Microperformativity and Biomediality

References

• Ascott, Roy (2001) ‘Arts education @ the edge of the net: The future will be moist!’, Arts Education Policy Review 102(3): 9–10. doi: 10.1080/10632910109599995
   Google Scholar
• Auslander, Philip, ed. (2003) Performance: Critical concepts in literary and cultural studies, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, John Langshaw (1962) How to Do Things with Words: The William James lectures delivered in Harvard University in 1955, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bakke, Monika (2014) ‘Practicing aesthetics among nonhuman somas in the age of biotech’, in Wojciech Małecki (ed.) Practicing Pragmatist Aesthetics. Critical perspectives on the arts, Amsterdam and New York, NY: Brill, pp. 153–68.
   Google Scholar
• Bal, Mieke (2002) Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A rough guide, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, Karen (2003) ‘Posthuman performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter’, Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 28(3): 801–31. doi: 10.1086/345321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, Karen (2012) ‘Nature’s queer performativity’, Kvinder, køn & forskning [Women, Gender & Research] 1–2: 25–53.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Ary, Guy, Catts, Oron and Zurr, Ionat (2003) ‘Que/qui sont les êtres semi-vivants créés par TC&A?’ (What/Who are the Semi-Livings created by the Tissue Culture & Art Project?), in Jens Hauser (ed.) L’Art Biotech (Biotech Art), Nantes and Trézélan and Paris: Filigranes, pp. 20–32.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, Jane (2004) ‘The force of things: Steps toward an ecology of matter’, Political Theory 32(3): 347–72. doi: 10.1177/0090591703260853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brine, Daniel, Keidan, Lois and Heathfield, Adrian, eds (2003) Live Cultures, London: Tate Publishing and Live Art Development Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Burnham, Jack (1968) Beyond Modern Sculpture. The effects of science and technology on the sculpture of this century, New York, NY: George Braziller.
   Google Scholar
• Burrows, Montrose Thomas (1912) ‘Rhythmical activity of isolated heart muscle cells in vitro’, Science 36: 90–2. doi: 10.1126/science.36.916.90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity, New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Catts, Oron (2004) ‘The art of the semi-living’, in Adrian Heathfield (ed.) Live: Art and performance, London: Tate Publishing, pp. 152–9.
   Google Scholar
• Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich (2003) Production of Presence: What meaning cannot convey, Stanford, IL: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens, ed. (2003) L’art biotech (Biotech Art), Nantes and Trézélan and Paris: Filigranes.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2005) ‘Bio art – Taxonomy of an etymological monster’, in Gerfried Stocker and Christiane Schöpf (eds) Hybrid: Living in paradox, Ostfildern–Ruit: Hatje Cantz, pp. 181–93.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2006) ‘Biotechnology as mediality: Strategies of organic media art’, Performance Research 11: 129–35. doi: 10.1080/13528160701363663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2013) ‘Remediating still life, pencils of nature and fingerprints’, in Sean Cubitt and Paul Thomas (eds) Relive. Media art histories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 275–307.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2014a) Biotechnologie als Medialität – Strategien organischer Medienkunst (Biotechnology as mediality. Organic Media Art Strategies), Bochum: Universitätsbibliothek der Ruhr Universität Bochum.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2014b) ‘Molekulartheater, Mikroperformativität und Plantamorphisierungen’ (Molecular theatre, microperformativity and plantamorphisations), in Susanne Stemmler (ed.) Wahrnehmung, Erfahrung, Experiment, Wissen. Objektivität und Subjektivität in den Künsten und den Wissenschaften (Perception, Experience, Experiment, Knowledge. Objectivity and subjectivity in the arts and in the sciences), Zürich: Diaphanes, pp. 173–89.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2016a) ‘It’s time for a wetware update’, in David Familian and Jens Hauser (eds) Wetware: Art – agency – animation, Irvine, CA: Regents of the University of California, pp. 11–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2016b) ‘Biomediality and art’, in Jill Scott and Irene Hediger (eds) Artists-in-Labs: Recomposing art and science, Berlin: Springer, pp. 201–19.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, Jens (2020) ‘Rehabilitating bacteria: A contemporary art/science interface’, in Hava Aldouby (ed.) Shifting Interfaces: Presence and relationality in new media arts of the early 21st century, Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 193–211.
   Google Scholar
• Heathfield, Adrian (2004) Live: Art and performance, London: Tate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Heider, Fritz (1926) ‘Ding und Medium’ (Thing and medium), Symposion. Philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Aussprache 1: 109–57.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmeyer, Jesper (1992) ‘Some semiotic aspects of the psycho–physical relation: The endo–exosemiotic boundary’, in Thomas Albert Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok (eds) Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kac, Eduardo (2007a) ‘Art that looks you in the eye: Hybrids, clones, mutants, synthetics, and transgenics’, in Eduardo Kac (ed.) Signs of Life. Bio art and beyond, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kac, Eduardo (2007b) Specimen of Secrecy about Marvelous Discoveries, in Eduardo Kac (exhibition catalogue), Valencia: Instituto Valenciano de Arte Moderno, pp. 92–6.
   Google Scholar
• Krämer, Sybille (2004) ‘Was haben “Performativität” und “Medialität” miteinander zu tun? Plädoyer für eine in der “Aisthetisierung” gründende Konzeption des Performativen’ (What do ‘performativity’ and ‘mediality have to do with each other? Plea for a conception of the performative based on ‘aesthetization’), in Sybille Krämer (ed.) Performativität und Medialität (Performativity and Mediality), Munich: Fink, pp. 13–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kull, Kalevi (2000) ‘An introduction to phytosemiotics: Semiotic botany and vegetative sign systems’, Sign Systems Studies 28: 326–50.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno (1993) We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social – An introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve (1979) Laboratory Life. The construction of scientific facts, Beverly Hills, CA and London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lippard, Lucy (1973) Six Years. The dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972, New York, NY: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, Andrew (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, agency, and science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porath, Erik (2008) ‘Begriffsgeschichte des Mediums oder Mediengeschichte von Begriffen? Methodologische Überlegungen’ (Conceptual history of the medium or media history of concepts? Methodological considerations), in Ernst Müller and Falko Schmieder (eds) Begriffsgeschichte der Naturwissenschaften. Zur historischen und kulturellen Dimension naturwissenschaftlicher Konzepte (Conceptual history of the natural sciences. On the historical and cultural dimension of scientific concepts), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 253–72.
   Google Scholar
• Runge, Friedlieb Ferdinand (1855) Der Bildungstrieb der Stoffe. Veranschaulicht in selbständig gewachsenen Bildern (The formative urge of substances. Illustrated in images grown by themselves), Oranienburg: Selbstverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, Chris (2010) Entangled. Technology and the transformation of performance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, Chris (2015) Alien Agency. Experimental encounters with art in the making, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schechner, Richard (1979) ‘The end of humanism’, Performing Arts Journal 4(1/2), The American Imagination: A decade of contemplation: 9–22.
   Google Scholar
• Sebeok, Thomas Albert (1976) Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Senior, Adele (2008) ‘In the face of the victim: Confronting the other in the Tissue Culture and Art Project’, in Jens Hauser (ed.) sk-interfaces: Exploding borders – creating membranes in art, technology and society, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 76–82.
   Google Scholar
• Spiess, Klaus and Strecker, Lucie (2014) ‘Spitparty. DNA imaging and aesthetic mimicry’, Performance Research 19(4): 38–44. doi: 10.1080/13528165.2014.947136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spitzer, Leo (1942) ‘Milieu and ambiance: An essay in historical semantics’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3(2): 169–218. doi: 10.2307/2102775
   Google Scholar
• Thacker, Eugene (2004) Biomedia, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vanouse, Paul (2007) ‘The relative velocity inscription device’, in Eduardo Kac (ed.) Signs of Life. Bio art and beyond, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 277–83.
   Google Scholar
• Velten, Hans Rudolf (2012) ‘Performativity and performance’, in Birgit Neumann and Ansgar Nünning (eds) Travelling Concepts for the Study of Culture, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 249–66.
   Google Scholar
• Weibel, Peter (1993) ‘Life – The unfinished project’, in Karl Gerbel and Peter Weibel (eds) Ars Electronica 93: Genetic art – artificial life, Vienna: PVS, pp. 9–10.
   Google Scholar
• Zurr, Ionat (2016) ‘Futile labor’, GeoHumanities 2(1): 188–202. doi: 10.1080/2373566X.2016.1168210
   Google Scholar