bestows life, beside its connotations of home and comfort. At the end of the procedure for the work Skin Graf, the gallery put on display a photograph of the pig, while the artist stood beside it holding up his shirt to show the missing part of his body as evidence of the performed surgery. One of the arguments that allows artists to make such drastic experiments and which can be also applied to the work of Srdić Janežič, is the assertion that the artist owns his body in no truer sense than the pig owns its. The artist's ethical judgment is based on mediating activities that engender conflicting claims and paradoxical conditions in view of the disproportion and inequality characteristic of the relationship of power over one's own body. Why exactly did the artist choose the pig as his bestial reflection? The answer is suggested already in his series Lost & Found (2007): he was collecting hairs in public urinals to exhibit them under the protective glass or as documentary photographs of
»found hairs«. A few years later, in June 2010, while residing at the Ministry of Culture's art studio in Berlin, he was plucking his hairs with tweezers for 24 hours. These hairs were later on, through the procedure of felting, sewn into a shirt which he was performatively wearing at an opening of the first part of Corpus indeterminata at the Alkatraz Gallery. This preoccupation with hairs is closely linked to making sense of one's own humanity in relation to non-human animals. The inclusion of animals in art work has lately taken place especially in bioart, a new art genre that uses live organisms (at a cellular and microbiological level) as the basic building blocks of artwork; nevertheless, Srdić Janežič seems primarily interested in the tactile, symbolic and psychological levels of confronting the animal. As
we can read in William lan Miller's The Anatomy of Disgust, we humans tend to dread that we may be assimilable to animals and even inferior to them, since “[t]heir bodies do anything ours can do better and they do it 'clothed'. We have patches of hair; they have fur and feathers; if they aren't so clothed we are more likely to find them disgusting, they are more likely to remind us of us. Thus it is often easier to compare ourselves to worms, mole rats, pigs, and plucked chickens than to tigers. Human bodies are doubly damned. We disgust as (bad) animal bodies and as human bodies.”14 The virtual body In times of the physical reproduction of virtuality (when objects are taken from the physical into the virtual and converted back into the physical with 3D scanning), such art practices, which are in snyc with the changing cultural landscapes, do not merely denounce the idea of the world as a Creation as well as the associated idea of artistic genius – or activate the idea of the world as a process, which encourages participation and communication –, but also blur the boundaries between the virtual and the physical, as two equal constituents of the whole of reality. Multiple casts of the artist's body are rough materials which treat the sculpture merely as a sketch, an idea for the illustration of the concept. Multiples are the method of mediating the meanings that I have described above, but they are also an absolutely necessary technical solution. The original art object is not some kind of a genius sculpture – the sculpture / multiple is only a means to displacing the notion of the significance of an individual genius. Life, which is at a symbolic 14 William lan Miller: The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 49.