catts.zurr

A R T I S T S rsquo A R T I C L E

Growing Semi-Living Sculptures The Tissue Culture amp Art Project

Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr

The core of the Tissue Culture amp Art (TCampA)Project is the artistic manipulation of living materials usingthe tools of modern biological research in order to sharpenquestions arising from the utilization of these new sets of toolsPrevailing Western views of a nature-culture dualism can bechallenged by putting into practice newly acquired knowledgein biology Synthesizing biological processes and materials canhelp us understand that humans and their extended pheno-type (the external manifestation of our genes expressedthrough our culture and technologies) are an integral part ofwhat we call nature and we therefore have to develop a newset of references in order to understand the implications ofour deeds

Many artists are directing their attention to the conse-quences of deciphering the genetic code Our work deals withanother level of the biological systemmdashthat of the cell andcommunities of cells tissue The interaction with nature thatwe offer is the manipulation and direction of the growth andthree-dimensional formation of tissue on scaffoldings that weprovide Our work is conceptually closer to cybernetics ma-chinenature hybrids and the effect of technologies on com-plex biological systems than to molecular biologyndashbasedartmdashalthough we often use genetically modi ed cells and uti-lize other aspects of molecular biology We are exploring theformation of a new class of objectsbeings which we refer toas ldquosemi-livingrdquo objects

The Tissue Culture amp Art Project (initiated by Oron Cattsin 1996) was set up to explore questions arising from the useof living tissues to creategrow semi-living objectssculpturesand to research the technologies involved in such a task

WHAT IS TISSUE ENGINEERINGTissue engineering deals with constructing arti cial supportsystems (with the use of bio-materials) to direct and controlthe growth of tissue in a desired shape in order to replace orsupport the function of defective or injured body parts It is amulti-disciplinary eld that involves biologists chemists en-gineers medical practitioners and now artists ldquoIn essencenew and functional living tissue is fabricated using living cellswhich are usually associated in one way or another with a ma-trix or scaffolding to guide tissue developmentrdquo [1]

The use of embryonic and pro-genitor (adult) stem cells increasesthe potential for tissue engineeringto fabricate complex organs outsideof the body In principle stem cellscan differentiate into any kind ofspecialized cells by entering discretelineage pathways (which involvesthe action of specic growth factorsandor cytokines and other inter-nal and external factors) Thismeans that stem cells can be seededon a 3D scaffold laced with differ-ent growth factors Growth factorsare proteins that bind to receptorson the cell surface with the primary result of activating cellu-lar proliferation andor differentiation Many growth factorsare quite versatile stimulating cellular division in numerousdifferent cell types while others are specic to a particular celltype [2] and can be used in specic areas in order to grow com-plex organs that consist of many cell types [3]

THE TCampA HYPOTHESISIt is now feasible to use tissue-engineering techniques to cre-ate custom-made replacement organs They can also be usedfor the design and construction of 3D living-tissue assembliesthat can be sustained alive for long periods of time in vitro If

copy 2002 ISAST LEONARDO Vol 35 No 4 pp 365ndash370 2002 365

A B S T R A C T

Tissue engineering promisesto replace and repair bodyorgans but has largely beenoverlooked for artistic purposesIn the last 6 years the authorshave grown tissue sculpturesordfsemi-living objectsordm by cultur-ing cells on artireg cial scaffoldsThe goal of this work is toculture and sustain for longperiods tissue constructs ofvarying geometrical complexityand size and by that process tocreate a new artistic palette tofocus attention on and challengeperceptions regarding theutilization of new biologicalknowledge

Oron Catts (artist writer) SymbioticA School of Anatomy and Human Biology Universityof Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia E-mail ltoronsymbioticauwaeduaugt

Ionat Zurr (artist writer) SymbioticA School of Anatomy and Human Biology Universityof Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia

Web site lthttpwwwtcauwaeduaugt

Fig 1 A layer of bone tissue differentiated from pigrsquos mesenchymalcells (bone marrow stem cells) after 4 months of culture (copy OronCatts and Ionat Zurr Photo copy Ionat Zurr)

we are able to grow something as com-plex as a fully functioning organ why notchange this design to suit other tasksAnd if we can keep a complex organ invitro why not design semi-living objectsthat can be sustained alive outside of thebody for the duration of their use TheTCampA Project also asks If this is possibleshould we go down this path

Tissue engineering promises to re-place and repair body organs as well aschange our relationship with the bodyHowever tissue engineering for artisticpurposes or any purpose other thanmedical has largely been overlooked Inthe last 6 years our group has been ap-plying tissue-engineering principles toartistic expression We have grown tissuesculptures semi-living objects by cultur-ing cells on arti cial scaffolds in biore-actors Ultimately the goal of this workis to culture and sustain for long peri-ods tissue constructs of varying geomet-rical complexity and size and by thatprocess to create a new artistic palette

A unique set of issues and problems hasarisen because these living-cell tissue con-structs will not be transplanted into thebody Some of the problems concern the

practicalities of the procedure itself whilethe acquisition and use of living cells forartistic purposes has focused attention onthe ethical and social implications of cre-ating semi-living objects These entities(sculptures) blur the boundaries betweenwhat is born and what is manufacturedwhat is animate and what is inanimateand further challenge our perceptionsand our relationships with our bodies andour constructed environment

The ethical questions that have beenraised by the project mainly concern ourrelationships with these semi-living ob-jects Are we going to care for them Dothese entities contribute to the objecti -cation of living organisms Their exis-tence calls into question long-held beliefsystems and our perceptions of life anddeath The realization that parts of thebody (cellstissues) can be sustainedalive outside of the body and be made togrow into arti cially designed shapes canlead either to a (false) sense of completecontrol over living materials (whichseems to be the ideology governing thebiotech industry) or to the understand-ing of the importance of communitiesand collaborative effort in the construc-tion of complex systems (from the singlecell to global society) Thus our goal is tocreate a vision of a future where some ob-jects are partly arti cially constructedand partly grownborn in order to gen-erate a debate about the directions inwhich biotech can take us

The initial idea for the TCampA Projectcame from Oron Cattsrsquos product-designstudies research Catts was looking at fu-ture interactions between biology and de-sign To illustrate this idea he imagineda theoretical product he called CustomGrown Organic Surface Coating(CGOSC) Ivy growing over a wall illus-trates the basic principle behind CGOSCTechnology is needed to maintain it (awall to support it secateurs to prune it)ivy not only serves an aesthetic functionit acts as an insulator from the environ-ment produces oxygen and removes pol-lutants (such as heavy metals) HoweverCatts was looking at a more ldquosophisti-catedrdquo living surface using living tissuesfrom complex organisms The use of liv-ing tissue outside and independent of theorganism raises many issues that go be-yond strictly design principles Cattsrsquosthesis also explored the way in whichCGOSC would be perceived by a societydrawing on the work of Stelarc [4] andOrlan [5] who deal (each in their ownway) with the relationship between tissue(the esh) and technology Unlike theseartists TCampA is looking at parts of the

body (tissue) that are sustained alive out-side of the body and form autonomousentities

Shortly thereafter as part of a photo-media degree Ionat Zurr wrote a thesisdiscussing tissue technologies as an artform TCampA explores the dichotomy ofnatureculture by using cells (nature)over constructed materials (culture) tocreate a version of a ldquoconstructed naturerdquoZurr was also examining the gap betweenthe fast pace of development in scienceand technology and the slower pace ofcultural understanding and adaptationShe saw TCampA as a form of art expres-sion that deals with that gap by placingliving and growing cells in a new context(out of the organism body and into arti- cial constructs)

Many people nd this new contextthreatening to their cultural beliefs be-cause of what seems to be an inability tocategorize it TCampA crosses borders be-tween socially constructed dichotomiesthat are yet to be comprehended letalone become part of our language Forthat reason we coined the term ldquosemi-living objectsproductssculpturesrdquo todescribe things that are both animateand inanimate both part of an organismand outside of it

THE PROCESSThe process of creating a tissue-engineered sculpture starts with obtain-ing the desired cells or tissue There aretwo sources for tissue and cells cell linesand primary tissue Cell lines are cellsthat have been transformed by usingviruses that ultimately cause the cells togrow indenitely in culture Cell linescan be ordered from cell and tissue banksaround the world Primary cells are ex-planted directly from a donor organismThey have a nite number of divisions inculture and given the right conditionscan survive for some time Obtaining pri-mary tissue is usually referred to in thelaboratory as harvesting Cells and tissuesare harvested from the animal either bymeans of biopsy from a living animal orby dissection of a freshly killed animalCells are then isolated by mechanical andchemical means Once we obtain thecells or tissue we either seed them di-rectly onto 3D scaffolds or propagatethem in tissue asks until we haveenough to use All the primary tissues weobtain are left over from either meat pro-duction or scientic research We con-sider ourselves scavengers

We use different methods of seedingthe cells over andor into the scaffolds

366 Catts and Zurr Growing Semi-Living Sculptures

Fig 2 B(W)omb digital montage 175 386 cm 1998 (copy Oron Catts and Ionat ZurrPhoto copy Ionat Zurr) The montage depictsepidermal and connective tissue grown over aglass gurine designed in a shape of a bomb

depending on the kind of cells and themakeup of the scaffold The seedingtechniques can be either dynamic orstatic Dynamic seeding usually involves ow or movement that assists the cells toget deep into the scaffold and attach toit We are currently exploring (in collab-oration with Adam Zaretsky) the use ofvibrations produced by music and audi-ble sound waves as a method for dynamicseeding Static seeding entails combiningthe cellstissue with the constructs in sta-tionary conditions we either drip thecell-media solution over the scaffold orinject the solution directly into it Whenwe deal with large bits of tissue we usu-ally x them to the scaffold in a me-chanical way and let the cells migrate tothe rest of the scaffold All this work isdone in sterile conditions inside a bio-logical safety hood

To date we have grown epithelial(skin) tissue from rabbits rats and miceconnective tissue from mice rats andpigs muscle tissue from rats sheep andgold sh bone and cartilage tissues frompigs rats and sheep mesenchymal cells(bone-marrow stem cells) from pigs (seeFig 1) and neurons from gold sh

The biocompatible substrates that wehave used to produce 3D scaffoldscon-structs are glass (see Fig 2) hydrogels(P(HEMA) [see Fig 3] collagen)biodegradablebio-absorbable polymers(poly-glycolic acid [PGA] PLGA P4HB)and surgical sutures We are attemptingto grow tissue over corals and cuttle shendoskeletons We have used both celllines and primary tissue We have ex-perimented with different techniques toisolate the primary tissue and cells wehave used an array of nutrient media(according to the cell type) and exper-imented with different concentrationsof serum growth factors and antibioticsThe 3D constructs have been hand-crafted blown cast and output fromCAD les using different methods of 3Dprinting (CADCAM rapid prototypingcomputer-operated milling machines a3D printer and stereo-lithography) Theforms we have worked with range fromrepresentations of technological arti-facts such as cogwheels surgical instru-ments and pre-historic stone tools (seeFig 3) to cultural artifacts (Guatemalanworry dolls [see Color Plate A No 1 andFig 4] and found glass objects) andmythological animal body parts (egpigsrsquo wings)

The semi-living sculptures that haveresulted from combining cells and tis-sue with 3D scaffoldsconstructs havebeen grown and sustained alive in

bioreactorsmdashdevices used for growingand sustaining living cells and tissuesoutside of their natural environmentThis task is achieved by emulating theconditions in the bodies from whichthe cells and tissue have been derivedThe most basic requirements for a bio-reactor are the supply of nutrients andother biological agents the removal ofwaste and the constant maintenance ofhomeostasis (including temperature pHlevels dissolved gas levels) while keep-ing the content of the bioreactor sterile(free of microbial contamination) Intheir application to tissue engineeringbioreactors should also be designed toenhance the attachment of cells to thescaffoldssubstrate to support 3D for-mation of tissue (eg in micro-gravity)to control the release of biological

agents (such as growth factors and in-hibitors) to apply controllable stress onspecic tissue types (eg pulsatile owfor the formation of blood vessels [6]directional stress for the alignment ofmuscle bers) and to enable the opera-tor to change settings [7]

It is of great importance for us to com-municate our ideas to as broad an audi-ence as possible Due to the nature of theproject we are not always able to presentsemi-living sculptures Therefore we useand develop biological-imaging tech-niques involving different types of mi-croscopes scientic imaging softwarescomputer graphics and our interactiveweb site We are also developing biore-actors for long-term installations that willenable us to present our semi-livingsculptures in varied situations and places

Catts and Zurr Growing Semi-Living Sculptures 367

Fig 3 Spear 1digital montage70 3 130 cm1999 (copy OronCatts Ionat Zurrand Guy Ben-AryPhoto copy IonatZurr) Muscletissue from micewas grown over ahydrogel replicaof a neolithicstone tool c10000 years BPThe image wasacquired using aninverted micro-scope and an XYmotorized stageEach squarerepresents a framefrom a micro-scope

A CASE STUDYTissue Culture and Art(icial) Womb 2000also known as The Process of Giving Birthto Semi-Living Worry Dolls featured the rst living-tissue engineered structures tobe presented as art in a gallery contextThe dolls were rst shown at the Ars Elec-tronica Festival 2000 in Linz Austria

Conceptual BackgroundWe chose to grow modern versions of thelegendary Guatemalan worry dolls in thearti cial womb A note attached to apackage of worry dolls purchased from acomic shop in Boston USA said

The Guatemalan Indians teach their chil-dren an old story When you have wor-

ries you tell them to your dolls At bed-time children are told to take one dollfrom the box for each worry amp sharetheir worry with that doll Overnight thedoll will solve their worries Remembersince there are only six dolls per box youare only allowed six worries per day

We decided to give birth to seven dollsas we are not kids anymore they mightnot be allowed to have more than sixworries but we surely do The genderlessdoll gures represent the current stageof cultural limbo characterized by child-like innocence and a mixture of wonderand fear of technology We gave the dollsalphabetical names that represented ourworries and anxieties Readers are wel-come to nd new worries and new names

and post them on our web site so that wecan whisper your worries to these dollsand hope they will take those worriesaway

Doll A stands for the worry about Ab-solute Truths and people who think theyhold them

Doll B represents the worry of Bio-technology and the forces that drive it(see Doll C)

Doll C stands for Capitalism Corpo-rations

Doll D stands for Demagogy and pos-sible Destruction

Doll E stands for Eugenics and thepeople who think that they are superiorenough to practice it

Doll F the fear of Fear itselfG not a discrete doll as Genes are

present in all semi-living dollsDoll H symbolizes our fear of Hope

(see Color Plate A No 1)The process in which the natural (tis-

sue) takes over the constructed (poly-mers) is not a precise one New shapesand forms are created in each instancedepending on many variants such as thetype of cells the rhythm of polymerdegradation and the environment insidethe arti cial womb (the bioreactor) Thismeans that each doll transformation can-not be fully predicted and is unique to it-self Our practice is in the realm of adialogue with nature rather than controlover it

Methods and MaterialsOur worry dolls were handcrafted frombiodegradable polymers PGA meshP4HB PLGA and various surgical sutures(see Fig 4) The dolls are approximately10 mm tall by 7 mm wide by 5 mm deepThe polymer constructs were sterilizedusing ethylene oxide (ETO) at 55degC fortwo hours we seeded the dolls withMcCoy Cell Line (derived from humannow classied as mouse endothelial cellsand used in virology studies) We stati-cally cultured the dolls for 14 and 21 daysin a 37degC5CO2 incubator We thenmoved them to the Synthecon RCCS ID4(a rotating bioreactor that provides con-ditions of micro gravity) for the durationof the exhibition The tissues were cul-tured until proliferated cells largely cov-ered the polymer surface growing intothe porosity of the polymer scaffold

The living worry dolls were pho-tographed throughout the stages ofgrowth using inverted and dissecting mi-croscopes In addition tissue growth wasdocumented using time-lapsed moviesDuring a gallery presentation the semi-living worry dolls were displayed and


Fig 4 The Process of Giving Birth to a Semi- Living Worry Doll Digital print 58 3 84 cm 2000(copy Oron Catts Ionat Zurr and Guy Ben-Ary Photo copy Ionat Zurr) A diagram illustrating themethods and materials used in the creation growth and imaging of a semi-living worry doll

viewed via microscope and as they werein the Synthecon RCCS

The Imaging SystemOne of the worry dolls was seeded withcells and put into a Focht Chamber Sys-tem 2 (FCS2) which is a closed systemlive-cell micro-observation chamber thatcombines constant ow of nutrientmedia with precise temperature controlThe surface of the upper slide of thechamber (or microaqueduct) is heatedand thus the content of the chamber iskept at 37degC The surface of the cham-ber contains ldquoTrdquo shaped grooves whichallow for laminar ow perfusionThrough these grooves and chamberports we let nutrient media solution owto the culture at a slow and steady rateusing a peristaltic pump [8]

The chamber was kept closed (andthus sterile) and was mounted on an in-verted microscope and a video camerafor 5 days The video camera was con-nected to a frame-grabber imaging boardcontrolled by a time-lapse application de-veloped in Image Pro Plus scripting lan-guage [9] An image of the doll wasgrabbed every ve minutes and stored indifferent formats (TIFF and JPEG) andsizes on a networked computerrsquos harddrive This computer functioned as a webserver An Active Server Pages (ASP)script scanned the web serverrsquos harddrive for new images every 20 minutesand uploaded the new images to a Webpage The images were then added to acolumn of images monitoring the devel-opment of the semi-living sculpture (thedoll) for 5 days The viewer could scrollthe column of images enlarge them forhigher resolution and follow the growthof the semi-living sculpture

ResultsA preliminary form of tissue-engineeredart has been successfully producedUnder laboratory conditions a close-to-con uent layer of McCoy cells wasachieved on the worry dolls in approxi-mately 3 weeks After the tissue wasplaced in the RCCS chamber its 3Dgrowth exceeded our expectations to thedegree that clumps of tissue can seenwith the naked eye All but one of theworry dolls maintained their structuralintegrity during exhibition

Our semi-living sculptures have metwith varied reactions The general reac-tion has been one of immense curiositysurrounding the objects themselves theproduction process and its implicationsfor the future Our art challenges manypeople to examine their perception of

the boundary between the living and theinanimate We have been able to engagethe public with our art by providing in-formative and contextual explanationsand by the use of humor

FUTURE PROJECTIONS

The main barrier to achieving a large-scale tissue-engineered sculpture is thelack of an internal plumbing system(large blood vessels and capillaries) todeliver nutrients and other agents and toremove harmful waste Diffusion alonecannot sustain thick formations of tissueWe share this problem with tissue engi-neers who are trying to produce complexorgans for eventual transplantation TheTissue Engineering and Organ Fabrica-tion Laborator y at Massachusetts GeneralHospital Harvard Medical School inBoston USA (where we were researchfellows in 2000ndash2001) is exploring waysto overcome this problem using tech-niques borrowed from silicon-chip man-ufacturers and exploring the use ofhigh-resolution 3D printing to create ascaffold or a mold as a template for a bio-arti cial capillary system An arti cialcapillary system would enable us to growsculptures of a size that would allow theviewer more direct interaction The de-velopment of a capillary system wouldalso facilitate the creation of a livingbarriermdasha skinmdashto protect the sculp-tures from harmful agents in the envi-ronment This would enable us to takeour sculptures out of containment andprovide an element of tactile interaction

Another area that we are researchingis the use of muscle tissue to providemovement to the sculptures Satelliteskeletal muscle cells (myoblasts) some-times referred to as progenitor musclecells are isolated cultured and prolifer-ated until a sufcient amount of cells canbe attached to the scaffold Then modi- cations in the growth media will trans-form the cells into multi-nuclei myotubes(muscle bers) which will start to twitchrandomly We have reached this stageand are now looking at using electricalpulses to harmonize these twitching mus-cle bers Again in order to achieve vis-ible movement a capillary system wouldhave to be in place to meet the high de-mand for energy through nutrients andoxygen

Until we can use a capillary systemwhich still seems to be years away we areinterested in developing a bioreactor forlong-term installations In the context ofour project the bioreactor should betreated as an art object and not a mere

tool Conceptually a bioreactor (in con-junction with the semi-living sculpturesgrowing inside it) represents an arti cialldquolife-givingrdquo and maintaining force Thedevelopment and production of a biore-actor for artistic purposes represents adifferent set of problems and solutionsthan those offered by science and indus-try These considerations are mainly (butnot entirely) to do with the nature andobjectives of the constructs we are plan-ning to grow in the bioreactor and thesettings in which the bioreactor will op-erate

Our constructs are designed to con-front the viewer with a unique class of ob-jectbeing that is partly grown and partlyarti cially constructed The design of thebioreactor should aim to enhance thispoint We envisage a bioreactor thatwould provide constant undisturbed vi-sual contact with the sculptures bothaided (via a monitoring system) and tothe naked eye We would also like to offersome degree of interactivity in which theviewer (either physically present or on-line) can change some of the bioreactorrsquossettings and experience the results ofherhis actions

The aim of the installations of whichthe bioreactor is part is to explore artis-tic outcomes not scientic or commer-cial ones Therefore some aspects ofcurrent bioreactors (such as biocompat-ibility with patients the need for accuratebiological sampling etc) are irrelevantwhile others (such as robustness au-tomation ease of use transportabilityand imagingmonitoring features) areessential

CONCLUSION

The concept of semi-living objects is atthe heart of the TCampA Project We are in-terested in exposing gaps between ourcultural perceptions of life and scienticknowledge and its implementation Agrowing number of entities challengeour long-held notions of life Objects thatconsist of parts of animals sustained aliveoutside the body by arti cial support arejust one example According to SherryTurkle [10] children are starting to per-ceive e-toys as alive (not in the same senseas dogs but still alive) The creation ofsemi-living sculptures that lack intelli-gence but are perceived as living is on theother side of this continuum FollowingWilsonrsquos conception of ldquobiophiliardquo ieour need of natural things and naturalprocesses for our well-being [11] we arelooking at a high-tech version of the nat-ural environment


Interaction with semi-living entities willfurther blur the concept of the body asone entity that stands separate from itsenvironment As de ned by Lynn Mar-gulis [12] a body is a community of cellsand furthermore the biosphere is oneinterdependent entity Semi-living ob-jects are a tangible example of such aconcept we are able to view parts of ourbody growing as part of our environ-ment

We believe that the work we have donein the last 5 years demonstrates that tis-sue technologies can produce valid artis-tic expression by enabling us to createliving artmdashand by presenting contentiousobjects that represent the ux in our un-derstanding exposed by the introduc-tion of new biological technologiesWhen presenting our work we do not at-tempt to give a utopian vision nor arewe overly pessimistic This ambiguity isdesigned to make the viewer aware ofour lack of cultural understanding indealing with new knowledge and controlover nature

Our project is about life a dialoguewith lifersquos different levels and the notionthat we are all made out of communitiesof cells It is an important part of ourpractice that we need to care for oursemi-living sculptures

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank GuyBen-Ary the third member of TCampAProject Miranda D Grounds School ofAnatomy and Human Biology Universityof Western Australia Joseph P VacantiTissue Engineering and Organ Fabrica-tion Laboratory Massachusetts GeneralHospital Harvard Medical School Stu-art Bunt Department of Anatomy andHuman Biology University of WesternAustralia Traian Chiriila the Lions EyeInstitute Perth Western Australia andresearchers in the School of Anatomyand Human Biology University of West-ern Australia with a special thanks to Stu-art Hodgetts and all the researchers inthe Tissue Engineering and Organ Fab-rication Laborator y Massachusetts Gen-eral Hospital Harvard Medical School

References and Notes

1 Robert P Lanza Robert Langar and Joseph Va-canti Principles of Tissue Engineering 2nd Ed (SanDiego CA Academic Press 1997) p 4

2 Michael W King lthttpwwwindstateeduthcmemwkinggrowth-factorshtmlgt

3 Lanza et al [1]

4 G Stocker and C Schopf eds Flesh Factor Ars Elec-tronica Festival (Vienna Springer New York Ars Elec-tronica Centre 1997) pp 148ndash157

5 DE McCorquodale Orlan This Is My Body ThisIs My Software (London Black Dog Publishing 1996)

6 LE Nickolson J Gao WM Abbott KK HirschiS Houser R Marini and R Langar ldquoFunctional Arteries Grown in Vitrordquo Science 284 (1999)pp 489ndash493

7 LE Freed and G Vunjak-Novakovic ldquoTissue Engineering Bioreactorsrdquo in Lanza et al [1]pp 143ndash154

8 We used an Instech P720 Peristaltic Pump

9 The microscope was a Nikon Eclipse TS100 thevideo camera was a Nikon Coolpix 950 the imagingboard a PIXCI SV4 The scripting language was de-veloped by Media Cybernetics

10 S Turkle The Second Self Computers and the HumanSpirit (London Granada 1984)

11 Edward O Wilson Biophilia (Cambridge MAHarvard Univ Press 1984)

12 Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan What Is Life(Berkeley CA University of California Press 1995)

Manuscript received 6 March 2001

Oron Catts is the founder of the Tissue Cul-ture amp Art Project He is the co-founder andthe Artistic Director of SymbioticA the Art andScience Collaborative Research LaboratorySchool of Anatomy and Human Biology Uni-versity of Western Australia

Ionat Zurr is an artist in residencePhD can-didate in SymbioticA


we are able to grow something as com-plex as a fully functioning organ why notchange this design to suit other tasksAnd if we can keep a complex organ invitro why not design semi-living objectsthat can be sustained alive outside of thebody for the duration of their use TheTCampA Project also asks If this is possibleshould we go down this path

Tissue engineering promises to re-place and repair body organs as well aschange our relationship with the bodyHowever tissue engineering for artisticpurposes or any purpose other thanmedical has largely been overlooked Inthe last 6 years our group has been ap-plying tissue-engineering principles toartistic expression We have grown tissuesculptures semi-living objects by cultur-ing cells on arti cial scaffolds in biore-actors Ultimately the goal of this workis to culture and sustain for long peri-ods tissue constructs of varying geomet-rical complexity and size and by thatprocess to create a new artistic palette

A unique set of issues and problems hasarisen because these living-cell tissue con-structs will not be transplanted into thebody Some of the problems concern the

practicalities of the procedure itself whilethe acquisition and use of living cells forartistic purposes has focused attention onthe ethical and social implications of cre-ating semi-living objects These entities(sculptures) blur the boundaries betweenwhat is born and what is manufacturedwhat is animate and what is inanimateand further challenge our perceptionsand our relationships with our bodies andour constructed environment

The ethical questions that have beenraised by the project mainly concern ourrelationships with these semi-living ob-jects Are we going to care for them Dothese entities contribute to the objecti -cation of living organisms Their exis-tence calls into question long-held beliefsystems and our perceptions of life anddeath The realization that parts of thebody (cellstissues) can be sustainedalive outside of the body and be made togrow into arti cially designed shapes canlead either to a (false) sense of completecontrol over living materials (whichseems to be the ideology governing thebiotech industry) or to the understand-ing of the importance of communitiesand collaborative effort in the construc-tion of complex systems (from the singlecell to global society) Thus our goal is tocreate a vision of a future where some ob-jects are partly arti cially constructedand partly grownborn in order to gen-erate a debate about the directions inwhich biotech can take us

The initial idea for the TCampA Projectcame from Oron Cattsrsquos product-designstudies research Catts was looking at fu-ture interactions between biology and de-sign To illustrate this idea he imagineda theoretical product he called CustomGrown Organic Surface Coating(CGOSC) Ivy growing over a wall illus-trates the basic principle behind CGOSCTechnology is needed to maintain it (awall to support it secateurs to prune it)ivy not only serves an aesthetic functionit acts as an insulator from the environ-ment produces oxygen and removes pol-lutants (such as heavy metals) HoweverCatts was looking at a more ldquosophisti-catedrdquo living surface using living tissuesfrom complex organisms The use of liv-ing tissue outside and independent of theorganism raises many issues that go be-yond strictly design principles Cattsrsquosthesis also explored the way in whichCGOSC would be perceived by a societydrawing on the work of Stelarc [4] andOrlan [5] who deal (each in their ownway) with the relationship between tissue(the esh) and technology Unlike theseartists TCampA is looking at parts of the

body (tissue) that are sustained alive out-side of the body and form autonomousentities

Shortly thereafter as part of a photo-media degree Ionat Zurr wrote a thesisdiscussing tissue technologies as an artform TCampA explores the dichotomy ofnatureculture by using cells (nature)over constructed materials (culture) tocreate a version of a ldquoconstructed naturerdquoZurr was also examining the gap betweenthe fast pace of development in scienceand technology and the slower pace ofcultural understanding and adaptationShe saw TCampA as a form of art expres-sion that deals with that gap by placingliving and growing cells in a new context(out of the organism body and into arti- cial constructs)

Many people nd this new contextthreatening to their cultural beliefs be-cause of what seems to be an inability tocategorize it TCampA crosses borders be-tween socially constructed dichotomiesthat are yet to be comprehended letalone become part of our language Forthat reason we coined the term ldquosemi-living objectsproductssculpturesrdquo todescribe things that are both animateand inanimate both part of an organismand outside of it

THE PROCESSThe process of creating a tissue-engineered sculpture starts with obtain-ing the desired cells or tissue There aretwo sources for tissue and cells cell linesand primary tissue Cell lines are cellsthat have been transformed by usingviruses that ultimately cause the cells togrow indenitely in culture Cell linescan be ordered from cell and tissue banksaround the world Primary cells are ex-planted directly from a donor organismThey have a nite number of divisions inculture and given the right conditionscan survive for some time Obtaining pri-mary tissue is usually referred to in thelaboratory as harvesting Cells and tissuesare harvested from the animal either bymeans of biopsy from a living animal orby dissection of a freshly killed animalCells are then isolated by mechanical andchemical means Once we obtain thecells or tissue we either seed them di-rectly onto 3D scaffolds or propagatethem in tissue asks until we haveenough to use All the primary tissues weobtain are left over from either meat pro-duction or scientic research We con-sider ourselves scavengers

We use different methods of seedingthe cells over andor into the scaffolds


Fig 2 B(W)omb digital montage 175 386 cm 1998 (copy Oron Catts and Ionat ZurrPhoto copy Ionat Zurr) The montage depictsepidermal and connective tissue grown over aglass gurine designed in a shape of a bomb



































FUTURE PROJECTIONS







CONCLUSION






Acknowledgments





3 Lanza et al [1]
















































FUTURE PROJECTIONS







CONCLUSION






Acknowledgments





3 Lanza et al [1]

















Acknowledgments





3 Lanza et al [1]














catts.zurr

Documents