un/Clean:Visualizing im/Purity in Art and Science
Julia Reodica

The Dirty Lowdown

What exactly does “purity” mean? What is communicated culturally by determining some thing or someone “unclean?” Who decides the criteria? Religious leaders have figured out rules to identify un/clean objects. Artists are inspired to interpret the conflicts between the clean and unclean. Scientists fear contamination and follow stringent protocol to keep everything clean. Across the board, groups of people will create guidelines about objects in their worlds that are to be deemed: clean (accepted) or unclean (rejected).

Historically, dominant ancient cultures had created codes around what is unclean, or taboo. A system of rituals, symbols and behaviors were developed to categorize or regulate things as “pure” or “polluted” in relation to: food, the body, and objects of superstition. Social rules are accepted and enforced by citizens in order for them to thrive in their community. Many of these systems have survived and still define human relations and the environment of today’s societies.

To specify what is un/clean in culture is to appoint meanings to objects, signs and behaviors. Umberto Eco explains that traditional semiotics “is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. A sign is everything which can be taken as significantly substituting for something else. This something does not necessarily have to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign stands for it. Thus semiotics is in principle the discipline of studying everything which can be used in order to lie [1].” “Lie” can be a harsh word to apply in some cases, but it is believable that most signs are used to perpetuate lies. A better replacement for ‘lie’ would be ‘to communicate a perceived truth.” Human culture is filled with signs and objects of perceived significance or truth; believable only to those who subscribe to the rationale, hype or intentional lie attached with the object or behavior so the cultural sign/symbol survives in the future.

Applied biosemiotics is relatively new treading ground for seeking significance in biology on a microscopic level, but is still subject to culture-specific meanings. Semiotic analysis can never get away from that fact and should be considered in any interpretation. Scholars and researchers study the communication and signification in living systems that will transfer information to its progeny [2]. Bodily semiotics is an interest in the extensions of the anatomical body, which includes clothing and accessory systems of adornment [3]. These disciplines will expand as body manipulation/mutilation advances within traditional and biotechnological processes.

Rather than go through an exhaustive, general list of what is considered as im/pure signs in modern culture, overlapping ideologies of the body in the laboratory culture and the creation of art will be discussed. The theorized reaction to the signs when activated in the cultural context will also be explored.

Laboratory as Sacred Body

In the laboratory, scientists go through a system of events to ensure the purity of their experiment or practice. Similar to attending church, attendants can observe the high priest prepare for the ritual. The flow-hood, a sterile air-flow area that serves as the operating platform, is the scientist’s altar. With a few spritzes of ethanol (alcohol) on gloved hands and surfaces, the area becomes uncontaminated and ready. Every movement is calculated and justified. Written protocols of preparing specimens and media are standardized in the field, just as sacred scrolls are copied and distributed to holy leaders. In relation to the body, the laboratory is a living being: the scientist is an agent performing paternal and maternal duties of reproducing and protecting the cultures; the flow-hood is the mouth that breathes in fresh air to the inner sanctum; cellular media (nutrients) are the lifeblood; the incubator is the body’s womb that keeps the cultures alive. Abuse of the laboratory body is sacrilege and it is generally understood that anyone entering the space show a level of reverence to it. This reverence is displayed through laboratory behavior, protocol, and iconic signage of the area.

To the scientist, contamination of the laboratory environment or the experiment means failure. The achievement of reproducibility is required in order to qualify an experiment for final analysis and construct conclusions to a theory. However, creativity is not absent from the scientific process at all. Individual scientists will have special techniques or nuances that are believed to contribute to the ultimate success of their operations and perhaps novel approaches to experimentation. It is this creative input and procedural design that makes scientists comparable to artists. Many scientists will readily disagree with this comparison or state that they are not as creative as artists for the sake of personal modesty or maintaining the separation between the disciplines. To claim a more conservative outlook towards their work indicates that scientists do not want to be associated with quirkiness or unpredictability that may be characteristic to artists, when in reality; most notable scientists are renowned for their eccentricities.

As in religion, scientific approach is based on blind faith – a theory is created first and then proven in the laboratory. In antiquity, science and art, still in the same bed until the Renaissance, operated on alchemy, ritual and superstition [4]. In the scope of human history, it is only recently that high priests, now called scientists, became weary of upholding religious ideals and set their sites to the general welfare of mankind and technological progress, influenced by politics and the economics [5]. Some level of faith is still involved with the creation of a theory: the working hypothesis is considered probable, based on relative experimental evidence/fact or a preceding central dogma of the discipline that may justify the attempt to prove the theory.

Body Politics

The human body has always been a contentious subject of un/cleanliness in religion, science and art. Body manipulation/mutilation - activities that include: male and female circumcision, scarification, tattooing, piercing, dental sculpting - is still enacted outdoors or in rustic environments by designated persons (holy men, elders, etc.) in non-industrial and developing nations. In the industrialized societies, the body is manipulated in parlors, out-patient clinics and in the hospital – all which revolve around sterility and cleanliness.

Depending on what is deemed visually appealing to the bearer of the body adornment or augmentation, the viewer will react with emotions of sexual arousal, approving sentiment, or in some instances disgust – also a desired reaction. The body is a communicative device, the manipulation enhancing the meaning of perceived beauty as an attempt for social acceptance or display of hyper-individuality.

im/Pure Thoughts

Art created inside and outside of the laboratory was the basis of the artificial hymen project: hymNext TM, a conceptual piece that went through a first installation in New York , 2004. The project also questions the aesthetics of visualizing culturally charged images. In context of the body, the hymen is “neither inside nor outside [6].” In deconstructive philosophy, the word ‘hymen’ is a Derridean term referring to a hypothetical position neither here nor there, identifying no signifiers, concluding undecidibility in the discursive space. Postmodernism lays in this position: it doesn’t sway to any side, and remains decentralized.

The hymNext TM hymen is symbolic of the fact that it doesn’t belong to the inside, outside or center of the body. It belongs to no definite side. As an object of discussion, the hymens are reassigned new meanings in sexuality - at this point the philosophical maneuver thus departs the deconstructive approach of concluding undecidibility. In biology, it is a membrane that is neither inside nor outside, whose function is still a mystery. A personal theory is that the membrane acts as semi-enclosure where beneficial, vaginal flora can grow in a young female until she becomes of mature and menstruating age.

Culturally speaking, the hymen symbolizes purity of the woman (if intact), or of impure sexual status (if absent before wedlock). The presence of a hymen acts as a badge or proof of virtue. In many cultures, the value of a female is dependent on this thin piece of membrane. The absence of one can be devastating to her reputation and family which may lead to social rejection or even death to her. The one-time, sacred breakage of the hymen also represents the surrendering of the female as property and of sexual loyalty to the masculine counterpart during ritual consummation.

However, the hymNext TM hymens do not subscribe to the traditional representations and taboos revolving around the membrane. While many modern cultures still regard talking about sex and genitalia as taboo, it crosses that boundary by drawing specific attention to the “dirty” region between the legs and the dangerous sensuality associated with it. The artificial replacement hymen symbolizes the redefining of new, sexual beginnings for womenand men. Treating the hymen as a replaceable object and creating a piece that may imply repeated events of defloration may be abhorrent to some but celebratory to others. Women can mentally re-virginize their sexual being despite the rupture of a hymen due to an unsatisfactory sexual past or trauma. Men can re-virginize too, for the similar reasons. But folks also like using physical aids – on repeated occasions. Whether it’s called fetishization, or symbolic appropriation, people will employ objects of significance to their activities to enhance their experience.

Tissue engineering technology is used to create living sculptures; the smooth muscle tissue cultures are active cellular systems conforming to designed molds and marking methods are being developed to imprint stylistic symbols. Artistic and scientific methods meet each other again, but in the Petri dish. Similar to the physical placement of the hymen, the artist is positioned both “inside and outside” the realms of art and science. This poses a predicament worthy of discussion because viewing audiences from either camp or the general viewing population may contest the art work’s use of scientific method, living system relationships and cultural validity - all challenging conventional thinking within the rigors of art and science. It is from controversial interactions like this that new opportunities for discussion about boundaries and limitlessness arise, and the progression in art and sciences can occur.

Click here for original document: MS Word

Publication – Daubner, E. and Poissant, L. (2004). Art & Biotechnologies: collected essays. Montreal : Presses de l’Université du Québe. Partner: Groupe de Recherche en Arts Médiatiques

Bibliography

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. London : Macmillan.

Sebeok, T.A. and Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1992). Biosemiotics. New York : Mouton de Gruyter.

Sonesson, G. (1990). Bodily Semiotics. Finland : The International Semiotics Insitute, Imatra,

Panofsky, E, (1952). "Artist, Scientist, Genius. Notes on the Renaissance Dammerung" in The Renaissance: A Symposium. New York : The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Russell, B. (1996). Is Science Superstitious?Russell: Sceptical Essays, (ed. John Gray) New York : Routelege Classics.

Wood, D., & Bernasconi, R., eds. (1988) Derrida and Différance, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.