the anthropocene index

Aleksandra Jach: I would like to ask you about usefulness of the concept of the Anthropocene in the practice of cultural manager, curator and writer? The Gaia hypothesis, a planet-scale holistic concept that encourages us to personify the Earth, at the same time denying the same to the single man. In the Anthropocene, a man can play a role of a steward or guardian again. What do you think about performative potential of both concepts?

 

Nicola Triscott: The notion of the Anthropocene – that the scale of human influence on the planet is now so large that humanity may constitute a geological force – has provided a simple, powerful concept for scientists and environmentalists to grasp and convey the scale of human impact on the planet, and it has been taken up enthusiastically by the humanities and the arts world. I think that the exploration of the Anthropocene through philosophy, literature and art has raised interesting questions about death, the end of civilization, memory and archives, and concepts of deep time, which has developed the cultural discourse within which the Arts Catalyst’s work is situated. 
My own curatorial and research work, as director of Arts Catalyst, however, particularly over the past decade, has been framed and influenced more by the concept of the ‘global commons’, that I have found helpful in considering and questioning strategic relations of power and production, and associated issues of inequality, commodification, ownership, control and conflict, and through which to explore the complex mosaic of human activity, politics, natural resources and technology. The Anthropocene, as conceptualised as a geological epoch, tends to disempower the individual, faced as we are with irreversible processes on a global scale, while the ‘commons’ situates the issue in the political and social domain, within the scope of some human affect, at least in our response and adaptation.

Aleksandra Jach: I would like to ask you about usefulness of the concept of the Anthropocene in the practice of cultural manager, curator and writer? The Gaia hypothesis, a planet-scale holistic concept that encourages us to personify the Earth, at the same time denying the same to the single man. In the Anthropocene, a man can play a role of a steward or guardian again. What do you think about performative potential of both concepts?
 

Nicola Triscott: The notion of the Anthropocene – that the scale of human influence on the planet is now so large that humanity may constitute a geological force – has provided a simple, powerful concept for scientists and environmentalists to grasp and convey the scale of human impact on the planet, and it has been taken up enthusiastically by the humanities and the arts world. I think that the exploration of the Anthropocene through philosophy, literature and art has raised interesting questions about death, the end of civilization, memory and archives, and concepts of deep time, which has developed the cultural discourse within which the Arts Catalyst’s work is situated. 
My own curatorial and research work, as director of Arts Catalyst, however, particularly over the past decade, has been framed and influenced more by the concept of the ‘global commons’, that I have found helpful in considering and questioning strategic relations of power and production, and associated issues of inequality, commodification, ownership, control and conflict, and through which to explore the complex mosaic of human activity, politics, natural resources and technology. The Anthropocene, as conceptualised as a geological epoch, tends to disempower the individual, faced as we are with irreversible processes on a global scale, while the ‘commons’ situates the issue in the political and social domain, within the scope of some human affect, at least in our response and adaptation.

 

Aleksandra Jach: Do you think that artistic and cultural practice can or should transform under the Anthropocene?
 

Nicola Triscott: With or without the concept of the Anthropocene, it has become increasingly clear over the past twenty years that human pressure on the planet is having a massive impact on many global systems on which human and other life depend, including the atmosphere and climate system, the biosphere, the hydrosphere, and the polar regions. Artistic and cultural practice will inevitably ultimately transform as these forces impact on resources, equality and the movement of populations, profoundly affecting society and human behaviour. Should art transform right now? Would it really make any difference if it did? Perhaps the art as activism at COP21 had some small impact on the discussions. But it seems to me that all the efforts of the art world to be more 'activist', more 'awareness-raising', more  'green', more 'environmentally sustainable' seem irrelevant in the face of Indonesian forest fires, the massive Californian methane leak, the Brazilian mine disaster, the fossil fuel dependence of our world, and the endless procession of oil spills and other environmental devastation caused by industry. 
Artistic and cultural practices are already changing, of course. Artists and curators are becoming far more interested in science and ecology than ever in the previous two decades, and the Anthropocene concept has certainly been a factor in that. Yet, in the face of such precarity, I feel that human nature also needs some continuity, transcendence, curiosity, social cohesion and hope, which art - as it is - can also help to provide. If anything, we will need art, music, performance and other cultural activities more than ever.

 

Aleksandra Jach: The Arts Catalyst, which you are a founder, has run for more than twenty years (from 1994). You have realised around 120 projects and cooperated with many important cultural and scientific institutions. You support engaged and critical outlook on science. Can you tell me what changed during these two decades? How the methodology of transdisciplinary projects has transformed during this period? And if your education rooted somehow in UK art & science education?
 

Nicola Triscott: Over twenty years ago, I set up Arts Catalyst to explore how contemporary art might engage with other fields of study in order to generate critical and reflective perspectives on our scientific and technological society, and in the process to extend artists’ range of media, practice and scope of enquiry, and engage a wide public in an active conversation about ideas. It seemed to me at the time that an interdisciplinary approach - including science, technology, art, humanities, philosophy, politics and sociology - could be beneficial in understanding, and beginning to address, the impact of human activity, particularly technological, on the planet. I was also interested in exploring how science and technology move between the laboratory and society, and in exploring art’s potential as a means of broad enquiry, experiment and opening up participation in ‘expert’ knowledge domains.
At that time and through most of the 1990s, there wasn’t much interest from mainstream contemporary arts in these ideas, although media art (more active within academia and mainland Europe) was engaging in a similar critical and experimental way with digital and new media technologies and the emerging phenomenon of the Internet. However, Arts Catalyst was always able to find interesting artists who could engage with science and technology, as well as a keen audience for our events and activities. Since around 2000, the increasing popularity of science in mainstream media, growing interest by artists and curators in politically and environmentally-engaged work, and the exponential growth of personal computers, networks, data and new technologies, together with funding initiatives (certainly in the UK) from the science sector to involve the arts in promoting science, have brought about a significant attitudinal change in the arts world. Linkages between art and science have proliferated over the past decade.
Over the same period, science has continued to verify the effects of human activity on the planet: the depletion of the ozone layer, the exponential rate of loss of biodiversity, the acidification and pollution of the oceans, worsening air quality, reduction of soil quality, chemical pollution of freshwater, climate change, and the unsustainable extraction of finite natural resources from the Earth (such as fossil fuels and minerals). Science is frequently turned to for solutions, but science’s powers are limited. It has also been two decades of extraordinary technological change – from the dawn of the Internet and genetically modified crops, through smartphones, animal cloning, pervasive mass surveillance, synthetic biology, drone warfare, augmented reality and big data, to cryptoeconomics, the Internet of Things and the first experiments in human gene editing.
Within this changing landscape, Arts Catalyst has pursued and developed its curatorial interests in artistic practices that explore and develop the reciprocal effects of art and science, of politics and technology, of communities and environments. We have tended to follow thematic investigatory ‘strands’: culture and outer space, humanity’s impact on and relationship with other animal species, the ethics and politics of biotechnology, community engagement with environmental monitoring, the material and symbolic nature of the sky, geopolitics in the polar regions, and nuclear culture in contemporary society, whilst exploring fresh ways to engage people in playful and social art experiences and promote self-determined explorations of science and technology for social, cultural and environmental purposes. Our work evolves in partnership with artists and in conversation with experts, often responding to particular sites or emerging from field trips or in-depth research processes.
Although our own curatorial interests and those of artists have evolved over time, the tools and resources we have access to have altered, and the scientific, cultural and economic landscape in which we operate has transformed, I feel that our ‘methodologies’ have remained fairly consistent: we remain committed to supporting artists through new commissions and opportunities for research and development, to critical and experimental work, to generating interdisciplinary exchanges between artists, scientists and public, and to involving and surprising audiences with bold art and ideas. Partnership working – with artists, scientists arts organisations and universities – remains key.

Aleksandra Jach: Are there any scientific fields you wanted to explore with the artists but has not been possible?
 

Nicola Triscott: Yes, sometimes we have been interested as curators in an area of scientific discovery or technological development, when it has been hard to find artists who - at the same time - shared those interests or who had sufficient knowledge to make a critical engagement with that field. In some cases, we have then done a significant amount of development work, opening up opportunities for artists to explore and engage with those fields, such as our early workshops on art and biotechnology and art and space technologies (including zero gravity), and facilitating artists’ residencies in specialist scientific facilities. In some cases, these have led directly to new commissions. In others, we know that the artists have later on in their careers been able to utilise the knowledge and techniques gained in these workshops, in some cases significantly contributing to the emergence of new fields, such as bioart, even if Arts Catalyst has not directly benefited.

 

Aleksandra Jach: Can you tell me something about your audience? I'm asking because you are moving to a new location near King Cross in London. Following what you are doing mostly via the Internet, I have a feeling that, on one hand you are engaged in many international projects, but you still care a lot about the physical place for your activities. Why is it important to have a place where people can stop by and talk? Who are the people which are building your community?
 

Nicola Triscott: Working with artists and partners in other parts of the world has been fundamental to Arts Catalyst’s mission. Learning about and reflecting on our techno-scientific world would be very limited without international working and exposure to other cultural and geographical perspectives and knowledge.
However, without a permanent base, our work has tended to be nomadic, and it has been difficult for our collaborators, followers and audiences (many of whom are very loyal, opinionated and passionate) to follow and engage with our work consistently. It is really important to us that our programme continues to evolve through conversation and experimentation with artists, experts and communities, and we have felt for some time that we needed the continuity of a situated public space. As you note, exploring the relationship between people and their physical place is important to us, and we want to explore this, not just in the Arctic or Moscow or Bangalore but in our own urban home. London is a world city undergoing rapid change and we want to explore what this means to the people living there.
As the site of generative projects, our new centre will seed and develop ideas that can then scale up to produce large scale and long-term commissions, both nationally and internationally. At the same time, it will serve as a site for reflection and consolidation, hosting ‘notes from the field’ from our off-site work. Our constituency will include local community members and groups, established and growing ‘interest groups’ of artists, scientists and others (such as those interested in bioart or art and environmental issues, for example), organization partners including artist groups and university research groups, and wider London arts and culture audiences and visitors.

 

2015

 

The interview was realized thanks to the support of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage.

 

Nicola Triscott is a cultural producer, curator and writer, specialising in the intersections between art, science, technology and society. She is the founder and Director of Arts Catalyst, one of the UK’s most distinctive arts organisations, distinguished by ambitious artists’ commissions that engage with science, including notable projects by Tomas Saraceno, Ashok Sukumaran, Aleksandra Mir, Otolith Group and Critical Art Ensemble, and the international dimension of its programme of exhibitions, events, research and publications. Nicola has curated numerous exhibitions and events for Arts Catalyst. She lectures and publishes internationally, including books on art and technology in the Arctic, art and space, and ecological art. She blogs at www.nicolatriscott.org on the critical inter-relationships between the arts, humanities and our technoscientific society. Source: http://www.artscatalyst.org/