Editor's note: A few years ago, Li Shan entered into a world where artists have not yet set foot; he began his study and research on mRNA genetic information on the biological genes of DNA. He discovered the key to God's creation and the continuation of life: that DNA is the source of life and mRNA is its characterization. The genetic information of life is transmitted from the codon through the mRNA sequence. This is a shared belief in biology, but for the artist Li Shan, this undoubtedly opened up a brand new world.    

He tried to use different biological genes to create works that are alive but with new characteristics. And so there is the "fish and the butterfly”, the misreading and misrepresenting of the genetic codes of two rather opposite creatures. The artificial result forms the works of Li Shan.    


In early 1998 in New York, I made a work that is related to biology: Reading No. 98-1. Before this, I also made several works that are of a similar theme, but they were more traditionally made in terms of the choice of materials and the kind of language used, whether it was to set up a two- dimensional scene, a stage, or even as a presentation schema, in order to suggest my culturally-based intention.  These are the methods artists have used extensively in the past, regardless of whether they are our ancestors or modern day people, and regardless of whether the works are two-dimensional or installations. These forms of presentation cannot escape from the dependency on the choice of material and of language; readers in their readings of art works must learned the vocabulary, the grammar. and the language in order to be able to read an artwork. For the work Reading No. 98-1, I attempted to abandon the use of materials, to dismantle the structure of language, and to proceed directly to creating life itself. Readers do not need the help of an art guide in order to directly understand it.    

For this. I used biological techniques, starting with the basic proteins of living organisms. I removed a slice of DNA from both the cells of a fish egg and a butterfly egg. and upon opening up the DNA molecules, I interchanged the fish's mRNA genetic information at the codon and the butterfly's mRNA genetic information at the codon by their even and odd numbers. And as usual, the ribosomes extend along the mRNA chain, but the reading of its information has been altered. In it, a protein that carried my own intention has been synthesized, and the DNA molecules of the newly synthesized protein are placed back into its original position. After eighteen days, the eggs of the fish and the eggs of the butterfly emulsified into the creature that now appears in the work Reading.    

This work is quite simple and clear, without the intrinsically mysterious qualities of pervious avant-garde work. Perhaps it is because the attachment to the use of medium is broken, and there exists only the simple transfer from one life to another. This work is not related to any kind of historical consideration, the difference between the East and the West, or the authentication of identity, experience, or other cultural issues. All that it has in the backdrop is perhaps just that of biological genetics. Before this rather naked and unsightly work, many friends have asked me what it is and what it is that I am trying to express; my answer to them is that this is my artwork, and my artwork is a biological creature - a creature that is different than all the other creatures.    

The readers may think of "Dolly". In 1997, lan Wilmut cloned (copied)a sheep in the United Kingdom named Dolly. This is an important event because it triggered a new chapter.  a whole new revolution, in the history of biology. It is only logical to think that people would enthusiastically rejoice over such an occasion. However, on the contrary, people were hesitant, and some were upset. From the president down to the civilian population, the outcry was unceasing. It is obvious that people misunderstood it; even Wilmut himself began to exhibit doubt, and hastily claimed that the purpose for cloning sheep, cattle, and swine was for harvesting medical milk, hearts, livers, and lungs for the treatment of human diseases, and for the prolongation of human life. Suddenly, the beauty of life becomes rather brutal. Will the outcome of Reading become brutal as well? That depends on whether the readers will treat it as a kind of a medical box from which one can obtain medical treatments to social diseases, the stagnancy of the East and the West, and their cultural impotence.  

The readers may be accustomed to using biological creatures, the human body, and other life substances as mediums, and through touching these mediums they can sense its cultural and historical significance. But the biological creature in the work Reading is not the medium; it is not the carrier of any cultural or historical significance. If it possesses any implication at all, it is the biological creature itself that is my implication. Reading is not even a cultural model. Readers must change what they are accustomed to traditionally speaking when they are in front of the work Reading.  

Can art reproduce itself? The work Reading is alive when it is in the process of its making, and this distinguishes it from all the other artworks in the past. It is very clear that this work is alive and that it is not just the slanted words composed by a philosopher, or a vague image in the mind of an artist. To put it bluntly, it is a biological creature, a living organism, and it possesses the beauty and health that a living creature should possess. This led me into thinking of "Dolly". In terms of the way it looks, "Dolly" is exactly like its mother, as is its character as well. It is not clear whether it can reproduce, but for certain "Dolly" ages much faster. Of course, this is not its only drawback. Its main drawbacks are its lack of independent characteristics and life because it is a clone of its parent. And this is its inherent weakness. If it could reproduce, the offspring could only be considered as a kind of sub-life. This darkens its splendid image. The advantage of Reading is that it possesses the best combinations of its two very drastically different parents in order to assemble its own image. It has its own character, its own quasi-natural properties; it can fly if it wants, and it can also swim if it pleases. The meaning of its existence is in procreation.    

I am still not satisfied with Reading, probably because it has a hereditary context. In this context, it cannot escape the trouble brought about by the fish and the butterfly. I can easily replace the context, however, simply by slicing off the information chain of the mRNA from the DNA molecules before the protein synthesizes. This process cuts off the relationship between itself and its parent. We can imagine the multifarious expressions that a life may exhibit when it is unbridled from the control of its genetic information. And this also means that the shape Reading takes is not revolutionary. It possesses two parents with distinctive genetic characteristics, both as a fish and as a butterfly; the point that it calls forth is on improvement and optimization.  

Although Reading is one of its kind in the biological sphere, I still have some regrets despite the fact it has given up its cultural and historical significance.    

Whether new forms of creatures can eventually replace the existing yet obsolete animals, plants, fungus, and perhaps even human beings themselves depends on us and whether we have the intention to do so. People are concerned about "Dolly" because the existence of "Dolly" suggests the deterioration of biological beings. People are equally concerned about advanced intelligent beings, because in the same context, humanity would be expected to shift its biological status and accept the idea that all lives are equal and that a greater harmony amongst living beings is in place. However, it is very unlikely that humanity will initiate a kind of biological revolution that targets not only other creatures, but also humanity itself.    


Author's Bio: Li Shan was born in 1942 in Heilongjiang. He taught at the Shanghai Theatre Academy after graduating from there in 1968. In 1983 he began participating and curating avant-garde art exhibitions in Shanghai. Li Shan participated in the 45th Venice Biennale and the 22nd Sao Paulo Biennale in 1993 and 1994 respectively. He was one of the representative painters from the "Post-1989" exhibition. His works have been widely introduced and reported on by major media and magazines around the world. He now resides in Shanghai and New York.  


The article published at Tendency, No. 13, 2000