| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| groworld_vegetal_culture [2013-01-24 06:11] – nik | groworld_vegetal_culture [2013-01-24 06:53] – nik |
|---|
| While viriditas can be an experiential and spiritual muse of a vegetal human culture, for the analytically inclined a more empirical approach to the idea of vegetal sentience is needed (aside from the well-known psychedelic and shamanistic perspectives). Justifiably, before encouraging development of a vegetal mind in humans, we’d like to understand the plant’s point of view first, rather than modelling our human existence on an incomplete interpretation. We might want to engage with the botanical kingdom directly, and grasp how plants perceive and communicate. There are several examples from both mainstream and fringe science looking at plant perception, signalling and sentience. Daniel Chamovitz recently wrote about how plants experience and respond to the world (Chamovitz 2012). Plant neurobiology developed in the last decade as a scientific discipline researching plants' signalling and adaptive behaviour (Barlow 2008). On the edges of scientific replicability, we find Clive Backster's biocommunication experiments with a specimen of Dracena Massengeana connected to a polygraph (Backster 2003), or the imaginative crescographs by Jagdish Chandra Bose and Randall Fontes (Theroux 1997). These experiments look at plant growth and movement in response to external stimuli, and attempt to understand plant perception and communication. | While viriditas can be an experiential and spiritual muse of a vegetal human culture, for the analytically inclined a more empirical approach to the idea of vegetal sentience is needed (aside from the well-known psychedelic and shamanistic perspectives). Justifiably, before encouraging development of a vegetal mind in humans, we’d like to understand the plant’s point of view first, rather than modelling our human existence on an incomplete interpretation. We might want to engage with the botanical kingdom directly, and grasp how plants perceive and communicate. There are several examples from both mainstream and fringe science looking at plant perception, signalling and sentience. Daniel Chamovitz recently wrote about how plants experience and respond to the world (Chamovitz 2012). Plant neurobiology developed in the last decade as a scientific discipline researching plants' signalling and adaptive behaviour (Barlow 2008). On the edges of scientific replicability, we find Clive Backster's biocommunication experiments with a specimen of Dracena Massengeana connected to a polygraph (Backster 2003), or the imaginative crescographs by Jagdish Chandra Bose and Randall Fontes (Theroux 1997). These experiments look at plant growth and movement in response to external stimuli, and attempt to understand plant perception and communication. |
| |
| Venturing to communicate with plants would require humans to grasp the logic of the “vegetal mind.” Plant consciousness would no doubt be considered alien and impossible to perceive without assistance. This is where knowledge of human-computer interaction might be informative. The field of computer science has developed a variety of methods to determine the nature of machine mind by comparing it to the human mind (the Turing test being the best known example). However, it is quite anthropocentrically arrogant to think that human sentience is the only possible expression of consciousness, so why measure sentience by how well it mirrors that of humans? Nature may contain a myriad of disparate sentiences, operating according to their own internally consistent, externally incomprehensible logic. We might be "hearing their voices" daily, but having no sensory and mental capacity to translate and interpret their meaning. Perhaps we should focus our energies on “an attempt to give the physical world itself a voice so that rather than us asking what reality is, reality itself can tell you” (Schroeder, retrieved 2008). Writer Karl Schroeder called this "post-scientific" communication with non-human sentient beings "Thalience". A plant-inspired culture could benefit from getting to know our verdant neighbours from a range of perspectives, including direct and unmediated experience, moving away from teleological, utilitarian and reductionist analyses of human relationships with plants. Schroeder talks about “non-human intelligences who come to different conclusions about what the universe [is] like” (Schroeder, retrieved 2008). Plants are such “non-human intelligences” with whom we share the same universe, yet the way in which they experience the world remains beyond our grasp. | Venturing to communicate with plants would require humans to grasp the logic of the “vegetal mind.” Plant consciousness would no doubt be considered alien and impossible to perceive without assistance. This is where knowledge of human-computer interaction might be informative. The field of computer science has developed a variety of methods to determine the nature of machine mind by comparing it to the human mind (the Turing test being the best known example). However, it is quite anthropocentrically arrogant to think that human sentience, perception and behaviour is the only possible expression of consciousness. Why measure sentience by how well it mirrors that of humans? Nature may contain a myriad of disparate sentiences, operating according to their own internally consistent, externally incomprehensible logic. We might be "hearing their voices" daily, but having no sensory and mental capacity to translate and interpret their meaning. Perhaps we should focus our energies on “an attempt to give the physical world itself a voice so that rather than us asking what reality is, reality itself can tell you” (Schroeder, retrieved 2008). Writer Karl Schroeder called this "post-scientific" communication with non-human sentient beings "Thalience". A plant-inspired culture could benefit from getting to know our verdant neighbours from a range of perspectives, including direct and unmediated experience, moving away from teleological, utilitarian and reductionist analyses of human relationships with plants. Schroeder talks about “non-human intelligences who come to different conclusions about what the universe [is] like” (Schroeder, retrieved 2008). Plants are such “non-human intelligences” with whom we share the same universe, yet the way in which they experience the world remains beyond our grasp. |
| |
| “We have nothing in common with the Geometers. No shared experiences, no common culture. Until that changes, we can't communicate with them. Why not? Because language is nothing more than a stream of symbols that are perfectly meaningless until we associate them, in our minds, with meaning; a process of acculturation. Until we share experiences with the Geometers, and thereby begin to develop a shared culture – in effect, to merge our culture with theirs – we cannot communicate with them, and their efforts to communicate with us will continue to be just as incomprehensible as the gestures they've made so far.” | “We have nothing in common with the Geometers. No shared experiences, no common culture. Until that changes, we can't communicate with them. Why not? Because language is nothing more than a stream of symbols that are perfectly meaningless until we associate them, in our minds, with meaning; a process of acculturation. Until we share experiences with the Geometers, and thereby begin to develop a shared culture – in effect, to merge our culture with theirs – we cannot communicate with them, and their efforts to communicate with us will continue to be just as incomprehensible as the gestures they've made so far.” |
| |
| – Neal Stephenson | – Neal Stephenson |
| |
| |
| ==== groWorld sym-bio-sys ==== | ==== groWorld sym-bio-sys ==== |
| |
| At the epicentre of culture, gardening and technology we might be able to see how plants can become organisational principles for human society in the turbulent times of the 21st century. Although we have to scavenge the fringes of contemporary society, we can observe many healing effects that humans can have on their surroundings through a symbiotic collaboration with plants. People offer a helping hand to a struggling habitat through “natural farming” (Fukuoka 1990). Others design whole lifecycle systems inspired by natural processes, based on the art and science of biomimicry. However, on a level of culture we still don’t know how to overhaul wasteful human behaviours en masse. How do we encourage a more resilient culture, so that humans and non-humans can continue living, preferably together? How do we stimulate a fertile entanglement of culture, gardening and technology that can give the rise to diverse and holistic communities of practice? Communities capable of forging symbiotic relationships between postindustrial human societies and the rest of the earth. Composting bitterness to grow beauty. | At the intersections of culture, gardening and technology we can start to see how plants can become organisational principles for human society in the turbulent times of the 21st century. Although we may need to scavenge at the fringes of contemporary society, we can observe many healing effects that humans can have on their surroundings through a symbiotic collaboration with plants. People offer a helping hand to a struggling habitat through “natural farming” (Fukuoka 1990). Others design whole lifecycle systems inspired by natural processes, based on the art and science of biomimicry. Yet, these are scattered examples, we still don’t have widepsread methods to improve wasteful, often counter-productive human behaviours. How do we encourage a more resilient culture, so that humans and non-humans can continue living, preferably together? How do we stimulate a fertile entanglement of culture, gardening and technology that can give the rise to diverse and holistic communities of practice? Communities capable of forging symbiotic relationships between postindustrial human societies and the rest of the earth. Composting bitterness to grow beauty. |
| |
| From these questions and assertions sprouted the groWorld initiative, a long-term inquiry into human-plant interactions and their effect on the longevity of human culture. The people of FoAM - a distributed laboratory for speculative culture - initiated groWorld to "minimise borders and maximise edges" between the man-made and the vegetal. In these zones of liminality and ambiguity, groWorld abets "unholy alliances" between contemporary culture and cultivation, building and growing, botany and technology. Inspired by the way in which plant species propagate – spanning multiple temporal layers – the initiative encompasses both long- and short-term explorations. The slow processes of cultural adaptation and plant cultivation are researched across several decades, through observation and interaction. At the same time, quick technological and social changes are incorporated through techno-artistic experiments in three interconnected branches: {sym}, {bio} and {sys}. The {sym} branch looks at how human culture can be infused with vegetal characteristics: in botanical fiction, plant games, active materials, and responsive environments. The {bio} branch is about a direct collaboration with plants, using age-old techniques of foraging and gardening, seeing cities as edible landscapes for humans and non-humans. Finally, {sys} deals with botanically-inspired technologies that can help humans engage with plants beyond the physical level, through sensing, perception and perhaps even communication. | From these questions and assertions sprouted the groWorld initiative, a long-term inquiry into human-plant interactions and their effect on the longevity of human culture. The people of FoAM - a distributed laboratory for speculative culture - initiated groWorld to "minimise borders and maximise edges" between the man-made and the vegetal. In these zones of liminality and ambiguity, groWorld abets "unholy alliances" between contemporary culture and cultivation, building and growing, botany and technology. Inspired by the way in which plant species propagate – spanning multiple temporal layers – the initiative encompasses both long- and short-term explorations. The slow processes of cultural adaptation and plant cultivation are researched across several decades, through observation and interaction. At the same time, quick technological and social changes are incorporated through techno-artistic experiments in three interconnected branches: {sym}, {bio} and {sys}. The {sym} branch looks at how human culture can be infused with vegetal characteristics: in botanical fiction, plant games, active materials, and responsive environments. The {bio} branch is about a direct collaboration with plants, using age-old techniques of foraging and gardening, seeing cities as edible landscapes for humans and non-humans. Finally, {sys} deals with botanically-inspired technologies that can help humans engage with plants beyond the physical level, through sensing, perception and perhaps even communication. |
| ==== From planetary to human scale: responsive environments ==== | ==== From planetary to human scale: responsive environments ==== |
| |
| groWorld sprouted from conversations between artists, engineers and activists at the Burning Man Festival in Nevada in 1999. In the heat of the scorched desert, under the shade of the looming millennium, our futures seemed riddled with insurmountable dilemmas. What should we carry over into the next century? Would we still be the guardians of our own skin, or would we fall under a portfolio of patents, together with rice and ancient medicinal plants? Who will be around for the next ten thousand years – if humans are, will we be able to walk through jungles, alpine forests and colourful meadows, or will we all live underground as the earth’s surface cracks under uniformly dry deserts and musty swamps? Could we escape to outer space? will we reach the stars? All of these questions were about events on a planetary scale that spanned glacial time, and made several of us feel insignificant and helpless: how could any of our individual contributions make a difference? Who isn’t tired of being chastised for not doing enough for the environment, or apathetic when one doesn’t perceive any desired effects in one’s own lifetime? We were thirsty for an experience of positive feedback – a sense that our presence in the world matters and that the effects of our actions can be shared with others, as proposed in the theory of consilience (Wilson 1998) and the practice of urban gardening (Wilson 1999). | groWorld sprouted from conversations between artists, engineers and activists at the Burning Man Festival in Nevada in 1999. In the heat of the scorched desert, under the shade of the looming millennium, our futures seemed riddled with insurmountable dilemmas. What should we carry over into the next century? Would we still be the guardians of our own skin, or would we fall under a portfolio of patents, together with rice and ancient medicinal plants? Who will be around for the next ten thousand years? if humans still are, will we be able to walk through jungles, alpine forests and colourful meadows, or will we all live underground as the earth’s surface cracks under uniformly dry deserts and musty swamps? Could we escape to outer space? will we reach the stars? All of these questions were about events on a planetary scale that spanned glacial time, and made several of us feel insignificant and helpless: how could any of our individual contributions make a difference? Who isn’t tired of being chastised for not doing enough for the environment, or apathetic when one doesn’t perceive any desired effects in one’s own lifetime? We were thirsty for an experience of positive feedback – a sense that our presence in the world matters and that the effects of our actions can be shared with others, as proposed in the theory of consilience (Wilson 1998) and the practice of urban gardening (Wilson 1999). |
| |
| It was time for us to bring conversations down to the human scale and offer participants a direct experience of the effects we can have on our immediate surroundings (in real time and in a circumscribed space). FoAM designed a forest of phantasmagoric robo-botanical trees that surrounded a responsive domed shelter – the “growth bunker.” In the warmth of the bunker, visitors were immersed in electro-luminescent light and generative sound, an environment designed to respond to people’s voices and movement. Within this space, the environmental effects of their conscious and unconscious actions became instantly apparent. As in Wim Wenders’ movie Until the End of the World, people became intoxicated by the experience of their actions rippling through the growth and decay of biomorphic light and soundscapes. The interplay between people’s actions and environmental responses encouraged deceleration and engagement. The expected instant gratification of digital entertainment was substituted with meditative explorations of ambient changes. | It was time for us to bring conversations down to the human scale and offer participants a direct experience of the effects we can have on our immediate surroundings (in real time and in a circumscribed space). FoAM designed a forest of phantasmagoric robo-botanical trees that surrounded a responsive domed shelter – the “growth bunker.” In the warmth of the bunker, visitors were immersed in electro-luminescent light and generative sound, an environment designed to respond to people’s voices and movement. Within this space, the environmental effects of their conscious and unconscious actions became instantly apparent. As in Wim Wenders’ movie Until the End of the World, people became intoxicated by the experience of their actions rippling through the growth and decay of biomorphic light and soundscapes. The interplay between people’s actions and environmental responses encouraged deceleration and engagement. The expected instant gratification of digital entertainment was substituted with meditative explorations of ambient changes. |
| |
| – James Wright | – James Wright |
| | |
| |
| ==== Acknowledgements ==== | ==== Acknowledgements ==== |
| groWorld is an initiative of FoAM: http://fo.am/groworld | groWorld is an initiative of FoAM: http://fo.am/groworld |
| |
| groWorld collaborators: Maja Kuzmanovic, Nik Gaffney, Dave Griffiths, Theun Karelse, Cocky Eek, Alkan Chipperfield, Lina Kusaite, Rasa Alksnyte, Shelbatra Jashari, Paola Orlic, Claud Biemans, Tale of Tales, Six to Start, Bartaku, Christina Stadlbauer, Steven Pickles, Wietske Maas, Angelo Vermeulen, David Tonnessen, Chris Salter and Anke Burger. | groWorld collaborators include: Maja Kuzmanovic, Nik Gaffney, Dave Griffiths, Theun Karelse, Cocky Eek, Alkan Chipperfield, Lina Kusaite, Rasa Alksnyte, Shelbatra Jashari, Paola Orlic, Claud Biemans, Tale of Tales, Six to Start, Bartaku, Christina Stadlbauer, Steven Pickles, Wietske Maas, Angelo Vermeulen, David Tonnessen, Chris Salter and Anke Burger. |
| |
| |
2a02:578:8594:1300:15fe:6b95:6b29:31c9