Culturing Food: Bioart and In Vitro Meat
2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 19; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13534645.2013.743296
ISSN1460-700X
Autores Tópico(s)Culinary Culture and Tourism
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 Roland Barthes, ‘Toward a Psychosociology of Contemporary Food Consumption’, in Food and Culture: A Reader, ed. Carol Counihan and Penny Van Esterik (London: Routledge, 2008), p.33. 2 Thorstein Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: Penguin Books, 1994). 3 Allison Carruth, Global Appetites: American Power and the Literature of Food (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 4 ‘Agribusiness, N.’, in Oxford English Dictionary Online (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, 2012). 5 Andrew Pollack, ‘A Gap between the Lab and the Dining Table’, The New York Times, 14 February 2006; Brian Tokar, ‘Monsanto: A Checkered History’, The Ecologist (1998), < http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsanto-Checkered-HistoryOct98.htm> [21/09/2012]; Peter Whoriskey, ‘Monsanto's Dominance Draws Antitrust Inquiry’, The Washington Post, 29 November 2009. 6 Chipotle, ‘Food with Integrity’, < http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/fwi/environment/environment.aspx> [21/09/2012]. 7 Eduardo Kac, Time Capsule, 1997. Event-installation, Casa das Rosas Cultural Center. 8 Joanna Zylinska, Bioethics in the Age of New Media (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009), p.149. See also Nicole Anderson's definition of bioart as a set of practices that work to ‘reconceptualize traditional art by adopting biological and scientific laboratory techniques’. Nicole Anderson, ‘(Auto) Immunity: The Deconstruction and Politics of “Bio-Art” and Criticism’, parallax,16.4 (2010), p.101. 9 For Kac, Genesis is ‘a transgenic artwork that explores the intricate relationship between biology, belief systems, information technology, dialogical interaction, ethics and the Internet’. See Anderson, ‘(Auto)Immunity’, p.101. 10 Although focused on the significance of bioart for media theory, Mitchell highlights the ‘generative’ quality of bioart, observing that the practice ‘points us toward a generative sense of media - a sense of medium that moves beyond concepts of storage and communication and toward concepts of emergences’. Robert Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010), pp.27–28, 32, 92. 11 Jennifer Willet, ‘Bodies in Biotechnology: Embodied Models for Understanding Biotechnology in Contemporary Art’, Leonardo Electronic Almanac 14.7–8 (2006), p.30. 12 Beatriz da Costa, ‘Reaching the Limit: When Art Becomes Science’, in Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism and Technoscience, ed. Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008), p.372. 13 da Costa, ‘Reaching the Limit’, p.373 (emphasis mine). 14 Evelyn Fox Keller, ‘Feminist Perspectives on Science Studies’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 13.3–4 (1988); Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Donna J. Haraway, When Species Meet (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007); N. Katherine Hayles, ‘Refiguring the Posthuman’, Comparative Literature Studies 41.3 (2004); How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). 15 Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009), pp.39, 43. 16 I draw this term from Anne-Lise François's 2003 essay on GMOs and Romanticist ideas of finitude and infinity as well as a 2007 special issue of New Literary History. Lennard J. Davis and David B. Morris, ‘Biocultures Manifesto’, New Literary History, 38.3 (2007); Anne-Lise François, ‘“O Happy Living Things”: Frankenfoods and the Bounds of Wordsworthian Natural Piety’, diacritics, 33.2 (2003). 17 Jonah Lehrer, ‘The Future of Science…Is Art?’, SEED Magazine, 6 October 2008. 18 John Brockman, Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution (New York: Touchstone, 1996); C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1959). 19 Anderson, ‘(Auto)Immunity’, p.105 20 Zylinska, Bioethics in the Age of New Media, p.159. 21 Thierry Bardini, Junkware, ed. Cary Wolfe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011), p.203. 22 Donna J. Haraway, ‘Species Matters, Humane Advocacy: In the Promising Grip of Earthly Oxymorons’, in Species Matters: Humane Advocacy and Cultural Theory, ed. Marianne DeKoven and Michael Lundblad (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), pp.18–19. 23 Critical Art Ensemble, Beatriz da Costa and Shyh-shiun Shyu, Free Range Grain, 2003–2004. 24 Mitchell, Bioart and the Vitality of Media, p.64. 25 da Costa, ‘Reaching the Limit: When Art Becomes Science’; Lisa Lynch, ‘Culturing the Pleebland: The Idea of the “Public” in Genetic Art’, Literature and Medicine, 26.1 (2007). 26 Lynch, ‘Culturing the Pleebland’, p.198. 27 Lynch, ‘Culturing the Pleebland’, p.199. 28 Lynch concludes, ‘in the current political climate, anything that smacks of practicing science outside of the space of the laboratory has become potentially threatening to the United States government’, p.182. 29 Rita Raley, Tactical Media, ed. Katherine Hayles, Mark Poster and Samuel Weber (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), p.44; Cary Wolfe, ‘From Dead Meat to Glow in the Dark Bunnies: Seeing “the Animal Question in Contemporary Art”’, parallax 12.1 (2006); What Is Posthumanism?, ed. Cary Wolfe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), pp.158–64. See also Eugene Thacker's book-length study of emerging techniques in both computer science and genetics that have collapsed, he suggests, the distinction between digital and biological media: Eugene Thacker, Biomedia, ed. Katherine Hayles, Mark Poster and Samuel Weber (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004). 30 Suzanne Anker, ‘Partial Life and the Semi-Living: The Aesthetics of Care’, in Bio-Blurb Show (2006) < http://artonair.org/show/partial-life-and-the-semi-living-the-aesthetics-of-care> [21/09/2012]. 31 Anker, ‘Partial Life and the Semi-Living’. 32 Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr, ‘The Ethics of Experiential Engagement with the Manipulation of Life’, in Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism and Technoscience, ed. Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008), pp.135, 37. 33 Susan McHugh, ‘Real Artificial: Tissue- Cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals and Fictions’, Configurations, 18 (2010), p.190. 34 Fox Keller explains that after Watson and Crick, molecular biology locked in the idea of the gene as ‘a central command center’, an idea that drew less from cybernetics (and its dynamic models of information, communication networks and machine intelligence) than from ‘an older kind of mechanistic’ model of machines that was ‘unidirectional in its causality’. See Fox Keller, Refiguring Life, pp.87, 103. 35 Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr, ‘Semi-Living Art’, in Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond, ed. Eduardo Kac (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007), p.232. 36 Anker, ‘Partial Life and the Semi-Living’. 37 Catts and Zurr, ‘Semi-Living Art’, p.243; McHugh, ‘Real Artificial: Tissue-Cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals and Fictions’, p.189; Neil Stephens, ‘In Vitro Meat: Zombies on the Menu?’, scripted, 7.2 (2010), p.396. 38 ‘Burgers from a Lab: The World of in Vitro Meat’, (NPR, 2011); Michael Specter, ‘Test-Tube Burgers’, The New Yorker, 23 May 2011 < http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_specter> [21/09/2012]. 39 McHugh, ‘Real Artificial: Tissue-Cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals and Fictions’. 40 Catts and Zurr, ‘The Ethics of Experiential Engagement with the Manipulation of Life’; ‘Semi-Living Art’. 41 Ionat Zurr, Growing Semi-Living Art (Perth: University of Western Australia, 2008), p.112. 42 Neal Stephens notes that a similar image of ‘zombie’ meat pervades the literature on in vitro meat, which, he claims, ‘is best categorized as the ‘dead-living’, or perhaps the ‘living-never-born’ p.395. 43 McHugh, ‘Real Artificial: Tissue-Cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals and Fictions’, p.190. 44 This research reaches back to 1999, when the first in vitro meat product was patented. In 2002, a team of NASA-funded scientists developed an edible protein source from culturing cells (goldfish muscle cells in particular). 45 Catts and Cass, ‘Labs Shut Open: A Biotech Hands-on Workshop for Artists’, p.150. 46 Catts and Cass, ‘Labs Shut Open: A Biotech Hands-on Workshop for Artists’, p.150. 47 Catts and Zurr, ‘Semi-Living Art’, pp.232, 34, 37. 48 Warren Belasco, Meals to Come: A History of the Future of Food (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), pp.178, 84. 49 Warren Belasco, Meals to Come, p.178. 50 Hannah Landecker, Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), p.53. 51 Landecker, Culturing Life. 52 Landecker concludes, ‘in short, living matter is now assumed to be stuff that can be stopped and started at will. It is these changes that are at work in the production of novel cellular objects today’. See Culturing Life, pp.185, 233. 53 Landecker, Culturing Life, p.130. 54 So too does it complicate Fox Keller's categorization of cell and reproductive biology as not having fully adopted the molecular genetics ‘credo’ of simplicity. See Refiguring Life, p.103. 55 Landecker, Culturing Life, p.53. 56 Stephens contends, ‘cultured meat is distinct from cloned meat. […] With in vitro meat, there is never a whole animal to slaughter’; he goes on to explain that ‘scientists take a small amount of cells from a living animal and culture it in medium to encourage the cells to proliferate into lumps of muscle tissue which could, in principle, be eaten. This meat was never born, has never been ‘alive’ in any usual way we would apply to an animal and has never been killed’. See Stevens, ‘In Vitro Meat’, p.395. 57 Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr, ‘An Emergence of the Semi-Living’, in The Aesthetics of Care?, ed. Oron Catts (Perth: SymbioticA: The Art and Science Collaborative Research Laboratory, 2002), p.63. 58 Julie Sze, ‘Boundaries and Border Wars: DES, Technology and Environmental Justice’, American Quarterly, 58.3 (2006), p.793. 59 Sze, ‘Boundaries and Border Wars’. 60 Zurr, ‘Growing Semi-Living Art’, p.112. 61 Evelyn Fox Keller, ‘Ecosystems organisms and Machines’, BioScience, 55.12 (2005), pp.1069, 1070. 62 Zurr, ‘Growing Semi-Living Art’, pp.113–14. 63 She goes on to say that writers and artists tend to challenge the idea that real artificial meat will be a panacea for the environmental impacts and animal as well as human injustices of industrial meat. See McHugh, ‘Real Artificial: Tissue-Cultured Meat, Genetically Modified Farm Animals and Fictions’, pp.182, 83. 64 Zurr, ‘Growing Semi-Living Art’, p.114. 65 Stephens, ‘In Vitro Meat: Zombies on the Menu?’, p.400. 66 McHugh, ‘Real Artificial’, p.190. 67 Catts and Zurr, ‘The Ethics of Experiential Engagement with the Manipulation of Life’, p.133. 68 Zurr, ‘Growing Semi-Living Art’, p.114. 69 Stephens, ‘In Vitro Meat’, p.398. 70 Oron Catts, ‘Preface’ (paper presented at The Aesthetics of Care?, Perth, Australia, 5 August 2002); Catts and Zurr, ‘An Emergence of the Semi-Living’. 71 Belasco, Meals to Come, p.219. 72 Haraway, When Species Meet, pp.279, 81. 73 Fox Keller, ‘Feminist Perspectives on Science Studies’, p.238. 74 Jacques Derrida, ‘“Eating Well”, or the Calcularion of the Subject: An Interview with Jacques Derrida’, in Who Comes after the Subject?, ed. Eduardo Cadava, Peter Connor and Jean-Luc Nancy (New York and London: Routledge, 1991), p.115. 75 The Animal That Therefore I Am, ed. John D. Caputo, trans. David Wills, Perspectives in Continental Philosophy (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008), pp.35, 41; Cary Wolfe, ‘Humane Advocacy and the Humanities’, in Species Matters: Humane Advocacy and Cultural Theory, ed. Marianne and Lundblad DeKoven, Michael (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), p.31.
Referência(s)