Page 1

33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 1

Significant Notes Christine Borland

Ă…rhus Kunstforening af 1847


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 2

The book is published subsequent to the exhibtion ‘Significant Notes’ by Christine Borland at Århus Kunstbygning, 12 October 2002-10 November 2002.

Contents/Indhold

The exhibition at Århus Kunstbygning was generously supported by The Municipality of Århus and The British Council. Århus Kunstforening af 1847 wishes to thank Christine Borland, Galeria Toni Tàpies, Barcelona, Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, Lisson Gallery, London, Glasgow Print Studio, Glasgow, Claus Emmeche, Stefanie Jenssen, Steen Hammershøy Andersen, Shelley Smith and the staff at Århus Kunstbygning.

Curious Connections/Kuriøse sammenhænge Ulla Angkjær Jørgensen

5/12 Bordering Borland/At blive borte med Borland

Bogen er udgivet i forbindelse med udstillingen ‘Significant Notes’ af Christine Borland i Århus Kunstbygning, 12. oktober 2002-10. november 2002. Udstillingen i Århus Kunstbygning var støttet af Århus Kommune og The British Council. Århus Kunstforening af 1847 ønsker at takke Christine Borland, Galeria Toni Tàpies, Barcelona, Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, Lisson Gallery, London, Glasgow Print Studio, Glasgow, Claus Emmeche, Stefanie Jenssen, Steen Hammershøy Andersen, Shelley Smith og de ansatte i Århus Kunstbygning.

Stefanie Jenssen og Claus Emmeche

19/29 Biography/Biografi 42


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 4

Curious connections A modern study of anatomy and botany Ulla Angkjær Jørgensen

A

Ecbolic Garden, 2001 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

rather extraordinary exhibition by Christine Borland was shown in Stockholm in 1996; entitled To Dust We Will Return, it was extraordinary in that there was nothing much to see. The viewer entered a dark room where the only visible ‘objects’ were two cones of bluish light which illuminated floating dust particles. The dust was human bone ground so finely that it had turned into the almost invisible particles of dust. To a modern individual this may seem a macabre experience; some might even say it was unethical to inhale the remains of another human being. However, we continuously incorporate the remains of previous existences on Earth; the Universe consists of substances in perpetual transformation and transport, the human body is part of this large ecological flow of substances. During the Renaissance, in anatomical theatres throughout Europe, physicians began to open the human body through surgery. At the same time, scientists and amateurs alike began to ‘collect the world’ in cabinets of art and natural

history, the so-called Kunst- und Naturalienkammers, cabinets of curiosities or Wunderkammers. In the spirit of the time, we have to perceive these collections as microcosms reflecting a much larger macrocosm, God’s Creation. In the Renaissance it was said that the world was a book, and through the reading of this book, God’s Creation would reveal itself to the reader: the coherent nature of the universe would be disclosed by reading and recognising the signs [Kristensen 1993] The world was a wonder of God (hence the name ‘Wunderkammer’), and rare objects proof of His existence (hence the name ‘rarities’), these were examined by the viewers’ curious eye (hence the name ‘cabinet of curiosities’). Correspondingly, the human body was thought of as a microcosm mirroring a much larger structure, it was a continent yet to be explored. In anatomical theatres, physicians colonised this unknown continent, just as Christopher Columbus explored the world and discovered the Americas. The new science expounded a 5


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 6

theory of resemblance between phenomena: “everything corresponds to or ‘likens’ everything – the sky mirrors the earth, the face mirrors the stars, microcosm mirrors macrocosm, and the resemblances of herbs reveal their healing effects, as far as they bear the slightest likeness to what they are to cure.” [Kristensen 1993: 38] This interdependence on one hand on the visibility of the world, and on the other, the invisibility of the world, is repeated in the works of Christine Borland and the story of Mark Jameson’s herb garden, which her recent work has explored. In the mid 16th century the Scottish vicar, Mark Jameson, studied plants and herbs. This is borne out by his well-worn copy of Leonhart Fuchs’ De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes (Significant Notes on the History of Plants), first published in 1542, which was donated to Glasgow University Library after his death. Jameson served his town in a number of different ways, in 1555, he was Rector’s Deputy at the University of Glasgow and he later went to minister in Glasgow Cathedral as a “VicarChoral.” Jameson was also benefactor of at least two of the town’s hospitals, perhaps his visits to these hospitals drew his attention to a need. He certainly developed a special interest in herbs, and had plans to establish a physic garden in the vicinity of the university. We don’t know if he ever succeeded in planting his garden, but what we do know from his notes are the specific herbs he had in mind “to be sett & sawin in ye garding.” [Dickson and Gauld 1987: 62] 6

It had become widespread practice in the Renaissance to plant physic gardens, even in medieval times monks and nuns grew herbs in the monasteries and convents throughout Europe. The odd thing about Mark Jameson’s projected garden is, however, that it didn’t follow the general practice of the time as regards the representation of species. Furthermore, there seems to be a slight over representation of species known to affect the female reproductive system. It would appear that Jameson had intended to establish a special garden of gynaecological botany. Jameson’s garden was mainly to contain species used in those days as emmenagogues (to promote menstruation), galactagogues (to stimulate the secretion of milk), and especially, ecbolics (to stimulate uterine contractions – abortion or parturition). [Dickson and Gauld 1987] The more complicated details of reproduction were not yet known to Renaissance science, and the female abdomen was thus a corporeal mystery from which babies were delivered. Most questions on the subject weren’t answered until the 19th century. As an example, it wasn’t until 1828 that the human female egg was discovered and as late as the 1840s many physicians still believed that ovulation occurred during intercourse. The works Ecbolic Garden (2001) and To Be Set & Sown In The Garden (2002) by Christine Borland acknowledge the women who unwittingly contributed and who still contribute, with their bodies, to science and humanity. Likewise, The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students (2002)

Ecbolic Garden, 2001 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

7


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 8

Ecbolic Garden, 2001 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 10

The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students, 2002 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

10

remembers the unknown women, children, and students who undertook the colouring of the herbal, but whose names were never recorded for posterity, quite unlike the master artists and engravers involved in the process. Even though they had begun to open the body, there were still a lot of things Renaissance scientists could not see. To see is clearly not only a physical faculty; it is just as much a psychological one. We do not simply see things, we learn to see, sight has a history. To a certain extent we confirm what we already know in the act of seeing. On the other hand, we also learn from looking. The child, for instance, doesn’t know how to see from the day it is born, but learns to do so. In a way, ‘the curious gaze’ is of such a nature. The curious gaze is a gaze that has not yet seen, but is hungry and curiously on the look out for as yet undiscovered connections between the visible and the invisible. The modern, enlightened and classifying gaze, that gradually replaced the curious gaze in the 17th century, was by contrast a strict one. It was analytical and compartmentalising, extensively based on naked, empirical observation, in that respect it can be argued that it is a superficial gaze. [Kristensen 1993] In Renaissance anatomical theatres physicians practiced with a curious gaze and Renaissance collectors ‘collected the world’ in their museums according to curious principles. Christine

Borland practices art in keeping with those principles. Her art seeks to establish connections between knowledge and aesthetics overlooked by the modern and classifying gaze. The curious gaze was an aesthetic one; it collected the world according to the principle of likeness, and with a taste for the rare. In these collections, items of nature were presented alongside artificial items in such a way that connections between nature and culture were likely to arise, connections that the Enlightenment later separated. To enter an exhibition by Christine Borland is like entering a Wunderkammer, where aesthetic principles appear alongside scientific facts, creating the possibility for new and wondrous connections.

Literature Jens Erik Kristensen, “Det kuriøse og det klassificerende blik – naturens indsamling og forordning fra Renæssancens samlere til det moderne naturhistoriske museum med ‘Museum Wormianum’ som udgangspunkt.” Den jyske Historiker, nr. 64. Århus, 1993. J. H. Dickson and W. W. Gauld, “Mark Jameson’s Physic Plants, A Sixteenth Century Garden for Gynaecology in Glasgow?” Scottish Medical Journal, 1987: 32. Edinburgh, 1987.

11


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 12

Kuriøse sammenhænge – et moderne studie i anatomi og botanik Ulla Angkjær Jørgensen

I

Stockholm havde man i 1996 mulighed for at se eller rettere at opleve en udstilling af Christine Borland i Galleri Enkehuset. Det var en udstilling af usædvanlig karakter, idet der ikke var meget konkret at se på. Publikum entrerede et mørklagt rum, hvor de eneste synlige “objekter” var to lyskegler, som i et blåligt lys koncentrerede støvpartikler. Værket hed To Dust We Will Return, og støvet var menneskeknogler, der var blevet malet så fint, at de var blevet til næsten usynlige partikler. For det moderne menneske var det formodentlig en makaber oplevelse, nogle vil sige grænsende til det uetiske, sådan fysisk at indånde resterne af et andet menneske. Ikke desto mindre var værket en konkretisering af det vi gør hele tiden, inkorporerer rester af tidligere eksistenser på jorden. Hvad man godt kan glemme til daglig, nemlig at universet består af stoffer i evig forandring og transport, og at menneskekroppen er en del af dette store, stoflige økosystem, gjorde dette værk til nærværende virkelighed. I renæssancen begyndte man for alvor at

12

åbne menneskekroppen. Det gik for sig i anatomiske teatre rundt om i Europa. På samme tid begyndte man desuden at samle verden ind i naturaliekabinetter, wunderkamre, eller kuriøsitetskabinetter, og i botaniske haver. Disse samlinger skal i renæssancens forståelse ses som mikrokosmoser, der hver især afspejler det langt større makrokosmos, Guds skaberværk. I renæssancen mente man, at verden var en bog, som kunne læses og at Guds skaberværk ville åbenbare sig gennem læsningen. [Kristensen 1993] Det var blot et spørgsmål om at få øje på og lære at aflæse tegnene, så ville man forstå universums sammenhæng. Verden var et Guds underværk (heraf betegnelsen ‘wunderkammer’), og sjældne genstande dens udtryk (heraf betegnelsen ‘raritetskabinet’), og man gik til den med et kuriøst (nysgerrigt) blik (heraf betegnelsen ‘kuriøsitetskabinet’). Dette gjalt også menneskekroppen, dens anatomi var også et mikrokosmos, der afspejlede en langt større struktur. Menneskekroppen var et uudforsket kontinent, som man i de ana-

tomiske teatre rejste ind i, ligesom man på opdagelsesrejser rejste ud og koloniserede verden. Den anatomiske tegning lyder da også den langt mere sigende kartografiske betegnelse ‘anatomisk atlas.’ Hele denne nye videnskab hvilede på en ulastelig tiltro til, at man kunne se lighedsrelationer mellem tingene: “alt svarer til eller kan ‘lignes’ med alt – himlen spejler jorden, ansigtet spejler stjernerne, mikrokosmos afspejler makrokosmos og urternes ligheder røber deres helbredende virkninger, forsåvidt de bærer det mindste lighedstegn med det, de skal helbrede.” [Kristensen 1993: 38] Den indbyrdes afhængighed mellem på den ene side verdens synlighed og på den anden siden verdens usynlighed går igen i Christine Borlands værker og igen i historien om Mark Jameson, som Borland i sine seneste værker har udforsket. I midten af 1500-tallet var den skotske læge Mark Jameson i gang med at studere lægeurter. Det fremgår i hvert fald af hans eget meget brugte lommeeksemplar af Leonhart Fuchs’ De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes (Betydningsfulde noter om planters historie) fra 1542. Mark Jameson nåede at tjene sin by på flere måder. Udover sin lægegerning bestred han i 1555 embedet som Glasgow Universitets prorektor, og senere virkede han ved domkirken i Glasgow som kor-præst. Han var desuden velgører for to af byens hospitaler. Og måske har hans gang på disse hospitaler henledt hans opmærksomhed på specielt presserende behov i tiden, for han havde denne særlige interesse for lægeurter og

Ecbolic Garden, 2001 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

gik med planer om at etablere en botanisk have i umiddelbar nærhed af universitetet. Om han nogensinde nåede at føre planerne ud i livet, ved man ikke, men hvad han ønskede “at sætte og så i sin have” ved man fra hans notater i hans egen lommeudgave af Leonhart Fuchs’ botanik. [Dickson og Gauld 1987: 62] Det var som sagt blevet udbredt i tiden at plante botaniske haver, og haver for helbredende lægeurter var allerede almindelige i middelalderens klostre. Der er imidlertid det særegne ved Mark Jamesons projekterede have, at den ikke følger tidens gængse krav til repræsentation af arter i en sådan have. Samtidig er der en vis overrepræsentation af arter, som vides at indvir13


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 14

ke på kvindens kønsorganer. Noget tyder på, at det var Jamesons hensigt at oprette en have specielt for gynækologisk botanik. I Jamesons have skulle overvejende gro arter med emmenagogiske (menstruationsdrivende), galaktiske (mælkedrivende) og ekboliske (abortfremkaldende) virkninger, især det sidste. [Dickson og Gauld 1987] I renæssancen kendte man endnu ikke til de mere intrikate sammenhænge for forplantningen, og kvindens (under)liv var således et kropsligt mysterium, der kom børn ud af. De fleste spørgsmål desangående blev besvaret så sent som i 1800-tallet, fx opdagede man først i 1828 ægget og helt frem til 1840erne mente langt de fleste læger, at ægløsning fandt sted under samlejet. Christine Borlands værker Ecbolic Garden (2001) og To Be Set & Sown In The Garden (2002) er memoranda over de ufødte fostre og de kvinder, der har lagt – og stadigvæk lægger – krop til i videnskabens og menneskehedens tjeneste. Og værket The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students (2002) er på samme vis et memorandum over de ukendte kvinder, børn og studenter, der lagde krop og arbejde i at farvelægge Fuchs botanik. Disse blev imidlertid aldrig nævnt ved navn for eftertiden, i modsætning til de kunstnere og kobberstikkere, der var involverede i processen. På Jamesons tid var der imidlertid meget man endnu ikke kunne se, selvom man rent faktisk var begyndt at åbne kroppen. At se er nemlig ikke kun en fysisk egenskab, det er i lige så høj grad en mental kvalitet. Vi ser ikke umid14

delbart, men i forhold til hvad vi ved i forvejen. På en måde bekræfter vi til en vis grad, det vi ved på forhånd, når vi ser. På den anden side, så lærer vi dog hele tiden at se nyt, og det nyfødte barn ved jo heller ikke noget på forhånd, men skal tilegne sig synet. Synet har således en historie. “Det kuriøse blik” er på en måde et sådant blik. Det kuriøse blik er i en vis forstand det blik, der endnu ikke har set, men er sultent og nysgerrigt på jagt efter endnu ukendte sammenhænge mellem synligt og usynligt. Det moderne, oplyste og klassificerende blik derimod, som i 1600-tallet gradvist afløste det kuriøse, var anderledes strikt. Det var et analytisk og klassificerende blik, som i udstrakt grad baserede sig på den nøgne, empiriske iagttagelse. For så vidt er det et overfladisk blik, fordi det stoler på den rene iagttagelse. [Kristensen 1993] I renæssancens anatomiske teatre praktiserede lærde en videnskab i lyset af det kuriøse blik og renæssancens samlere indsamlede verden til deres museer efter det kuriøse bliks principper. Christine Borland mimer og overvejer renæssancens kuriøse blik, der søger at etablere sammenhænge mellem viden og æstetik, som det moderne, oplyste og klassificerende blik overser. Det kuriøse blik var nemlig også æstetisk. Det samlede ind efter lighedsprincippet og med interesse for det sjælne (raritas), det usædvanlige. Her optrådte naturgenstande ved siden af kunstgenstande. Her kunne der etableres sammenhænge mellem natur og kultur, som oplysningstiden senere skilte ad. At gå ind i en udstil-

The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students, 2002 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

ling af Christine Borland er som at gå ind i et wunderkammer, hvor æstetiske principper optræder sammen med naturvidenskabelige kendsgerninger og hvor muligheden for at skabe nye underbare forbindelser opstår.

Litteratur

ordning fra Renæssancens samlere til det moderne naturhistoriske museum med ‘Museum Wormianum’ som udgangspunkt.” Den jyske Historiker, nr. 64. Århus, 1993. J. H. Dickson og W. W. Gauld, “Mark Jameson’s Physic Plants, A Sixteenth Century Garden for Gynaecology in Glasgow?” Scottish Medical Journal, 1987: 32. Edinburgh, 1987.

Jens Erik Kristensen, “Det kuriøse og det klassificerende blik – naturens indsamling og for15


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 16

The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students, 2002

The History of Plants, According to Women, Children and Students, 2002

Aristolochia Clematitis (Birthwort/hjertebladet slangerod) by Stephanie Bryon

Filipendula Vulgaris (Dropwort/knoldet mjødurt) by Amy Wilson


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 18

Bordering Borland

A Treasury of Human Inheritance Thomsen’s Disease (Myotonia congenita) Fig. 1044 Griffith’s Case, 2000 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London

– conversations on living feeling Stefanie Jenssen and Claus Emmeche

I

n science as well as in the arts, the creative search process frequently takes the inquirer or creator to a quite different place than planned. When we embarked on an essay touching upon some of the perspectives implied by Christine Borland’s art, this happened to us as well, although for our part this detour was more due to a form of technological serendipity. In the early phase of research for this note, we had the idea of using the recently issued and much praised OpenFuture™, the new generation of time machines from Body Computing Inc.. These machines are still impossible to buy for private purposes. However, we were lucky enough to work with dedicated researchers at The Advanced Institute of Future Studies where one of the latest versions of OpenFuture™ is located. We would like to thank them for their co-operation and willingness to give us free access to this wonderful instrument. As it has transpired, the present functionality of time machines in general is extremely exaggerated. Still they only allow for limited time transgres18

sion of digital material. However, the OpenFuture™ machine has built-in ‘quest facilities’ that allow one to search for future texts on particular subjects. Thus, as we set out to look for references to Borland’s art in the coming centuries, one of the texts that appeared was in the form of a conversation between two persons. At first we dismissed this piece as being too peculiar to be of any use. However, while we did further explorations, several themes from within this conversation continued to reappear. We gave it a closer look, but it was difficult for us to extract any simple lesson from the text, and finally we decided to publish the full document. In several ways the conversation may speak for itself. However, to help the reader to better grasp its meanings, we will first give context to the dialogue, so far as we understand it ourselves. “Dorothy” is talking to a scientist, a professor of biology. “She” is a “wet”, a web entity, distinguished from others by the positioning and connections of her circuits. This web entity is 19


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 20

neither gendered, nor in any way biological. It exists on the web, electronically connected to other personalities. These personalities “read” and “feel” each other, as well as the rest of the physical world. Trees, birds, architecture etc. are read and felt by these entities. The last humans exist as brain scans. The professor is one of the last few surviving. Humans have discarded their biological identity through their technology. “Dorothy” has just been reinstalled and thus got rid of some old unpleasant memories. She wants to enhance her circuits again, and starts studying. Her topic is “identity”. She wants to

learn about both art and science from an era when people were dependent upon their identity. Dorothy does not grasp the concept of body as a biological machine, and consciousness residing in a body. She discovers the professor. They start talking. The professor was a biologist and lives now in eternal retirement as a file, a brain scan done during his lifetime. He is convinced that real consciousness can never transcend a body. But he also admits that biological definitions do not explain “personal identity.” What are biological bodies? Are they the vessels of identity?

Conversations on ‘living feeling’ – Hello …? Can you hear me, see me, read me? Can you feel my presence – the presence of a “wet”? I don’t know whether you are still online, available … I am doing 20th century studies … particularly the time when the science called biology was connected to this archaic concept of identity … well, archaic is maybe too … anyway, identity is my research … Hello, can you …? – I can feel you … and read you … clearly. – Oh, good, my name is Dorothy … I choose to give you a name since it makes it easier, our conversation, I mean … we don’t usually use names anymore … – What is it that you want? – I am just wondering … No, really I am amazed I could find you. It was not easy. Usually they close off brain scans that are more than a hundred years old … But I was lucky, this teacher I use said I should look up the oldest files on biology, … and scientists. – They failed to delete me during the last WC – Web-Compact, the big decennial clean up … Now they keep me as a kind of freak … Anyway, I don’t want to waste time. You wanted to know something? 20

A Treasury of Human Inheritance Progressive Muscular Dystrophy, Fig. 605 Barnses’s Case, 2002 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

– Yes, thanks, well, … I have read about some exhibition, late 20th century. It was interesting, but truly confusing. This artist, Borland, she was all hung up in this idea about identity. I just wanted to find out what all the fuss was about. Identity must have been really important. To humans, I mean. – You are not a descendant then, I assume? But you are comfortable using “I” and “me”? – To be honest, I do this to be able to talk to you. My entity got re-installed, compacted, as you call it. My former wet wanted to get rid of a lot of old circuits, bad memories, I guess … I entered a study community shortly afterwards … basically to build up new circuits. It is recommended, so one does not lose the webspace already paid for. – So you entities still study … I am sorry; I only stay in touch with authorities these days, because of my unusual situation. My acquaintance with young people, err … entities is limited. Borland, you said. Yes, that triggers a few memories. Fascinating artist, indeed, quite extraordinary. I met her once; she was actually an older lady by that time. I was a young scientist. We were the first to do a successful brain scan of living persons … Anyway, yes, Borland. I remember she was one of the last artists who wanted to talk about bodies. And I do not mean what gets sold off as bodies today, in 2120. No, I mean carbon-based, DNA-triggered bodies, female, male … 21


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 22

– Oh, yes, I found out that this was the only kind of bodies you had. Strange how people needed this … would you say dichotomy? … Between bodies and machines. But I am sorry. I interrupted you. – Well, when I met Borland, I was in the middle of the HYBRIS project. The Human Yogi Brain Research International Scanmap program, to be precise, aiming at mapping the brain structures that seemed to allow Japanese Zen masters, but seemingly not ordinary humans, to transcend their normal state of consciousness. I was sceptical about their own explanations, but they clearly had access, somehow, to control physiology by clever information processing. You see, I do not believe in the dualist picture of machines contra bodies. As a biologist, I always thought that you could only have consciousness in bodies, and that the body was just a very complex biologic machine. So how could any higher form of consciousness transcend the body? – Well, I am conscious, you know. You must have realized you were mistaken. – About what? That consciousness can only be found in bodies made of biological material? I still believe that. – But … excuse me, how do you see yourself now? I mean, my creature indicator clearly tells me that you are in a virtual mode. You’re an information cluster, of high cardinality, of course … Don’t you think your … identity has changed? – For sure! But what is identity? I can give you a genetic definition of identity. Two twins are identical given they have the same genome. I can also give you a neurobiological definition of identity. Say two twins are identical if and only if they also share exactly the same brain structure … and corresponding processes, right? This never happens – they never share exactly the same environment, there is always developmental noise and so on, and so on. – Excuse me, professor. You talking about twins reminds me of one of Borland’s pieces. Painted skulls, with beautiful patterns. I was really confused because they were skulls, human skulls, made of china. I checked my weblex and found that china was used to produce vessels containing food and drink. I did not get the connection. Where the skulls seen as vessels for nourishment? This old mode of art seems so complicated. There had to be so much meaning behind another meaning. – That’s why it was called art. – Yes, well, but we have art today. Everyone can do it. It is easy. You just have to express yourself. 22

– Hhm. – But if identity has something to do with similarity of patterns, this might explain why I am conscious of what you would call “myself ”. Even though we don’t use these expressions anymore. – Still you must ask yourself: Similarity of patterns, yes. But patterns of what? Of information? Of stuff? I can assure you, neither you nor I possess anything I would want to call ‘personal identity’. – Well, how can I know … Yet when I felt those skulls I could read the similarity of their pattern. They matched. And there was this strange sense of something, someone belonging to someone else. Right there … the skulls belonged. I have no idea what that feels like. Do you, professor? – Oh – ‘what it feels like’! Are you trying to torment me!? How should I know how these skulls feel? You must be … – No, sorry, please don’t get upset with me. You misunderstood! The skulls were made of English bone china. Skulls of humans must have had these old-fashioned bodies, like you once had. Excuse me for that, but as fragile as bodies were by that time. It is not that they represented just fragility, they had also this special history. And they were called: Family. – All right, forgive me, but your question triggered a strange remembrance. Annoying. I cannot explain it. There is a certain quality of my experiences I seem to have lost. Have you heard of phantom pains? – Let me see … According to my weblex it is pain experienced as if located in parts of the biological body that the subject has lost due to damages, amputations and so on. – Clever, but in my case, I do not really feel real pain anymore – just representations of pain. Even my being sad about this lost quality of life, of ‘living feeling’ if you like, is only present as a symbol of sadness. The strange thing is that talking to you, it is as if some of this quality faintly reappears … But all you “wets” have dispensed with any notion of family, right? Even in my time and place – and certainly in biology, we only used it as a genetic marker, not having much to do with individuality. – But once you could say where you came from! – You could locate from where you got your inborn errors of metabolism, or 23


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 24

A Treasury of Human Inheritance 2000


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 26

what social system of norms you had to revolt against, or embrace. That’s essentially a family affair. But talking about bodies – I can fell the presence of your thoughts. I can read you clearly, but I can only vaguely sense your, should I say, physical appearance. Can I blame it on the connection? – I am not sure what you mean by physical appearance, professor. What is physical in your perspective? What is appearance? We have abandoned four out of your five senses. And we read information clusters right into our circuits. But all I have read about humans tells me you were obsessed with the visual, as a messenger of beauty. We do feel beauty, you know, and read it. There is nothing wrong with your connection, professor. But if you are looking for beauty, I am afraid I cannot give you what you might want from me. – I am sorry, Dorothy, I did not mean to upset you either. You are right, the visual sense, sensing beauty in bodies, did mean a lot. Maybe too much in our society I must confess. – But then again, professor, the visual could be deceiving, couldn’t it. Borland’s handsome heads for example, of this man who killed so many. I cannot recall his name right now. Which reminds me, you must think I am awfully rude for not having asked that question yet. What was your name back then, professor? – Searleman. Gerald R. Searleman. – Nice to meet your, Professor Searleman. Tell me, did you always do neuroscience? – Call me Gerald. No, I dropped out of a philosophy program at the university and took degrees in immunology. You know, the science of the cellular basis of ‘self ’ and ‘other’. Anyway, I ended up as a highly esteemed neurobiologist. In fact I made a living on these brain scan maps. – A living? Oh, yes, you must have been highly creative in your experiments on living brains. Professor, do you think you can experiment with what you call death? – No. We must accept that death means the irrevocable loss of an individual and that individual’s being. Death is not an experiment: There is nothing to report. Minds do not exist disembodied. – I see. And is this the limit of science? – Indeed, a fundamental limit to the knowledge of people and science. 26

– People, too? – Yes. The particular and irreversible path of an individual’s qualitative experiences can never be accessible to any other individual. Whatever is left of me here, I cannot call it my mind. I am a freak. I am like an idea, nothing more, one small idea. Those freakish unrelated things. – Strange. I’m connected to you, right? We exchange ideas, don’t we? These ideas, they tend to invest our minds. And as an idea spreads, its intrinsic quality remains almost unchanged. – Whatever you say, I maintain that the microscopic and blind mechanisms of the brain, the neuronal mechanisms, connect ideas in the brain. I have no brain left, being just a file. I might actually have been exhibited in one of Borland’s shows as someone from the past who once had an identity. – But if I am asked whether a blind mechanism cannot bring ideas together, I would say that it cannot remain blind. There is a continuous connection between ideas, and they become associated in a living feeling, and in a general idea. Wherever ideas come together they tend to weld into general ideas; and wherever they are generally connected, general ideas govern the connection; and these general ideas are living feelings spread out. After all, we are all nodes in a web of signs, professor. – I see your point. That’s interesting. And this ‘seeing’ your point almost makes me feel like I know you from before … – Good. I am sorry to have been deceiving you. I am an artist, professor, working on the identity of human brain scans. I was curious about your history, and now I can see that identity does not disappear, even in a file. Welcome to the exhibition of formerly unidentified brain scans, professor. You are one of my most precious pieces. – Dorothy, is that still you? … No, I know I have felt this presence before. But I did not know you had … It is you, Christine, isn’t it?

The end At this point, we could observe the original file was cut, not being completed by conventional end file codes. However, we hope to get access to coming versions of OpenFuture™ to pursue

not only what happened to the professor and ‘Dorothy’ later on, but, more important, to make an in-depth investigation into the future history and cultural significance of brain scan exhibitions. 27


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:58 Side 26

what social system of norms you had to revolt against, or embrace. That’s essentially a family affair. But talking about bodies – I can fell the presence of your thoughts. I can read you clearly, but I can only vaguely sense your, should I say, physical appearance. Can I blame it on the connection? – I am not sure what you mean by physical appearance, professor. What is physical in your perspective? What is appearance? We have abandoned four out of your five senses. And we read information clusters right into our circuits. But all I have read about humans tells me you were obsessed with the visual, as a messenger of beauty. We do feel beauty, you know, and read it. There is nothing wrong with your connection, professor. But if you are looking for beauty, I am afraid I cannot give you what you might want from me. – I am sorry, Dorothy, I did not mean to upset you either. You are right, the visual sense, sensing beauty in bodies, did mean a lot. Maybe too much in our society I must confess. – But then again, professor, the visual could be deceiving, couldn’t it. Borland’s handsome heads for example, of this man who killed so many. I cannot recall his name right now. Which reminds me, you must think I am awfully rude for not having asked that question yet. What was your name back then, professor? – Searleman. Gerald R. Searleman. – Nice to meet your, Professor Searleman. Tell me, did you always do neuroscience? – Call me Gerald. No, I dropped out of a philosophy program at the university and took degrees in immunology. You know, the science of the cellular basis of ‘self ’ and ‘other’. Anyway, I ended up as a highly esteemed neurobiologist. In fact I made a living on these brain scan maps. – A living? Oh, yes, you must have been highly creative in your experiments on living brains. Professor, do you think you can experiment with what you call death? – No. We must accept that death means the irrevocable loss of an individual and that individual’s being. Death is not an experiment: There is nothing to report. Minds do not exist disembodied. – I see. And is this the limit of science? – Indeed, a fundamental limit to the knowledge of people and science. 26

– People, too? – Yes. The particular and irreversible path of an individual’s qualitative experiences can never be accessible to any other individual. Whatever is left of me here, I cannot call it my mind. I am a freak. I am like an idea, nothing more, one small idea. Those freakish unrelated things. – Strange. I’m connected to you, right? We exchange ideas, don’t we? These ideas, they tend to invest our minds. And as an idea spreads, its intrinsic quality remains almost unchanged. – Whatever you say, I maintain that the microscopic and blind mechanisms of the brain, the neuronal mechanisms, connect ideas in the brain. I have no brain left, being just a file. I might actually have been exhibited in one of Borland’s shows as someone from the past who once had an identity. – But if I am asked whether a blind mechanism cannot bring ideas together, I would say that it cannot remain blind. There is a continuous connection between ideas, and they become associated in a living feeling, and in a general idea. Wherever ideas come together they tend to weld into general ideas; and wherever they are generally connected, general ideas govern the connection; and these general ideas are living feelings spread out. After all, we are all nodes in a web of signs, professor. – I see your point. That’s interesting. And this ‘seeing’ your point almost makes me feel like I know you from before … – Good. I am sorry to have been deceiving you. I am an artist, professor, working on the identity of human brain scans. I was curious about your history, and now I can see that identity does not disappear, even in a file. Welcome to the exhibition of formerly unidentified brain scans, professor. You are one of my most precious pieces. – Dorothy, is that still you? … No, I know I have felt this presence before. But I did not know you had … It is you, Christine, isn’t it?

The end At this point, we could observe the original file was cut, not being completed by conventional end file codes. However, we hope to get access to coming versions of OpenFuture™ to pursue

not only what happened to the professor and ‘Dorothy’ later on, but, more important, to make an in-depth investigation into the future history and cultural significance of brain scan exhibitions. 27


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 28

At blive borte med Borland

A Treasury of Human Inheritance Thomsen’s Disease (Myotonia congenita). Fig. 1050 Martins & Hansemann’s Case, 2000 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

– Samtale om levende følelse Stefanie Jenssen og Claus Emmeche

I

kunst såvel som i videnskab tager den kreative proces ofte forskeren eller skaberen ud på en vej, som er helt anderledes end den påtænkte. Da vi lagde ud med arbejdet på et essay om nogle af de perspektiver, vi ser i Christine Borlands kunst, skete det samme for os, omend det for vores vedkommende nok snarere skyldtes en form for teknologisk slumpetræf. Under forberedelserne til nærværende notits fik vi på et tidligt tidspunkt den idé, at benytte en af de nyligt frigivne og højt roste OpenFuture™, den ny generation tidsmaskiner fra Body Computing Inc. Maskinerne er stadig ikke til at købe til privat brug, men vi var heldige at etablere en kontakt med engagerede forskere fra Grundforskningsinstituttet for Fremtidsstudier, hvor en af de nyeste udgaver af OpenFuture™ er placeret. Vi vil gerne takke dem for dette samarbejde og deres beredvillighed til at give os adgang til dette ret fantastiske instrument. Nu er det en kendt sag at den generelle funktionalitet af tidsmaskiner er stærkt overdrevet. De tillader stadigvæk kun en begrænset tidsovervindelse af

28

digitalt materiale. Men OpenFuture™ maskinen har en indbygget søgefunktion, ‘quest’, som muliggør søgning efter tekster om bestemte emner. Derfor satte vi os for at spore referencer til Borlands kunst i de kommende århundreder, og en af de tekster der dukkede op havde form af en samtale mellem to personer. I første omgang droppede vi teksten med dialogen, for den virkede for underlig til at kunne bruges. Men da vi fortsatte vores efterforskning blev flere af samtalens temaer ved med at dukke op. Vi kiggede nærmere på den, men det var svært at uddrage en samlet konklusion fra teksten og til sidst besluttede vi at bringe det fulde dokument. På mange måder taler teksten for sig selv. For alligevel at lette læserens indgang til dialogens betydninger, skal vi kort angive dens ramme, i al fald sådan som vi selv har tydet den. “Dorothy” taler med en videnskabsmand, en biologiprofessor. “Hun” er en “wet”, en net-entitet, som adskiller sig fra de øvrige ved den måde hendes elektroniske kredsløb er skruet sammen på. Denne net-entitet er hverken kønnet eller på 29


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 30

var biolog og lever nu i en tilstand af evig pensionist på en fil, et hjerneskan der blev lavet dengang han virkede. Han er overbevist om, at virkelig bevidsthed aldrig kan overskride det kropslige.

Men han indrømmer også at biologiske definitioner ikke kan forklare, hvad personlig identitet er. Hvad er biologiske kroppe? Er de identitetens beholder?

Samtale om ‘levende følelse’ – Hallo …? Kan du høre mig, se mig, læse mig? Kan du føle mit nærvær – nærværet af en “wet”? Jeg ved ikke om du stadig er tilgængelig, online … Jeg studerer det 20. århundrede … især den tid, hvor den videnskab man kaldte biologi var knyttet til det arkaiske begreb om identitet … altså, arkaisk er måske lidt for … nå men, identitet er i al fald mit studieemne … Hallo, kan du …?

A Treasury of Human Inheritance.

nogen måde biologisk. Den eksisterer på nettet, elektronisk forbundet med andre personligheder. Disse personligheder “læser” og “føler” hinanden og resten af den fysiske verden. Træer, fugle, arkitektur, osv. læses og føles af disse størrelser. De sidste mennesker eksisterer som hjerneskan, oprindeligt fra totalskanninger af hjernen. Professoren er en af de få overlevende hjerneskan. Mennesker har i kraft af teknologien bortkastet deres biologiske identitet. 30

“Dorothy” er lige blevet geninstalleret og er derfor kommet af med nogle gamle ubehagelige erindringer. Nu vil hun styrke sine forbindelser igen, og begynder at studere. Hendes emne er “identitet”. Hun vil gerne lære om kunst og videnskab i en epoke, hvor folk var afhængige af deres identitet. Dorothy forstår ikke begrebet om kroppen som en biologisk maskine, og bevidsthed som iboende denne. Hun opdager professoren. De begynder at tale sammen. Professoren

A Treasury of Human Inheritance.

31


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 32

Webs of Genetic Connectedness, 2000 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

32

Webs of Genetic Connectedness, 2000 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

33


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 34

– Jeg kan føle dig … og læse dig … tydeligt. – Det er godt, jeg hedder Dorothy … Jeg valgte at give dig et navn for mig, for det gør det nemmere, vores samtale mener jeg … vi bruger som regel ikke navne mere … – Hvad er det du vil? – Jeg undrede mig bare … Nej, jeg er virkelig overrasket over at jeg kunne finde dig. Det var ikke let. Som regel lukker de af for hjerneskan, som er mere end 100 år gamle … Men jeg var heldig, den lærer jeg har, sagde jeg skulle se efter i de ældste filer om biologi … og videnskabsmænd. – De overså mig og fik mig ikke slettet ved sidste WC – Web-Compact, den store tiårlige oprydning … Nu beholder de mig som et slags interessant tilfælde … Nåh, men jeg vil helst ikke spilde tiden. Hvad ville du vide? – Jo tak, øhh, … jeg har læst om en eller anden udstilling, sidst i det 20. århundrede. Det var spændende, men temmeligt forvirrende. Denneher kunstner, Borland, hun var helt opslugt af den der idé om identitet. Jeg ville bare finde ud af, hvad alt det halløj drejede sig om. Identitet må virkelig have været noget meget vigtigt. Altså for mennesker. – Så du er ikke en efterkommer, går jeg ud fra? Men du bruger gladeligt ord som “jeg” og “mig”? – Helt ærligt, jeg gør det for at kunne snakke med dig. Min entitet blev geninstalleret, kompresset, som man siger. Min forhenværende wet ville gerne af med en masse gamle kredsløb, dårlige minder går jeg ud fra … Jeg tilsluttede mig en studiegruppe kort efter … egentligt for at opbygge nye kredsløb. Det kan godt anbefales, så man ikke mister det web-space, man allerede har betalt for. – Nå, så I entiteter studerer altså stadig … Ja undskyld, men det er nok fordi myndighederne har været min eneste kontakt i lang tid, på grund af min usædvanlige situation. Mit kendskab til unge mennesker, nå nej, jeg mener entiteter, er ret begrænset. Borland, sagde du. Ja, der dukker da nogle oplevelser frem. Fascinerende kunstner, virkelig. Temmelig ekstraordinær. Jeg mødte hende engang. Hun var allerede en ældre dame på det tidspunkt, jeg var en ung forsker. Vi var de første, der havde succes med at totalskanne levende personer. Nå, men Borland. Jeg husker hun var en af de sidste kunstnere, der ville tale om kroppe. Og jeg taler ikke om det der bliver udbudt som kroppe i dag, i 2120. Nej, men mener kulstofbaserede, DNA-styrede kroppe, kvindelige, mandlige … 34

– Nåh ja, jeg fandt ud af, at det var den eneste slags kroppe, I havde. Det er mærkeligt, hvordan folk havde brug for den … ville du ikke kalde det tvedeling … mellem kroppe og maskiner? Nå, men undskyld, jeg afbrød dig. – Jo, da jeg mødte Borland var jeg midt i HYBRIS projektet. Helt nøjagtigt: The Human Yogi Brain Research International Scanmap program, som havde til formål at kortlægge de hjernestrukturer der tillod japanske zen-mestre, men tilsyneladende ikke almindelige mennesker, at transcendere deres dagligdags bevidsthedstilstand. Jeg var skeptisk overfor deres egne forklaringer, men de havde helt klart adgang til at kontrollere deres fysiologi gennem en eller anden snedig form for informationsbehandling. Som du kan høre, tror jeg ikke på det dualistiske billede af maskine versus krop. Som biolog har jeg altid været overbevist om, at man kun kan have bevidsthed i en krop, og at kroppen bare er en meget kompleks biologisk maskine. Så hvordan skulle en eller anden højere bevidsthedsform overskride kroppen? – Tjah, jeg er bevidst, du ved. Du må have indset, at du tog fejl. – Af hvad? At bevidsthed kun kan findes i kroppe, der er lavet af biologisk materiale? Det tror jeg stadig. – Men … undskyld mig, hvordan anskuer du dig selv? Jeg mener, min creature indicator viser klart og tydeligt, at du er i en virtuel modus. Du er en informationsklynge, selvfølgelig af høj kardinalitet … Tror du ikke din … identitet har forandret sig? – Selvfølgelig da! Men hvad er identitet? Jeg kan give dig en genetisk definition. To tvillinger er genetisk identiske, fordi de har det samme genom. Jeg kan også give dig en neurobiologisk definition på identitet. Eksempelvis er to tvillinger identiske, hvis og kun hvis de også har nøjagtigt den samme hjernestruktur … og tilsvarende processer, ikke? Det sker aldrig – de deler aldrig det helt præcist samme miljø, der er altid udviklingsmæssig støj, og så videre og så videre. – Undskyld mig, professor. Din snak om tvillinger minder mig om et af Borlands værker. Kranier, malede med smukke mønstre. Jeg blev virkelig forvirret, for de var kranier, menneskekranier, lavet af porcelæn. Jeg slog op i mit weblex og fandt ud af, at porcelæn blev brugt til at producere beholdere for mad og drikke. Jeg fandt aldrig ud af forbindelsen. Skulle kranierne ses som beholdere for ernæring? Den gamle type kunst virker så kompliceret. Der er så meget betydning bagved andre betydninger. 35


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 36

– Det er derfor, det blev kaldt for kunst. – Jaeh, men der findes da kunst i dag. Alle kan lave det. Det er let. Man udtrykker sig bare. – Hhm. – Men hvis identitet har nog et at gøre med lighed mellem mønstre, så kan det måske forklare hvorfor jeg er bevidst om det, som du kalder “jeg”. Selvom vi ikke bruger den slags udtryk længere. – Men må du vel lige overveje: Lighed mellem mønstre, jotak, men mønstre af hvad? Af information? Af stof? Jeg kan forsikre dig om at hverken du eller jeg besidder nog et, jeg ville kalde for ‘personlig identitet’. – Nå, hvordan kan jeg vide … Alligevel, da jeg følte de kranier, kunne jeg læse deres mønstres lighed. De passede sammen. Og der var denneher underlige fornem melse af noget, nogen der hørte sammen med nogen andre. Lige dér, de kranier, de hørte sammen. Jeg har ingen idé om, hvordan det føles. Har du, professor? – Åh, – ‘hvordan det føles!’ Prøver du på at pine mig!? Hvordan skulle jeg vide, hvordan de kranier føler? Du må da være … – Nej, undskyld, du må ikke blive vred på mig. Du misforstod! Kranierne var lavet af engelsk benporcelæn. Kranier fra mennesker må have haft disseher gammeldags kroppe, som du også havde – ja, undskyld altså. Men lige så skrøbelige som kroppe var på det tidspunkt. Det er ikke bare dét, at de stod for noget skrøbeligt, de havde også den særlige historie. Og de blev kaldt: Familie. – Det er i orden, tilgiv mig, men dit spørgsmål fremkaldte en sær erindring. Irriterende. Jeg kan ikke forklare det. Det er en bestemt kvalitet ved mine oplevelser, som jeg synes, jeg har mistet. Har du hørt om fantomsmerter? – Lad mig se … Ifølge mit weblex er det smerte, der opleves som om den sidder i dele af kroppen, som personen har tabt ved læssioner, skader, amputation osv. – Dygtigt, men i mit tilfælde føler jeg slet ikke rigtig smerte mere – kun repræsentationer af smerte. Selv min tristhed over denne tabte livskvalitet, tabet af ‘levende følelse’ om du vil, er kun til stede som symboler på tristhed. Det underlige ved det er, at ved at tale med dig, så er det som om, noget af den kvalitet svagt dukker op igen … Men alle I “wets” har droppet ethvert begreb om familie, ikke? Selv på min tid, og i mine cirkler, især i biologien, brugte vi det kun som genetisk markør, som ikke havde meget at gøre med egentlig individualitet. 36

– Men engang kunne du da sige, hvor du kom fra! – Du kunne lokalisere, hvorfra du havde fået dine medfødte stofskiftesygdomme, eller hvilket socialt system af normer du var nødt til at gøre op med – eller underlægge dig. Se dét er en familieting. Men når vi nu taler om kroppe – jeg kan føle nærværet af dine tanker. Jeg kan tydeligt læse dig, men jeg kan kun vagt sanse din, skal vi kalde det fysiske, fremtoning. Ligger manglen mon i forbindelsen? – Jeg er ikke sikker på, hvad du mener med fysisk fremtoning, professor. Hvad er fysisk i dit perspektiv? Vi har opgivet fire ud af jeres fem sanser. Og vi indlæser informationsklynger direkte ind i vores kredsløb. Men alt hvad jeg har læst om mennesker fortæller, at I var besat af det visuelle, som en art budbringer for skønhed. Vi er indrettet sådan, at vi føler skønhed, ikke sandt? Og læser den. Der er ikke noget galt med forbindelsen, professor. Men hvis du leder efter skønhed, er jeg bange for jeg ikke kan give, hvad du ønsker af mig. – Dorothy, det var heller ikke min mening at såre dig. Du har ret i at synssansen, sansningen af skønheden ved kroppe, det betød virkelig meget. Måske for meget i vores samfund, må jeg indrømme. – Men samtidig med det, så kunne det visuelle bedrage, kunne det ikke? Borlands smukke hoveder for eksempel, af den mand der dræbte så mange. Jeg kan ikke huske hans navn lige nu. Hvilket minder mig om, – du synes sikker jeg er helt ubehøvlet fordi jeg endnu ikke har spurgt. Hvad var dit navn dengang, professor? – Searleman. Gerald R. Searleman. – Jamen, så pænt goddag, professor Searleman. Har du altid forsket i neurovidenskab?

Skull, Upper extremities, right, Breastbone, Collarbones, Shoulder blades, Ribs, Spine, Sacrum, Pelvis, Lower extremities, right, Lower extremities, left, 1997 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

37


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 38

– Kald mig bare Gerald. Nej, jeg droppede filosofistudiet på universitetet og uddannede mig i immunologi. Du ved, videnskaben om ‘selv’ og ‘ikke-selv’. Nå, men jeg endte altså som en højt anerkendt neurobiolog. Faktisk kom jeg til at kunne leve af, at lave disse hjerneskan-kort. – Leve af det? Nå ja, du må have været temmelig kreativ i dine eksperimenter med levende hjerner. Professor, tror du man kan eksperimentere med det, I kalder død? – Nej. Vi må acceptere at død betyder det uigenkaldelige tab af et individ og det individs væren. Døden er ikke noget eksperiment: Der er ikke noget at rapportere. Sind eksisterer ikke uden krop. – Javel. Er det så videnskabens grænse? – Netop, en fundamental grænse for videnskab og viden om mennesker. – Også mennesker? – Ja. Den særegne og irreversible vej, som individets kvalitative erfaringer følger, kan aldrig gøres tilgængelig for noget andet individ. Hvad der end er tilbage af mig her, så kan jeg ikke kalde det mit sind. Jeg er en freak. Jeg er som en idé, ikke andet, en enkelt lille idé. Disse små sære partikler. – Mærkeligt. Jeg har forbindelse til dig, ikke? Vi udveksler ideer, gør vi ikke? De ideer, de har tendens til at gribe vores sind, ikke? Og når en idé breder sig, forbliver dens indre kvalitet næsten uændret. – Du kan sige, hvad du vil, men jeg mener at hjernens mekanismer, de neuronale mekanismer, forbinder ideer i hjernen. Jeg har ingen hjerne tilbage, jeg er bare en fil. Jeg kunne faktisk have været udstillet i et af Borlands shows som én fra fortiden, der engang havde en identitet. – Men hvis man spørger mig, om ikke en blind mekanisme kan bringe ideer sammen, vil jeg først bemærke, at den ikke kan forblive blind. Da der er en kontinuert forbindelse mellem ideer, ville de uværgerligt blive associerede i en levende, følende og opfattende generel idé. Hvor som helst ideer kommer sammen, er de tilbøjelige til at sammensvejses til generelle ideer; og hvor som helst de er generelt forbundne, styrer generelle ideer forbindelsen; og disse generelle ideer er udbredt levende følelse. Når det kommer til stykket, er vi alle knuder i et net af tegn, professor. – Jeg kan godt se pointen. Interessant. Og det at kunne ‘se’ din pointe får mig næsten til at føle det som om, jeg kender dig fra tidligere … 38

– Godt. Jeg beklager, at jeg har snydt dig. Jeg er en kunstner, professor, som arbejder med identiteten af menneskelige hjerneskan. Jeg var nysgerrig efter din historie, og nu kan jeg se at identiteten ikke forsvinder, end ikke i en fil. Velkommen til udstillingen af tidligere uidentificerede hjerneskan, professor. Du er et af mine mest dyrebare værker. – Dorothy, er det stadig dig? … Nej, jeg ved jeg har følt det nærvær før. Men jeg vidste ikke du havde … Det er dig, Christine, er det ikke?

Slut På dette sted var det oprindelige dokument afbrudt uden af være fuldendt af de sædvanlige stopkoder. Vi håber dog at få adgang til kommende udgaver af OpenFuture™, ikke blot for

at finde ud af, hvad der senere hændte professoren og ‘Dorothy’, men endnu vigtigere, for at udføre dybtgående undersøgelser af den fremtidige historie og kulturelle betydning af hjerneskan-udstillinger.

39


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 40

A Treasure of Human Inheritance Thomsen’s Disease (Myotonia congenita) Fig. 1049 Bernhardt’s Case, 2002 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London. A Treasure of Human Inheritance Thomsen’s Disease (Myotonia congenita) Fig. 1049 Bernhardt’s Case, 2000 Courtesy of Lisson Gallery, London.

40


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 42

Christine Borland

Christine Borland Galerie Cent 8, Paris, France ‘L’Homme Double’ Project Room, Aarhus Kunstmuseum, Aarhus, Denmark

Born 1965, Darvel, Ayrshire, Scotland Lives and works in Kilcreggan, Helensburgh, Scotland.

1997 Christine Borland Galerie d’Ecole, FRAC Languedoc-Roussillon, Montpellier, France Christine Borland Lisson Gallery, London, UK ‘The Dead Teach the Living’ Skulpturen Projekte, Münster, Germany

 ⁄ 2002 ‘Christine Borland’ Contemporary Art Museum, Houston, Texas, USA ‘To be Set and Sown in The Garden’ Permanent Sculpture Commission, Glasgow University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK ‘Christine Borland, Survey’ Presentation of 7 Projects throughout 2002/03, Kunstverein Munich, Germany ‘Significant Notes’ Aarhus Kunstforening af 1847, Aarhus, Denmark ‘Dragon Doll’ with Claire Barclay Glasgow Print Studio, Glasgow, Scotland, UK 2001 ‘Nephila Mania’ Fabric Workshop & Museum, Philadelphia, USA ‘Christine Borland’ York University Art Gallery, Toronto, Canada ‘Hoxa Sound’ ‘The Constant Moment’ Site Specific Project, Orkney, Scotland, UK ‘Christine Borland’ Lisson Gallery, London, UK ‘Fallen Spirits’ Anna Schwarz Gallery, Melbourne, Australia 2000 ‘Spirit Collection’ Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, USA

42

‘Treasury of Human Inheritance’ Galeria Toni Tapies/Editions T, Barcelona, Spain ‘Christine Borland’ Galerie Cent 8, Paris, France 1999 ‘What Makes for the Fullness and Perfection of Life, for Beauty & Happiness is Good. What Makes for Death, Disease, Imperfection, Suffering is Bad’ Dundee Contemporary Arts, Dundee, Scotland, UK Christine Borland Galerie Eigen & Art, Berlin, Germany 1998 Christine Borland De Appel, Amsterdam, Netherlands Museum für Gegenwartskunst, Zürich, Switzerland Fundaçao Serralves, Porto, Portugal

1996 ‘From Life’ Kunstwerke, Berlin, Germany ‘Second Class Male, Second Class Female’ Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, USA Christine Borland Galerie Eigen & Art, Berlin, Germany

  ⁄   2002 ‘Mirroring Evil’ Jewish Museum, New York, USA ‘Mendel, The Genius o f Genetics’ Mendel Monastery, Brno, Czech Republic ‘Happy Outsiders’ Zacheta Gallery, Warsaw, Poland ‘Iconoclash, Beyond the Image Wars’ ZKM, Karlsruhe, Germany ‘Remarks on Colour’ Sean Kelly Gallery, New York, USA ‘New, Recent Acquisitions of Contemporary British Art’ Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

‘Medicate’ Art Gallery & Museum, Royal Pump Rooms, Leamington Spa, England, UK ‘The Hygiene Show’ The School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 2001 ‘Open Country – Scotland’ Musee cantonal des Beux Arts de Lausanne, Switzerland ‘Circles 4’ Centre for Art & Media Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany ‘Humid’ Spike Island, Bristol, England: travelling to the Melbourne Festival at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, Melbourne & Auckland Art Gallery, New Zealand ‘Devoler’ Institut d’Art contemporain, Villeurbanne, France ‘Paradise(Lost)’ Ecole Superieure de’art, Perpignan, France ‘G3’ Casey Kaplan, New York, USA ‘Here & Now’ Scottish Art 1990 – 2001 Aberdeen City Art Gallery & Museum, Scotland, UK ‘Working Drafts. Envisioning the Human Genome’ TwoTen Gallery, The Welcome Trust, London, UK ‘Space’ Glasgow Print Studio, Scotland ‘Gene(sis) Contmporary Art explores Human Genomics’ Henry Art Gallery, Seattle, U.S.A. & touring ‘From Beuys to Hirst: Art Works at Deutsche Bank’ Scottish National Museum of Modern Art, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 2000 ‘Spectacular Bodies’ Hayward Gallery, London, England, UK

43


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 44

Biennale de Lyon Halle Tony Garnier, Lyon, France ‘Paradise Now’ Exit Art, New York, USA ‘Warning Shots’ The Royal Armouries, Leeds, England, UK ‘A Shot in the Dark’ Lisson Gallery, London, England, UK 1999 ‘High Red Centre’ CCA, Glasgow, Scotland, UK ‘Sampled, The Use of Fabric in Sculpture’ Henry Moore Institute, Leeds, England, UK ‘Rewind the Future’ Chac Mool Contemporary Art in collaboration with Lisson Gallery, West Hollywood, USA 1998 Artranspennine ‘98 Tate Gallery Liverpool, Liverpool Manifesta 2 Casino de Luxembourg, Luxembourg ‘In Your Face’ The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh, USA ‘Nettwerk-Glasgow’ Museet fur Samtidskunst, Oslo, Norway ‘To be Real’ Yerba Beuna Centre for the Arts, San Fransisco, USA ‘Close Echoes’ City Gallery, Parague, travelled to Kunsthalle Krens, Germany ‘Artists Editions’ The Modern Institute, Glasgow, Scotland, UK ‘New Art from Britain’ Kunstraum, Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria ‘Here to Stay’ Arts Council Purchases of the 1990’s

44

1997 ‘Life / Live’ Centro Cultural de Belém, Lisbon, Portugal ‘Material Culture’ Hayward Gallery, London, England, UK ‘Flexible’ Museum für Gegenwartskunst, Zürich, Switzerland Turner Prize Exhibition Tate Gallery, London, England, UK ‘Letter & Event’ Apex Art, C.P. New York, USA ‘absence/presence’ Kopavogur Art Museum, Iceland ‘Wish you were here too’ 83 Hill St, Glasgow, Scotland, UK ‘Connections Implicities’ Ecole Nationale Superiere des Beux Arts, Paris, France ‘Pictura Britannica; Art from Britain’ Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, Australia travelling to Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide & City Gallery, Wellington, Australia ‘Building Site’ Architectural Association, London, England, UK

  ⁄   ‘Bullet Proof Breath’, Art Gallery of York University, Toronto, Canada, 2002 * ‘New, Recent Acquisitions of Contemporary British Art’, Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2002 ‘Mirroring Evil, Nazi Imagery/Recent Art’, Norman Kleeblat, The Jewish Museum, New York, USA, 2002 ‘Mendel. The Genius of Genetics’, Artakt, An exhibition at the Abbey of St Thomas, Brno, Czech, 2002 ‘Happy Outsiders from London & Glasgow’, Galerie Sztuki, Warsaw, Poland, 2002

‘Paradise Now, Picturing the Genetic Revolution’, Exit Art, New York, The University of Michagan, The Tang Museum, Skidmore College, USA, 2001 ‘Progressive Disorder’, D.C.A. Dundee, Scotland & Bookworks, London, England, UK, 2001 * ‘Nothing’, Graham Gussin & Elle Carpenter, 2001 ‘Here & Now’, D.C.A. Dundee, Scotland, Scotland, UK, 2001 * ‘Open Country – Scotland’ Musee cantonal des Beux Arts de Lausanne, Switzerland, 2001 ‘Humid’, Spike Island, Bristol, England and a separate publication by the Melbourne Festival at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art, Melbourne, Australia, 2001 ‘Christine Borland, The Dead Teach the Living’, De Appel, Amsterdam / Museum für Gegenwartskunst, Zurich, Switzerland, Fundaçao Serralves, Porto, 2000 * ‘Spectacular Bodies’, Hayward Gallery, London, England, UK, 2000 ‘Partage d’Exotismes’, Biennale de Lyon, Halle Tony Garnier, Lyon, 2000 ‘Warning Shots’, The Royal Armouries, Leeds, England, UK, 2000 Artranspennine ‘98, Tate Gallery Liverpool, Liverpool, 1998 Manifesta 2, Casino de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 1998 ‘Nettwerk-Glasgow’, Museet for Samtidskunst, Oslo, Norway, 1998 ‘Close Echoes’ City Gallery, Parague, travelled to Kunsthalle Krens, Germany, 1998 ‘New Art from Britain’, Kunstraum, Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria, 1998 ‘Here to Stay’, Arts Council Purchases of the 1990’s, 1998

Sculpturen Projekte 3, Münster, Germany, 1997 Christine Borland, FRAC Languedoc-Roussillon, Montpellier, France, 1997 * ‘Letter & Event’, Apex Art, New York, 1997 ‘absence/presence’, Kopavogur Art Museum, Iceland 1997 ‘Connections Implicities’, Ecole Nationale Superiere des Beux Arts, Paris, France, 1997 ‘Pictura Britannica; Art from Britain’, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, Australia, 1997 ‘Flexible’, Museum für Gegenwartskunst, Zürich, Switzerland, 1997 ‘Life / Live’, Centro Cultural de Belém, Lisbon, Portugal, 1997 ‘The Cauldron’, The Henry Moore Sculpture Trust, Leeds, 1996 ‘Sawn Off ’, Stockholm, Sweden, 1996 ‘Material Culture’, Hayward Gallery, London, England, UK, 1996 ‘Nach Weimar’, Kunstsammlung, Weimar, Germany, 1996 ‘More Time, Less History’, Fundacio Serralves, Oporto, Portugal, 1996 ‘Full House’, Kunstmuseum, Wolfsburg, Germany, 1996 ‘From Life’, Tramway, Glasgow / Kunstwerke, Berlin, Germany 1996 * ‘Christine Borland & Craig Richardson’, Chisenhale Gallery, London, England, UK, 1993* ‘Guilt by Association’, Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin, Ireland, 1991 ‘Self Conscious State’, 3rd Eye Centre, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 1990 *Denotes one or two persons

45


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 46

Juniperus Sabina ( Juniper/sevenbom)

Satureja Montana (Savory/vintersar)


33830_significant notes_3k 11/12/02 10:59 Side 48

Significant Notes CHRISTINE BORLAND Published by / Udgivet af Århus Kunstforening af 1847, 2002 Editors / Redaktion Jette Gejl Kristensen & Ulla Angkjær Jørgensen Printed by / Tryk og repro Narayana Press, Gylling Pages 46 and 47 excerpts from ARK 56, 2002 Nordkapvej 13 DK-8200 Århus N kultlkb@hum.au.dk Exhibition photos / Udstillingsfoto Ib Sørensen © Copyright Århus Kunstforening af 1847, Christine Borland, photographer and the authors 2002 Århus Kunstbygning Århus Kunstforening af 1847 J. M. Mørksgade 13 DK-8000 Århus C T +45 86 12 22 18 F +45 86 12 46 16 E mail@1847.dk www.1847.dk ISBN 87-90714-15-6 Cover images / omslag The History of Plants According to Women, Children and Students, 2002 Calendula Officinalis (Pot Marigold/morgenfrue) by Seena Amin

Mentha Pulegium (Penny Royal/polejmynte) by Sadie Tierney

Delphinium Consolida (Forking Larkspur/ korn-ridderspore) by Denise Teh

Asplenium Adiantum Nigrum (Black Spleenwort/ sort radeløv) by Anna Ferguson

Significant Notes  

Published in conjunction to ‘Significant Notes’ by Christine Borland at Århus Kunstbygning, 12 October 2002-10 November 2002.