When Art, Science, and Culture Commingle

The history of modern science is punctuated by moments when the fruits of science captivate the public imagination. Traces of these impressions can be found in works of art; for instance, one sees the influence of 17th century astronomy on poetry in Paradise Lost, as when Satan stops by the sun to ask for directions to the earth, Milton alludes to Galileo’s discovery of sunspots: ‘‘There lands the Fiend, a spot like which perhaps/Astronomer in the Sun’s lucent Orbe/Through his glaz’d Optic Tube yet never saw’’ and in the sudden emergence of the ellipse in baroque architecture [1]. More recently, scholars have argued for the influence of relativity theory on the development of cubist painting [2] and of both relativity and quantum mechanics on the poetry of T.S. Eliot [3]. (‘‘What might have been is an abstraction/Remaining a perpetual possibility/Only in a world of speculation.’’) Whole cultural movements have been considered a response to the prevailing scientific world view as seen, for example, in the ‘‘Romantic Reaction’’ to the mechanized worldview of the 18th century (e.g., in the words of Schlegel, ‘‘The explanation of an organic product, of an organic being must be historical, not mechanical’’[4]) [5,6]. At the same time, the cultural climate can influence the imagination of scientists; it has been proposed that Darwin’s construction of natural selection has roots in Romantic ideals [7], and the thematic similarities found in cubist painting and relativity theory merely demonstrate that both art and science are creative enterprises shaped by the preoccupations of the culture in which they are immersed [8]. Now, in the ‘‘biological century,’’ with the concurrent revolution in new technologies to communicate and even create new life forms, how are art, science, and culture influencing one another? Tactical Biopolitics, edited by Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip, offers one part of the answer by providing a look at how artists and other nonscientists are inspired and provoked by contemporary biological research. The premise of Tactical Biopolitics is ‘‘that the political challenges at the intersection of life science and art are best addressed through a combination of artistic intervention, critical theorizing and reflective practices.’’ The term Tactical Biopolitics ‘‘is a creative terminological misappropriation, drawing its inspiration from, but not directly mapping onto, two formations: the assembly of resistant cultural practices referred to as Tactical Media, and the intellectual ferment around the history of biopolitics.’’ Tactical Media has been described as do-it-yourself media activism that is ‘‘never impartial,’’ and Biopolitics situates these activities in the historical framework of Foucault’s concept of biopower, in which biotic factors are manipulated to regulate society. Tactical Biopolitics, then, is a collection of essays organized by themes—Curating the Book of Life, The Biolab and the Public, Gendered Science, Expertise and Amateur Science, Biosecurity and Bioethics—that capture both the constructive exchanges and the tribal skirmishes that take place when life, science, art, and politics meet. It is also a record of ‘‘the possible recuperation of one of [Tactical Media’s] strongest aspects: the interand ‘(un)-disciplinary’ exchanges among practitioners and theorists from various backgrounds, always privileging collaboration and coordination with larger strategy-based movements of resistance to hegemonic forces....we now call for the inclusion and cooperation of the scientific community.’’ To understand this interdisciplinary exchange, one must be prepared to respect local idiomatic customs. A biologist exploring Tactical Biopolitics encounters strange semantic flora and fauna—unfamiliar juxtapositions, and novel fusions of adjectives and nouns–that make it unmistakable that this is an alternative domain for the life sciences. At their best, the unusual verbal combinations invite contemplation; others set up an impenetrable language barrier or read a little like poetry: ‘‘An immeasurable amount of productive energy is wasted appeasing the anxiety inserted by capital through insidious and invasive manipulations of huge sections of the public imaginary.’’ And, as in any good interdisciplinary conversation, readers get asked questions they would never have thought to ask themselves: ‘‘How can we know for sure these days that the truck driver repairing his