Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T20:41:51.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Translators to weave with the non-humans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2022

Abstract

My visual artworks propose ways of being in the world—the world that humans share with non-humans. By developing projects such as breathe with a tree or listen to soil, I wish my installations to be experienced as translators. Those art projects are the result of collaborations with different teams of scientists. Together we found technological tools that could be used in art installations. These hybridizations between art and science sometimes mischievously divert technology, and instead, offer us aesthetic work with its roots deep in traditional arts and crafts knowledge. With them we can—for a moment—share time with plants, and be in dialogue with air, soil and gravity. The first project, Dendromacy, an experimental movie, was designed with a specific cooled lens thermal camera. The second one, Listening to the soil, a sounded ceramic installation started from bioacoustics recordings of the soil mega and meso-fauna.

Information

Type
Theories
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Set for the Dendromacy movie, Claire Damesin and the FLIR camera, Barbeau, 2016.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Stills from Dendromacy, 2017. Breathing of a human/concentration of CO2 from a portion of tree.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Workshop in community gardens, Annecy, 2021.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Listen to the soil, Nuit Blanche, Paris, Vive les Groues community garden, 2020.

Author comment: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R0/PR1

Comments

I received an invitation to write a paper from Daphné Autran.As a visual artist working in collaboration with different teams of scientists, I really think it's worth to share some of my expreriences on twisting some technicals tools in order to do art installations.

Review: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The author proposes a description of two artistic and experimental installations, with the objective of presenting these installations as possible translators between humans and non-humans’ organisms. The approach aims in both experiments at perceiving usually undetectable non-humans’ life signs.

The installations are described directly one after the other. The first installation relates to the tree respiration process. The second one aims at detecting the sound of fauna in the underground.

The concepts sound interesting in both cases and could be of interest to the scientific community as tools used in the installations seem possibly useful for scientific measurements, but are not necessary used by scientists. In addition, art and science collaborations can be rich for both parts and could be encouraged through the publication of this kind of work.

Regarding the first installation, it aims at visualizing the CO2 produced by the trunk of a tree. This visualization is based on the use of a thermal imaging camera, with a cool lens designed to detect the CO2. A salad bell in soft plastic is sealed on the trunk, and the trunk itself is surrounded by a geodesic dome chamber in order to isolate the trunk from the wind and possible other CO2 sources. The author describes that the salad bells should be pressed to releases the CO2 accumulated in it, as the camera can only detect CO2 in movement. On pictures, it seems indeed that humans come into the dome and do press the salad bells. But then it is not explained in the text how the author could ensure that the CO2 detected by the camera is not the one expired by people who press the salad bell. The author emphasizes that the film “Dendromacy” produced on the experiment is “the only film in which we can see the "cloud" of CO2 produced by a portion of the tree trunk”. It seems then important to demonstrate that the detected could of CO2 is indeed the one coming from the tree.

In the second installation, the author first describes the recording of sound from soil samples placed in a mobile anechoic chamber, to prevent from parasite sounds. She then explains, before getting to the installation itself, that a modification of the recorder allowed recording in the field directly, but it is unclear what kind of modification was done, and how the author then proceeds: does she simply put the microphone into the soil? at which depth? How does she ensure that vibrations are indeed produced by the underground organisms (and not proximal water movement, steps nearby, machines in the neighborhood of the experimental plot…), and how does she identify that “the smallest soil invertebrate that can be recorded with this sensor is collembolan”?

In general, the article lacks precisions. For example, it would have been interesting to know more about how the camera exactly functions in the first experiment or about the way the author and her collaborator proceeded to modify the recorder in order to be able to use it in the field in the second experiment. It should mainly be described more in details how the author exactly proceeds for each measurement.

It also lacks a proper rigorous frame to present these experiments: I would have appreciated an introduction, presenting briefly the interest of science and art collaborations, some existing examples of science and art collaborations regarding, if existing, the translation of non-humans life signs into understandable signs to humans, and if not, what has been done in art and science around plants and underground fauna. Elements about what is usually measured or studied by the scientific teams the author interacted with and how these collaborations have raised their interest also would have fitted in this introduction.

A discussion/conclusion would also be very interesting, showing how in both cases the science-art collaboration enriched both parts, and why these installations provide new scientific opportunities to the researchers who collaborated with the author – and what are maybe the limits to it, which could open new perspectives of collaborations.

Finally, some problems should be noted on references. Reference 12, which is the only scientific reference, from the author of this article and in collaboration with the scientist who worked with her on detecting the sound of underground fauna, is listed in but not quoted in the text. A link is missing on reference 8, and reference 9, quoted in the text, does not appear in the list. Pictures are also not referenced: they should appear with numbers and be commented in the text.

I would recommend that the author rewrite the article in collaboration with the scientists she worked with, in order to also get their input and their views on the experiments and discuss how the art and science collaborations they participated open new perspectives to their own work.

Review: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: In this article entitled “Translators to weave with the non-humans”, Karine Bonneval reports on two of her projects, Dendromacy and Listening to the soil, two installations dealing with her attempt in collaboration with scientists, to exploit and eventually divert technological tools to address as such fascinating questions as the relationships between humans and non-humans, in this case plants and soil organisms.

Dendromacy nicely shows how technological devices originally developed for industrial purposes can be deviated by artists and scientists ending up with a fascinating installation pinpointing this fundamental property that humans and trees are sharing: breathing. Using a cool lens thermal camera the author and her collaborator evidence the release of CO2 by an Oaktree within Barbeau’s forest, while the tree is set into a geodesic greenhouse dome that represents a chamber where intimacy of the tree-human interaction is thereby preserved.

Listening to the soil aims at revealing to a large audience the richness and complexity of the soil, this environment which exists just under our feet. Once again, the author and her collaborator elegantly exploit some sensor developed for industrial purposes to record the sound produced by soil samples first, and even directly in the field, following some technical improvements.

As far as a scientist can tell, this manuscript is written in an unusual way, with respect to the expected canonical structure of a scientific article (background, material and methods, results, discussion..) but it reads nicely and many of these information is in fact provided. I feel however that some references and/or background are missing, for instance regarding the use of acoustics to address ecological questions. It is for instance mentioned that aquatic ecosystems have been investigated using such a strategy previously, this study being the first one to focus on the soil component. Can this be developed? More info about the interest of acoustic-based strategies to study biodiversity “quality” and the potential it has when adapted to new environments would be of interest for the reader, and would allow to better emphasize how the eye of an artist may change the perspectives and project of a scientist.

In Listening to the soil the author also reports on a workshop where the sound of different jumping, crawling or walking invertebrates would have been detected. It is a bit unclear how this specific information was obtained. I feel like giving some more input about these results would be helpful. My last comment is about the authorship of this contribution. I was surprised that Bonneval is the sole author while she refers to the project as the fruit of a collaboration with several scientific teams and cite many colleagues as collaborators. Did they not earn their name as co-author ?

Overall, I find it quite fascinating in this art & science interplay history artists and scientists seem to co-lead each other into directions that they would have never considered without the other. Both installations are the perfect illustrations of a successful trans-disciplinary collaboration.

Additional minor comments :

- English sometimes needs to be polished (grammar) and some words are missing here and there.

- Ref 8 : why is this type of information given as a ref, or a note ?

- Ref 9 is missing

- P9 : “she had developed with a NeuroPsi technician”, rephrase. Nobody knows what NeuroPsi refers to at this point.

Recommendation: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R0/PR4

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Karine Bonneval,

We have now received comments on your manuscript from two scientific reviewers. Both reviewers are enthusiastic about the art and science collaborations presented, but proposed a number of revisions which seem constructive to improve the manuscript, notably to reach a scientific audience.

Reviewer 2 suggested to accept the manuscript providing his/her suggestions are addressed. Although Reviewer 1 asked to rewrite the manuscript (implying a new submission), I feel that a complete rewriting is not necessary, but part of her/his comments should be included. For instance, in Dendromacy, the question of whether CO2 emission are registered, only from the tree, or from both human and tree; should be clarified. If both respirations are actually measured, this could allow to develop your concept of “intimacy chamber”? Both reviewers also asked more precisions on the experimental set up for sound recording in the second installation: which kind of adaptations have been made, and how the source of the sounds are identified? Reviewer 1 also suggested to include a short introduction and conclusion, to put the work in a broader perspective. Finally, both reviewers proposed to involve the scientific collaborators of the works, possibly as co-authors. In my opinion, co-authorship is not mandatory, and up to your decision – adding acknowledgements is possible as well – but at least a feedback from the scientific collaborators might be a good point, which would highlight the true pluri/trans-disciplinary nature of your endeavor.

Also, a number of problems in the references have been pointed by the reviewers, and the figures should be numbered and cited along the text, as noted by reviewer 1.

Therefore, we would be glad to consider a corrected version of your manuscript, addressing all Reviewer 2’s comments, and parts of Reviewer 1’s comments as suggested above. An accompanying letter listing point-by-point the main modifications, would be appreciated.

Looking forward to reading your manuscript,

Best regards

Daphné Autran

Decision: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R1/PR6

Comments

Visual artist working with different teams of scientists in order to create art installation, I had the chance to use measuring tools of different kinds. For this specific purpose, the tool where sometimes divert from their scientific use, but the relationships buidlt during my residency times in labs are the opportunity to open sometimes the fields of questioning for the science people I have the chance to work with.

Review: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R1/PR7

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Author,

I am pleased with this revised version which I recommend for publication. I have just noticed a few sentences that need some corrections or further light improvements :

L106 : word and not world

L108-109 : please correct, english incorrect

L134 : please correct, phrasing incorrect

L163 : Cornell U., nor Cornell.,

L163: track, not tracks

L167 : started, not start

L168: delete “to report”

L169: “..specific invertebrates had reported in..”

L172 : English

L195 : than and not that

L195-196 : please rephrase last sentence (English)

Recommendation: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R1/PR8

Comments

Comments to Author: Dear Karine,

Your revised manuscript has been now accepted by reviewer, providing a few corrections listed in his/her comments below. I fully agree with his opinion and also recommend publication after these slight modifications.

Could you please perform these corrections and send us back your manuscript ?

Many thanks in advance

Best regards

Daphné

Decision: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Translators to weave with the non-humans — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.