural habitat “the body,” then it will remain living and growing like on a body. The reason it has the word “semi” in front of it is, because it is missing that “wholeness,” it is no longer attached to its natural living being.
I believe that yes the TCA's piece “Victimless Leather,” does not encourage discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings,” when regarding Catts article. They are only using parts of the human not the actual being. Manipulating the skin cells from the body is not an example “exploitation of a living being,” as Catts sees it. I think the people that see wearing fur is harmful to animals will find this very much encouraging discussion. Even though it is for “art,” and they are not using the entire bod, they are taking parts from a once living human being.
Semi-Living refers the growth of cells apart from the body, talked about by Oron Catts as more cultural and artistic than scientific
“Semi Living… are less scientific but… embedded within them are the cultural and perceptual conflicts they represent.” (Cass, 154)
I think victimless leather is itself an exploitation of a living being. The concept of growing cells and creating a new living being to take place of what is already an abundant source in our world is ridiculous. The way we exploit animals as it is in order to obtain this source (leather) is, I also think, very ridiculous. I think that may have been the purpose behind Victimless Leather, to show us how ridiculous consumerism is. On the website explaining the concept behind Victimless Leather, they quote
“Our intention is not to provide yet another consumer product but rather to raise questions about our exploitation of other living beings.”
Victimless Leather is exploiting a living being which has no identity to bring light to the fact that all over the world people are exploiting living beings that do have an identity. They create an unnatural living material with no purpose in this world to show how many natural, purposeful living beings we destroy every day for our own ascetic pleasure and comfort.
Chris Schasse
TA : Laura Bennett
Oron Catts describes "semi-living" as a more culturally controversial definition of the concept of tissue culture. Catts defines the tissue culture phenomenon as "...parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed." (p.298) Defining the concept of "semi-living" goes one step further because these terms are "less scientific but more fitting in the sense that, embedded within them are the cultural and perceptual conflicts they represent." (p.298) The TCA's main objective is to raise these issues in a sort of gallery setting, where the audience is forced to struggle with what really qualifies as being 'alive'.
To argue that the 'Victimless Leather' actually exploits other living beings, we could consider the fact that various different living organism cells are being manipulated to serve a function for a consumer. The jacket itself exploits the properties of living beings to serve a practical and functional purpose. For the sake of art, and the purpose that art plays in raising moral dilemmas like this, I believe that 'Victimless Leather' is itself the exploitation of what we consider to be a 'living being' in general. Catts writes "If we can sustain parts of the body alive, manipulate, modify and utilise them for different purposes, what does it say about our perception of our bodies, our wholeness and our selves?" (p.299) It is slightly more obvious that the concept of this kind of exploitation is making an artistic statement, rather than trying to promote technologies that they themselves may be exploited in a consumer-based society.
Nicholaus Westfahl
TA Steve Wetzel
In Oron Catts’ article “The Art of the Semi-Living”, Catts focuses on using what is known as ‘tissue culture’ and turning the practice as well as it’s results into an art form. The idea behind it is using tissue from living creatures and using it for artistic means. “…living tissue can be sustained, grown and allowed to function outside of the body. In other words, parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness was imposed” (Catts). This new art form can be used in new interactive ways that previous art forms could not.
We were asked this week “Do you think that the TCA's piece Victimless Leather … encourages discussion regarding the "exploitation of other living beings" or is itself an example of the exploitation of a living being?” (Warren-Crow). Personally, I don’t see why it can’t be both. I believe that the Victimless Leather strongly encourages discussion regarding the exploitation of other living beings, such as the way we use other people in far away countries to make our clothes. If the TCA wishes to use this Victimless Leather to promote these disscussions, then I feel they are explotiting these living beings to get their message across.
Nelson Schneider
TA: Kate Brandt
In the Catts article "The Art of The Semi-Living" he uses the term the semi living as a term in an art form that is seen as not very scientific. It's a science in an art form. That's how he would best describe it. The semi living incorporates living or dead skin cells from the body. But not only that but the growth and function of them as well. These skin cells are placed in a specimen tray that duplicates a human body and are able to live apart from the actual living breathing body. Because they aren't connected to the living being but are still alive at the same time is where it gets the name.
I believe that the author is trying to convince the exploration of other living beings when he says"The artistic grown garment will confront people with the moral implications of wearing parts of dead animals." The author points out that people may feel weird or guilty about about wearing fur or animal type objects because they have a connection to this other living thing.
According to Oron Catt's article, semi-living is a term used to describe a phenomenon where “parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed.” Cells are taken from from either a living body or one that was 'sacraficed'. They are placed in a petri dish and “seeded into/onto three-dimensional scaffolds made out of specialized materials.” So the cells themselves are alive but they do not form a living breathing organism together. I think the TCA's piece Victimless Leather does encourage discussion regarding the “exploitation of other living beings.” Nothing was killed in order to make this product. The product that is desired is still being made while the animals that would have been normally used to make leather are saved.
Sara Nesbitt
TA Kate Brandt
In Oron Catts’s “The Art of Semi-Living” article he uses the term “semi-living.” By this he is using the least scienctific term of biological arts. Semi-living describes how living tissue can be kept to ‘live’ beyond the original organism. According to Catts, the tissue “can be sustained, grown and allowed to funcion outside of the body.” Cells are taken from the body, kept in a petri-dish and kept alive with nutrient solution in a mirror environment of the original.
I think the TCA piece on Victimless Leather does encourage discussion regarding the “exploitation of other living beings.” Using actual human cells is able to make more of a connection to the debate of using other living beings, mainly animals, for garments, whether its for protective or aesthetic reasons. Although I do feel that taking the life of another living thing is different than using just parts of a human being. In making fur clothing an animal has to lose it’s life whereas in this project the cells are able to continue on living outside of the original human body. The effect of a living thing being a victim is somewhat lost because the human cells haven’t been sacrificed for the sake of the “coat.”
Tanisha Richter
TA: David Witzling
First, I just want to ask if I am the only one who immediately thought of Silence of the Lambs when reading about this "Victimless Leather". Now, I may be a little confused or just didn't read the description full enough, but exactly where are these cells coming from? The gray area for me is if we are taking these cells from humans or animals. It isn't a very important part of my post, but I was just overall curious about the process, because I know we have the ability to clone cells, so I would like to learn how close these two concepts are related (in the scientific world, that is). I hate to repeat a quote that I saw in the few posts I skimmed through before writing this, but Catts sums up "semi-living" best when he states, "...parts of what was once perveiced as 'whole' life can 'live' outside the original body upon which that 'wholeness' was imposed." Basically, what he means is that a certain tissue or cell can survive when it is removed from the body of whatever specimen it originally grew on. With that in mind, I would have to say that this "victimless leather" is surely a "semi-living" life form, er, form of life... Whatever it actually is, I would feel comfortable classifying it as semi-living. Now, does this "victimless coat" encourage a discussion of needless exploitation of dead animals? You can bet your boots it better. That IS the whole point of the project if I'm not mistaken. It is a very strong statement, and I can only guess it would be a shocking sight to actually see this coat, knowing it was "grown". I don't think the artists would be so successful in their purpose if this coat was (or ever is) actually worn and became a fashion statement, because that would therefore be exploiting this leather, victimless or not. Most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they saw one of these coats on some random person, seeing how it is basically leather, so as long as it is kept at an artistic level and is only presented in that way, this is definitely a thought provoking piece.
Semi-living is when cells are taken from a whole organism but are then able to live outside of that organism. This makes us question what a whole entity is because as Catts states “parts of what was once perceived as ‘whole’ life can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon”. The cells that are harvested are then molded and grown into new shapes and entities. TCA’s piece Victimless Leather makes a comment against using animal parts to cloth ourselves but in its execution it uses animal parts, seemingly contradicting itself. The difference between TCA using animal parts and the manufacturing of leather and fur clothing is the amount of the animal that is being used. TCA is only using a small amount of cells whereas the producers of clothing have to kill the whole animal in order to make their product. It was important though for the TCA to present the ‘coat’ as living to make people think how what they are wearing was once living. So weather the TCA was just as made as the clothing producers in making this piece or not, their intentions out way their transgressions. TCA’s project also relates to the controversy of stem cell research and taking cells from embryos.
Lanae Smith
TA: David Witzling
In Oron Catts’ article, “The Art of Semi-Living,” he illustrates the expression of semi-living as "‘whole’ life [that] can ‘live’ outside of the original body upon which that notion of ‘wholeness’ was imposed.” Semi-living is mainly described as a growth cell which has the ability to grow on its own and is not in any way a reliant on any of the other cells within the living body or any other living thing. It works with the development of skin cells with the exception of the human body.
I think that the "Victimless Leather" piece is a very interesting and advanced technological experiment. It agrees with Catts' article as it talking about cells growing on their own. The article states, "The concept of partial life, a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body, has rarely been discussed as a cultural phenomenon, mainly due to its confinement to a scientific context." I think it deserves a lot of discussion because nobody really knows about life beyond the time they are living. Like abortion, it's argued about when a life begins and whether or not it's right or wrong. I think a lot of people would be biased towards something like this.
First, I just want to ask if I am the only one who immediately thought of Silence of the Lambs when reading about this "Victimless Leather". Now, I may be a little confused or just didn't read the description full enough, but exactly where are these cells coming from? The gray area for me is if we are taking these cells from humans or animals. It isn't a very important part of my post, but I was just overall curious about the process, because I know we have the ability to clone cells, so I would like to learn how close these two concepts are related (in the scientific world, that is). I hate to repeat a quote that I saw in the few posts I skimmed through before writing this, but Catts sums up "semi-living" best when he states, "...parts of what was once perveiced as 'whole' life can 'live' outside the original body upon which that 'wholeness' was imposed." Basically, what he means is that a certain tissue or cell can survive when it is removed from the body of whatever specimen it originally grew on. With that in mind, I would have to say that this "victimless leather" is surely a "semi-living" life form, er, form of life... Whatever it actually is, I would feel comfortable classifying it as semi-living. Now, does this "victimless coat" encourage a discussion of needless exploitation of dead animals? You can bet your boots it better. That IS the whole point of the project if I'm not mistaken. It is a very strong statement, and I can only guess it would be a shocking sight to actually see this coat, knowing it was "grown". I don't think the artists would be so successful in their purpose if this coat was (or ever is) actually worn and became a fashion statement, because that would therefore be exploiting this leather, victimless or not. Most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they saw one of these coats on some random person, seeing how it is basically leather, so as long as it is kept at an artistic level and is only presented in that way, this is definitely a thought provoking piece.
Garrett Hopkins
TA: Kate Brandt
The definition of semi-life according to Catt is “a part of a complex living being sustained outside and independent from the body.” So, if my arm is to be cut off and hooked up to electrodes that could manipulate it that would be semi-living. However, if I where to start up one of my favorite past times and grave dig again, collect a bunch of body parts to create a full human being then bring it back to my lab and re-animate it that would probably be considered whole-life, or some variation of it.
From my experience of having neurons firing off in my top most cavity I have come to discover a thing called will. This will seems to be a unique phenomenon within a whole-life model. Recently an art piece that was made from cells from a petri dish that was formed into a jacket of sorts arose the question of weather or not this semi-life is an exploitation of the whole-life. Considering that this semi-life construct lacks this notion of will, it is hard to imagine how exploitation could take place. The connotation of exploitation has derived from workers who were underpaid and overworked, land that was striped bare of its resources, and animals painful demises for semi-life parts that are turned into preserved degraded artifacts in consumer culture (hunter gatherer communities are an exception for their differing views, attitudes, and practices on the matter). This semi-living experiment/art piece/new toy has an obvious lack of will, but it is also not a degraded artifact. It is a cell grown in a petri dish and the cell taken from the animal, which does not institute painful demise, is what composes this living artifact.
Nicholas Lawrence
Laura
Catts definition of the "semi-living" is a group of cells taken from the human body that are grown artificially to create tissue, which is "being sustainted outside and independent from the body"
The making of the coat to me seems to be done as an exploitation of a living being, because living cells that come from a living body are taken and manipulated to be grown. I think this is a great idea to use for research, especially in the medical field, but making a little jacket out of the cells seems to exploit the issue.
It's funny that they want to raise awareness about wearing other living animals' skins. Even though the skins are a part of now dead animals and humans used to depend upon those pelts for clothing and warmth, they do have a point. We are now able to make man-made furs and don't really need to use furs and skins from animals anymore. Even though real fur is really soft, man-made synthetic furs can be made just as soft. It seems to be different if the whole animal is used, not just the fur to kill animals, like how the Native Americans used to do. Even still, it's different to think about wearing human skin. This seems to tie closely to what people think about eating meat. That is just something that I chose not to think about a lot of the time, as it does seem wrong, but there aren't too many alternatives to eating meat. There are protein-based non-meat foods, but those don't seem to do the same thing.
Still, it is called "victimless leather", as no one seems to be killed, but there seems to be an ethical issue here. For me, body parts shouldn't be used as art, only for medical reasons and other "natural" issues. However, I kind of see the point of using bones (animal) and shells as art, but not by killing the animals. I know this seems contradictory, but it is a conflicting issue for me, and I think it all depends on what you feel comfortable with deep inside you...
In Oron Catts's "The Art of the Semi-Living” , he discusses the “semi-living” as being entities developed using living tissue that is created through the use living cells. These “semi-living” entities are constructed separately from the body from which they are taken from as Catt’s describes in his article: “[Tissue engineering] creates a form of life that could never exist in nature: parts of complex organisms are designed and grown independently of the organism from which it is originally derived”. These “semi-living” entities are created in order to challenge our perceptions and current ideologies regarding life, death, and the living.
An important issue that Catts discusses is the exploitation of human power over the living systems, be it animals or the “semi-living” entities. I believe that the TCA's piece Victimless Leather encourages discussion of the “exploitation of other living beings" while being itself an exploitation. This use of art opens up discussion on the use of animals for our own aesthetic and convenience use. Animals are subject to human manipulation and exploitation just as the piece argues. Even if the leather is so-called “victimless”, the organism that is forming this leather is using living cells and so it is also considered “living”.
Marisela Rodriguez Gutierrez
TA: Steve Wetzel
Oron Catts "semi-living" or for that matter "The Art of the Semi Living", means that little tiny bits of what was once considered whole or full of life can be created into something that is it’s own self. An example of what this would look like would be somebody taking apart of your body (skin tissue) and throwing it into a different environment. That environment keeps it alive even though it has been taken away from its natural source. This is kind of amazing if you think about it, because it doesn’t happen a lot.
It’s not the reading that was complicated it’s just the way in which you choose to read it. The victimless leather jacket is using many different living things. Living organisms are just as bad as animals, so why do we need to use them? People don’t understand that it’s not just animals that we should care about but also “living” organisms. I am not one of those persons that care very much about garments or living organisms that much, but the fact of the matter is that we kill for them. This project is trying to get you to think that people don’t care about semi-living tissues, but by using this, you save animals.
When trying to discern what it is that is meant by Oron Catts when he refers to the works of the TC&A as "semi-living" I found the following quote to be helpful: "The semi-living are fragments of The BODY, nurtured in surrogate body –a techno-scientific one. The laboratory is part of the extended body, but the care can only be performed by a fellow living being- us, the artists." To me the fact that humans are needed to maintain this entity is the key to while it is semi-living. It is a biological entity but it not self sustaining. I think the importance of this is to further highlight that in the relationship between humans and other creatures the humans are in the position of power. This puts the responsibilities on our shoulders.
As far as the victimless leather I am a bit conflicted. Personally I just think that this kind of strict categorization of things in order to establish some kind of stable moral guidelines is reductive and simple minded. I feel the aim of the piece is to make people grapple with the issue of whether this counts as a living creature. This might be okay if it wasn't a straw man argument. When you look at the project, especially in the context of the groups other works, it is clear that they only want you to encounter this conflict on yourself so that ultimately you will come down on their side. They do not intend to portray the true ambiguities of life they are simply force feeding their blatant political messages to us. That is not art that is propaganda.
-John Olsen
Something is "Semi-Living" according to Catts, when it is no longer part of its original living body, but can still be tended and cared for in a controlled environment. The cells are alive, yes, but it's not considered a living being.
I think this is all a little much... I think you lose some of the "artistry" when you attach a message to it. I think that yes, it's an exploitation of a living thing, but what isn't some sort of exploitation? This sort of "science art" is really just closer to science, and yes, it does exploit it. A guy sitting in his chair pontificating about the nature of life and technology just seems so pretentious. He is "questioning the autonomous space of the artist who work with the technologies he/she criticizes," which makes him more of a scientist that an artist.
I do think there is something interesting about the victimless leather... it's pretty fascinating to look at. But so is a mushroom cloud. It's all just a "look what we can do" sort of thing.
That last one was for
Kurt Raether
Steve Wetzel
In his article, The Art Of The Semi Living, Orson Catts uses the term "semi-living" to describe the way that tissue cultures are living, but no longer part of an actual living "body". He uses the term "body" in a broad sense, describing it as a, "universal body - that of the complex organism, the body of all animals(including humans) with highly differentiated tissues."(Catts 153) Although the term "semi-living" is not the most scientific way to describe the phenomenon taking place in a tissue culture, it is actually the best way to describe it because it is embedded with the conceptual and perceptual conflicts it represents.
I do not think that TCA's art piece, Victimless Leather, is an example of the exploitation of living animals in any sense because the tissue samples are "harvested". This implies that they are taken from a living creature in which the tissue cultures will grow back. Although the art piece does not seem to be exploitative of living beings itself, I also do not believe it does a good job of raising questions and encouraging discussion about the "exploitation of other living beings". It seems that to a certain group of people who know the background of the art piece and have read about it and the questions it attempts to provoke, the Victimless Leather could be seen as a stunning and awe inspiring way to lash out against the exploitation of other living creatures. On the other hand, the general public would not be aware of this deeper meaning and simply see another modern scientific marvel, this time in the shape of a small sweater. It seems to me that this piece is only art because it has been declared art by its' creators, not its' viewers. In order to truly raise discussion on the exploitation of other living animals this art piece needs to be recognized as art by the general public so that they realize they need dive deeper into the meaning behind shaping a tissue culture like a sweater. Until it is recognized as art by the public, Victimless Leather will be ineffective in provoking discussion regarding the exploitation of living beings.
Nick LaVake
T.A. Laura Bennett
Oron Catt’s article “The Art of the Semi Living” is a statement about what constitutes life. His perspective supports the idea that without a being, tissues that are biologically grown are semi-living and are therefore subject to a medium of artistic expression. “parts of what was once perceived as 'whole' life can 'live' outside of the original body upon which that notion of 'wholeness' was imposed." As an off-shoot of the stem-cell research controversy “playing God”, this adds a new element in which the artist rather than the scientist plays God. The whole idea of putting living tissue on display as art seems to exploit life itself not to mention the organism from which it came from. With that I don’t think the art of the semi living will hold any appeal for anyone outside of the Tissue Culture.
I do however like the idea of the victimless jacket. Growing skin cells in order to create leather jackets seems to be a great alternative to the slaughter of innocent animals for the sole purpose of selling their hides at a profit. From the marketing perspective, I don’t think they should let the consumer know this is happening, because it might scare away a chuck of the consumer base. Instead they should just start the new practice and let the old one die out.
Jack Kirby
TA Laura Bennet
In Catts' article "the Art of Semi-Living" her refers to the term semi living quit a bit. In his writing he links semi-living to the proses of taking human skin cells and putting them in a petri-dish which mimics the human body. In the dish the skin cells grow separately from the human body. This refers to the term semi-living because the skin cells are growing on there own, but they're not connected to a living body.
the victimless leather project is truly amazing. Catts' tries to make a big statement about this jacket in saying that no one is harmed in the making of it. Since the harvesting of skin cells does no kill the host and the skin cells will eventually grow back after every time. This is contrary to the normal harvesting of leather. Where Animals a killed and skinned to make the clothing every time. I think this is a great step forward in the development of leather cloths without death. Its just to bad that they didn't take this project in a more serious scientific way. Instead they made it more of and art form, which wont get there point across and further science as well.
Zach Cosby
Ta Laura
The idea of “Semi-living” art is extremely interesting, and is described in Oron Catt’s article entitled “The Art of the Semi-Living”. In this article Catt’s explains that this particular art form falls into the category of “biological arts”. Catt’s also uses the term “partial life” to describe these works of art that are “made of living tissue from the body, grown over/into three dimensional constructed substrates”. He describes one particular semi-living art project in his article that used fluid from a human knee joint and then grew it into tissue that was fashioned into small dolls. In this project, and all semi-living projects, the scientific processes and maintenance of the works is central. The tissue must be grown and kept in sterile environments so the galleries that the works are shown in must be converted as such. “The tissue and cells are kept alive with the aid of nutrient solution”. In discussing the concept of semi-living art, Catt’s references the late twentieth century experiment where a human ear was attached to the back of a mouse. While semi-living art is very different from this experiment, the concept seems similar to me. Semi-living art is, simply put, a manipulation of living materials. Instead of using paint or metal or film, these artist work in the medium of living materials to create a desired effect. In the case of Semi-living art, the desired effect seems to be encouraging the audience to contemplate science and technology in reguard to the concept of “life” and to “wholeness”. Are we “whole” beings if arts of us can be grown outside of ourselves or manipulated into something completely different?
Obviously the discussion of Semi-living art relates very closely to the controversial topic of stem cell research. While the processes seem rather similar (to my limited knowledge of both subjects) the outcomes and purposes are very different. In the Victimless Leather project, a coat is grown out of living tissue in an attempt to encourage discussion about the “exploitation of other living beings” which is, at least partially, where the controversy over stem cells research comes from. I do believe that the project encourages this discussion and offers enough visual and emotional material to allow those conversations to be engaged. Whether someone finds the project ethical or not, it clearly promotes conversation and debate. When confronted with a coat grown from living tissue, how could one avoid an opinion?
Lisa Casper
TA Steve Wetzel
“If we can sustain parts of the body alive, manipulate, modify and utilize them for different purposes, what does it say about our perception of our bodies, our wholeness, and ourselves?” This quote adequately sums up the concepts, questions, and possibilities behind the “semi living”. Semi living in short refers to a part of a living complex organism that has been harvested and sustained outside the body in order to be grown and/or manipulated. This practice raises certain consequences and questions regarding the importance and impact of these semi living beings. In particular, it raises the question of whether these organisms are victimless or exploitations of living beings.
The TCA’s piece entitled Victimless Leather encourages discussion regarding the exploitation of other living beings not only because it is itself alive, but because it has been manipulated into a consumer object (coat). What’s interesting about this is that this coat has been grown from excess cells that have been harvested from living beings like humans or frogs that were not injured in any way. This is unlike the many clothing and food items that we consume today that are made out of the skin or flesh of living objects that were killed in order to harvest the “material”. In this way, though many people disbelieve in the growth and manipulation of living cells, they must consider the rather minuscule implications of this process compared to more traditional means of production.
[Garrett Katerzynske]
[David Witzling]
In Oron Catt’s article the semi-living is described as the basic elements of life like cells and other fundamental structures placed together with non-living elements so that the tissues and living elements can continue to grow and thrive. In relation to the TCA piece Catt says the following, “The Semi-Livings are made of living tissues from the body, grown over/into three-dimensional constructed substrates.” The TCA’s aim was to construct a non-living representation of a jacket and then take cell tissue and add it to the “jacket” to create the appearance of a living and growing piece of clothing. The overall statement of the artists was for others to take notice of the exploitation of living items and discuss the morality of that same issue.
However, in my opinion, the art piece contradicts itself by, in fact, using tissues and living organisms in order to show their point. By making a comparison to the fashion industry, I notice a slight element of hypocrisy in the TCA’s claims. A company who produces garments made from living elements or taken from the living biosphere are trying to “make a point” about the product they are selling. They are showing a class placement and display their monetary place in the fashion world. Consumers who buy these products also are making a statement about their success and personal viewpoints about his or her place in society. Switching back to the TCA, we see artists using living organisms to also “make a point.” Although the point is supposed to lead people against the thought of using living tissue for human purposes, they are in fact doing that same that same thing, utilizing living tissue to display a human based purpose and effect. Personally, the outright and obvious statement made by the artist group doesn’t allow discussion as adequately if they had left the meaning of the project out to begin with. The project should have allowed viewers to interpret the piece without the group’s collective statement, allowing for a more elaborate argument on the topic. Instead, they have cookie-cut the meaning of the piece and have opened up more criticism and claims of hypocrisy, which distracts the effort of the artwork.
Mitchell Keller
TA: Laura Bennett
Post a Comment