Podcasts about jens hauser

Charles and Jon chat with Harriet Kemigisha - founder of Harrier Tours - from her home in western Uganda. Harriet talks about a life that has taken her from a young village girl exploring the forest with her grandfather on hunting trips, to the founder of a successful wildlife tour company. She recounts her rediscovery of the Green-breasted Pitta in Kibale National Park when she was a ranger in 2005. And she describes how she figured out a strategy to see an African Golden Cat, one of Africa's most secretive and sought-after animals, with the help of her grandfather's friend Kaheru, a man she once arrested.Here is the YouTube trailer.For more information visit www.mammalwatching.com/podcastNotes: there are several recent reports of successful mammalwatching trips across Uganda with Harrier Tours on mammalwatching.com including this one from Alex and Tomer (podcast S1E13 aka The Hard Boys) and this one from Jon Hall.Cover art: Harriet, Jens Hauser. The camera trap footage in the Youtube video is courtesy of Wise Birding Holidays.Dr Charles Foley is a mammalwatcher and biologist who, together with his wife Lara, spent 30 years studying elephants in Tanzania. They now run the Tanzania Conservation Research Program at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago.Jon Hall set up mammalwatching.com in 2005. Genetically Welsh, spiritually Australian, currently in New York City. He has looked for mammals in over 100 countries.

A brief statement from Jens Hauser who has attended to Resonances IV SciArt Summer School at Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy. > Jens Hauser is a Paris and Copenhagen based media studies scholar and art curator focusing on the interactions between art and technology. He's currently a researcher at University of Copenhagen's Medical Museion, a senior postdoc researcher at the Medical University Vienna, a distinguished affi liated faculty member at Michigan State University, where he co-directs the BRIDGE artist in residency program, an affi liated faculty member at Danube University Krems, a guest lecturer at the University of Applied Arts Vienna and at the University of Innsbruck, a guest professor at the Department of Arts and Sciences of Art at Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, and a researcher affiliated with École Polytechnique Paris-Saclay. Hauser has been the chair of the European Society for Literature, Science and the Arts' 2018 conference in Copenhagen. At the intersection of media studies, art history and epistemology, he has developed an aesthetic and epistemological theory of biomediality as part of his PhD at Ruhr University Bochum, and also holds a degree in science and technology journalism from Université François Rabelais in Tours. Picture by Vidas Daudaravicius

Face au défi que représente la notion de ‘vivant', sorte de mouton à cinq pattes discursif, l'art s'est toujours frotté aux nouvelles techniques de chaque époque. Aujourd'hui, avec la convergence du hard, soft et du wetware, comment peut-on composer avec des systèmes ou organismes vivants, entre imagination, représentation, simulation et manipulation matérielle ? On se retrouve typiquement avec une sorte de « paragone » tant esthétique qu'épistémique, oscillant entre l'animation du technologique (la mise en place de processus ou entités dans des médias autres que biologiques) et la technologisation de l'animé (l'instrumentation ou la manipulation des systèmes organiques existants, des êtres ou de leurs parties constitutives). Dans la ‘vie artificielle' d'aujourd'hui, l'attirail du laboratoire moite est même de retour, avec un vif intérêt de l'art pour les systèmes hybrides, aux frontières entre le vivant et le non-vivant, la vie synthétique et la vie organique. Commissaire d'exposition, auteur et théoricien de l'art, Jens Hauser vit et travaille à Paris et Copenhague où il est chercheur au Medical Museion de l'Université de Copenhague. Il interroge les interactions entre art, technologie et vivant, et a été le commissaire d'une trentaine d'expositions et festivals internationales. En partenariat avec Total Cod.Act, la rétrospective. Enregistré au Club 44 le 23 septembre 2021.

Defining himself as a curator interested in transgenre aesthetics and art and technology, art curator Jens Hauser engages a discussion with Danielle Aviles, student in biology; on the relationships between art and science. He defines what ‘Wetware’ - the title of the exhibition he curated with David Familian (2016) - is, as an extrapolation of softwares and hardwares, a convergence between technologies, or an evolution of mixed-media. With the rise of synthetic biology, the aim is to apply engineering principles to the biological realm and create aliveness from scratch. Do art and science deal with the same medium?

Chercheur en médecine, commissaire et critique d’art, Jens Hauser présente l’exposition ‘WetWare’ qu’il a organisé avec David Familian pour le Beall Center à UC Irvine. Rappelant les écrits de Chris Salter, il y fait l'état d’un basculement de l’art de la performance à la performativité s’enracinant dans la théorie du discours (langage), la théorie du genre (corps construits),  l’anthropologie (comme méthode d’inspection), et les sciences performatives (sociologie des sciences). Ces changements d'échelles, d’espaces, d'écologies resituent le corps sur un plan mésoscopique, a la fois objet et sujet, y compris dans le non-vivant. La microperformativité a pour but de relocaliser les actions ou fonctions à l'intérieur de ce corps afin d’aller au corps microscopique - séquences génétiques, molécules, organes...

In the first part of the podcast, art curator and media studies scholar Jens Hauser, interviewed by Roger Malina and Yvan Tina address the question of staging aliveness. Hauser argues that, between life in silico and life in labs, we’re witnessing the  animation of the technological, on one side, and the technologization of the animated on the other. Opposing Biomediality to communication media, the critic returns to the in-betweeness space of the medium. Through the scales of performance and performativity - mesoscopic definitions of the human body - macroscopic scales of molecular biopolitic , a gallery of spaces, ecologies and processes sets the stage for energetic theaters.

Conducted by Josh Brumett and Alex Garcia Topete, this last part of the interview explores the notion of greenness as it relates to art history. The most anthropocentric of all colours, art curator Jens Hauser says , green stands for nature, has something related to growth and constitute a large part of our visual spectrum. From night visual devices to first computer screens, green operates like a technical colour. While being the most toxic colour when it comes to the production of its particles and its pigments, green is used as an attempt to ‘green’ life itself, language, technology, and chemistry. Using Jun Takita’s transgenic mouss sculpture, and Cohen Van Balen's Pigeon D'or as biofacts - that is to say as living system equivalent to the artefact - Jens Hauser reveals how these artworks point to the intervention of human life.To what degree a bioartist has to take into account what will take place in the world?

“It’s now a reality”, Jens Hauser announced at the 2003 Biotech Art exhibition, “artists are in the labs. They are intentionally transgressing procedures of representation and metaphor, going beyond them to manipulate life itself. Biotechnology is no longer just a topic, but a tool, generally generating green fluorescent animals, wings for pigs and sculpture moulded in bioreactors or under the microscope, and using DNA itself as an artistic medium.” To challenge the validity of singular and fixed species at this “evolutionary crossroad” of genetically engineered mammals and organ transpeciation, Transgenic artists have intervened into biogenetic technology in roles first imagined by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Through the microinjection of DNA with cells containing green fluorescent protein into a rabbit zygote, Eduardo Kac was able to genetically engineer GFK Bunny. Using living tissues, Zurr and Catts created ‘partial life sculptures’ at SymbioticA including frog-steaks and even flying pigs. In their collaboration with Stelarc, SymbioticA has also grown a 1Ž4 scale replica of his ear made out of human cartilage cells, implanted upon Stelarc’s arm in 2010. Following the launch of The Humane Genome Project, Patricia Piccinini chose silicon, acrylic and fibreglass, rather than human and non-human tissue to produce The Mutant Genome Project (TMGP) and Lifeforms with Unevolved Mutant Properties (LUMP) – genetically mutant babies engineered to look like pink-skinned tumours or, in her words, “a cute grotesquery”. As controversies raged over organ xenotransplantation and interspecies breeding, Piccinini created a human sow suckling a litter of 'pigren'. This year she produced a controversial skywhale, part-human, part-whale, able to take flight. As Kac explains, “Transgenic Art is, a new artistic terrain and art form based on the use of genetic engineering to transfer natural or synthetic genes to an organism – to create unique living beings.” Yet this can only be done, he stresses, “with great care … and above all, with a commitment to respect, nurture and love of the life thus created.” By focusing upon the bioethics of transhumanist genetics in relation to this Transgenic Art, this lecture will examine how these artists also engage in the nurturance and reciprocity of transgenetic and transpecies creations, rarely addressed in genetic biotechnologies, to consider how they are not rejected, unlike Dr. Frankenstein's "modern prometheus" but are incorporated into our posthuman evolutionary era. Fae (Fay) Brauer is Professor of Art and Visual Culture at the University of East London Art and Digital Industries. She is also Associate Professor in Art History and Cultural Theory at The University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts. Her books are Rivals and Conspirators: The Paris Salons and the Modern Art Centre (2013), Picturing Evolution and Extinction: Degeneration and Regeneration in Modern Visual Cultures (2013), The Art of Evolution: Darwin, Darwinisms and Visual Culture (2009) and Art, Sex and Eugenics, Corpus Delecti (2008). Presently she is preparing the books, Regenerating the Body: Art and Neo-Lamarckian Biocultures in Republican France; Symbiotic Species: The Art and Science of Neo-Lamarckian Evolution in the Solidarist Republic, Feminizing Muscle: Body Trouble in Visual Cultures, and Unmasking Masculinity: Imaging Hysterical Men in Republican France. She is also editing the books, Building the Body Beautiful: Modernisms, Vitalism and the Fitness Imperative; Bloody Bodies: The Art and Execution of Dissection, and Vision and Visionaries: Psychology, Occult Science and Symbolism.

Molecular Aesthetics | Symposium Symposium at ZKM | Center for Art and Media, July 15 -17, 2011 in cooperation with DFG-Center for Functional Nanostructures (CFN) Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT). How and why are biomedia employed in the field of (media) art? Whilst the technosciences themselves have increasingly become potent producers of aesthetic visualizations, do artists just want to make rival use of the epistemic power of the image? Or do they rather use wetware at the molecular or cellular level in order to short-circuit semiotic procedures of representation by staging and voluntarily emphasizing the very authenticity of their biological subjects, objects, processes or systems? The artistic use of biomedia as means of expression takes advantage of the high degree of non-fictitious believability, truthfulness and manifest corporality of their status as real biological entities, potentially living or stemming from life, and thus resembling the viewers of this art themselves. But while their real, apparent, or at least potential a/liveness first prompts the viewer's feeling of immediacy, the underlying mediality and technological constructedness of these displays is more slowly, cryptically revealed and addressed. Therefore, the apparent visual and diegetic core of biotechnological artworks needs to be carefully analyzed, beyond a purely image-based hermeneutic approach, on the basis of the artistic media themselves with their respective phenomenological impacts and their epistemic nexuses. Features that once unfolded primarily as artistic images are today being remediated, dispersed and fragmented into a confusing multitude of media. Here, mediation and technologies are no longer employed merely to achieve an aesthetic effect. They are themselves fully-integrated elements of the aesthetic idiom. Indeed, biomedia's potential to produce, destabilize and deconstruct authenticity can be seen in the light of two complementary and well-established mechanisms in art history: Illusionism, which can be considered the simulation of an authentic presence that appears even to share a physical space with the viewer, and indexicality, on the other hand, which acknowledges that cultural products per se obey sign modalities and hence induce degrees of representation. /// Symposium im ZKM | Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie, 15. -17. Juli 2011 In Kooperation mit dem DFG-Centrum für Funktionelle Nanostrukturen (CFN) des Karlsruhe Instituts für Technologie. Wie und warum werden Biomedien in der (Medien-) Kunst eingesetzt? Während die Technowissenschaften selbst immer häufiger zu potenten Gestaltern ästhetisierter Veranschaulichungen werden, wollen Künstler da konkurrierend die epistemische Kraft von Bildlichkeit in Anspruch nehmen? Oder benutzen sie Wetware auf molekularer und zellulärer Ebene, um semiotische Repräsentationsprozesse kurzzuschließen, indem sie die Authentizität ihrer biologischen Subjekte, Objekte, Abläufe oder Systeme inszenieren und bewusst herausstellen? Die Verwendung von Biomedien als künstlerisches Ausdrucksmittel nutzt deren überzeugende Glaubwürdigkeit und Wirklichkeitsnähe ebenso wie die manifest präsente Körperhaftigkeit, welche sich aus dem Status als biologische Einheiten ableitet, welche lebendig sind oder aus Lebendigem hervorgingen und somit dem Betrachter einer solchen Kunst gleichen. Während ihre faktische, offenbare oder zumindest potenzielle Lebendigkeit bei der Rezeption zunächst ein Gefühl der Unmittelbarkeit hervorruft, tritt die zugrunde liegende mediale und technologische Konstruiertheit jener Dispositve nach und nach bruchstückhaft und kryptisch zutage. Der visuelle und diegetische Kern biotechnologischer Kunstwerke verlangt daher eine eingehende Analyse, die nicht allein auf die Hermeneutik des Bildes, sondern direkt auf die künstlerischen Medieneinschließlich ihrer phänomenologischen Wirkungen und epistemischen Verknüpfungen gegründet ist. Erscheinungen, die früher primär die Form von Kunstbildern annahmen, werden heute in eine verwirrende Vielfalt von Medien übersetzt, verstreut und fragmentiert. Das Medial-Technologische ist nicht mehr Mittel zum Zweck, sondern vollwertiges Element der ästhetischen Sprache. Dennoch führen Biomedien in der Kunst historische Mechanismen der Authentizitätsproduktion fort, insbesondere jene von Illusionismusund Indexikalität.