Opening September 9, 6-10 pm
‘Mutualisms’ is a collaborative curatorial project organized by Lise Haller Baggesen and Kirsten Leenaars, exploring the ways in which networks of friendship and artistic collaboration can be used as a model for curating. ‘Mutualisms’ is looking into artistic strategies for finding hospitality and exchange in the context of contemporary art practices as well our own social domain.
Eight Dutch and eight American artists/artist duos were paired and worked together to create a collaborative presentation of their works. Iris Kensmil & Carol Jackson, Rune Peitersen & Mark Jeffery & Judd Morrissey, Marjolijn Dijkman & Lora Lode/Kevin Kaempf, Jonas Ohlsson & Selina Trepp, Magnus Monfeldt & Harold Mendez, Maurice Bogaert & Trevor Gainer, Caroline Stikker/Philippine Hoegen & Aron Gent and Saskia Janssen/George Korsmit & Adelheid Mers.
Sunday September 1-5 pm at Co-Prosperity Sphere
A conversation with the participating Mutualisms artists will be followed by a panel discussion on ‘art and reciprocity’ moderated by Dutch art critic Erik Hagoort and Chicago based writer Caroline Picard.
Art & Reciprocity
In general reciprocity is valued positively, and so in contemporary art. Reciprocity has become a buzzword, especially since the rise of interactive art practices, in which the public in one way or another is invited to participate. The appreciation of reciprocity has challenged the conventional distance and hierarchy between art, artists and the public. It has also triggered collaboration among artists. Yet, if reciprocity becomes normative, we may start to feel uneasy. Expectations for ‘something in return’ can restrict freedom and autonomy. In the arts a strong tradition has opposed reciprocity; art’s autonomy should prevail above exchange. So, the question is: what about art and reciprocity? Panel to be announced on our blogs at a later date.
Art & Reciprocity blog: http://artandreciprocity.wordpress.com/
For info and opening times: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
‘Mutualisms’ is supported, in part, by public funds from the Netherlands Cultural Services, the Mondriaan Foundation and the Propeller Fund.
In This Corner, Norman Mailer
It was at a vividly bad time in Norman Mailer’s life that I met him, and a sort of water-treading time in mine. He had stabbed his wife, and I was a copy boy at Time magazine.
Time had just done a rough piece on Mailer, even publishing a ghastly, wild-eyed picture of him being arraigned at the station house. The magazine’s treatment of Mailer had been been much protested, as I knew from working at the copy desk and seeing the mail.
One night after work, I emerged wearily from the subway on Central Park West. There was Mailer. My pulse accelerated. He was with three tough-looking guys and he, too, was tough-looking. But I was a big fan and I just had to be able to say to the guys back at the copy desk, “Guess who I met last night.”
“Hi, Mr. Mailer. I’d just like to say hello. I can’t very well apologize for Time magazine, where I work, but…”
He came toward me, exuding the well-known Mailer menace, hands held pugilistically.
“What do they pay you there?” he said, still coming.
“Sixty dollars a week. I’m only a copy boy! But I’m a big fan of yours!”
I’m sure I overstated how bad I really felt about what they had “done” to him. He looked at me with a stare like a drill, said “Get a more respectable job,” shook my hand and walked away.
I was to see the Mailer pugilist-walk once more in my life, about a decade later and in a then-unimaginable setting: my late-night show on ABC. It was in 1971, and it was without doubt the damnedest show I ever did. Or ever heard of.
I thought the guest list looked quite respectable. Three literary figures, and by no means boring ones. All colorful personalities. I thought it would be a nice, pleasant evening. So much for my instincts.
It was not a show to appeal to Joe Six-Pack, perhaps, although had he watched it he would have liked it for the action. There were those who later said we should have known what was coming but, perhaps a bit stupidly, we thought it would be a good show with a mix of fascinating people. That proved to be the least of it.
It all began nicely enough. My monologue went so well that I was able to enjoy the feeling the host gets when he scores: the knowledge that your illustrious guests are watching you on the monitor in the green room, seeing you succeed. (This joy is balanced by its opposite, when you bomb: not only is the audience out front watching, seeing you fail, but so are the illustrious guests backstage.)
Gore Vidal came out first and was his usual articulate and witty and trenchant self, always giving a sort of lesson in the elegant use of language. He told about surprising Eleanor Roosevelt standing at her toilet with her back to him. (She was arranging gladioluses in it.)
Janet Flanner, who had written The New Yorker’s “Letter from Paris” for as long as anyone could remember, under the pen name Genet, came on second and won over the audience instantly by telling of her annoyance at finding Ernest Hemingway in her bathtub in Paris, “using all my hot water.” (Bathrooms seemed to be the developing theme.)
Mailer’s entrance was the tip-off. He came on from stage left doing that pugilist walk: his hands were fists and carried high, and he had the tousled look of having visited a favorite bar or two en route. His suit was disheveled, his bow to Miss Flanner courtly, and his refusal to shake Vidal’s extended hand caused a murmuring in the audience.
When I said I couldn’t help noticing what had just happened, I was told by Mailer that he did not approve of Vidal and found him intellectually shameless. Seeming to sense quickly that Flanner might well be on Vidal’s side if discord ensued, Mailer then quoted himself on something he had written about Vidal in “The Prisoner of Sex.”
Mailer: I said that the need of the magazine reader for a remark he could repeat at dinner was best satisfied by writers with names like Gore Vidal.
Flanner: All those writers called Gore Vidal.
Vidal: I know. There are thousands of them, yeah.
Mailer: There are two or three.
Cavett: Who are some of the others?
Mailer [with a dark look]: I don’t know.
Cavett: Who wants to host the rest of this show?
Mailer, years later, told me that it was at this point that “in the face of the Cavett wit and Flanner’s deft interruption” — adored by the audience — and in consideration of his alcohol content, he realized that he was not being skillful at mounting a sustained argument. About here, the crowd started to disapprove audibly of some of Mailer’s offerings. When he maintained that Vidal’s writing was “no more interesting than the contents of the stomach of an intellectual cow,” they booed heartily.
Mailer’s mission, it became rapidly clear, was to eviscerate Vidal for what Vidal had written about him in The New York Review of Books. (In brief, he’d said that Henry Miller, Norman Mailer and Charles Manson — “3M for short” — represented “a continuum in the brutal and violent treatment of women.”)
This was tossed about a bit and Mailer told Vidal that if he — Vidal — could teach him something about writing, then he would look up to him. When Vidal denied being the Famous Writers School, he got a laugh, displeasing Mailer thereby.
Mailer: Why don’t you try to talk just once, Gore, without yuks? Why not just talk to me instead of talking to the audience?
Vidal: Well, by a curious thing we have not found ourselves in a friendly neighborhood bar, but both, by election, are sitting here with an audience, so therefore it would be dishonest of us to pretend otherwise. [applause]
I wasn’t sure whether it was the stately grace of Vidal’s sentence or the applause that made Mailer look even madder. He had passed me the review to hand to Vidal and was now trying to get him to “read what you wrote,” when he noticed Janet Flanner whispering to Vidal.
Mailer: Hey, Miss Flanner, are you workin’ as the referee or as Mr. Vidal’s manager? [laughter] I’m perfectly willing to accept you in either role … my mind is fragile, and I find it very hard to think, and if you’re muttering in the background, it’s difficult.
Flanner: I made only the slightest mutter. [laughter] You must be very easily put off center.
Mailer: It’s true, you made only the slightest mutter.
Flanner: A tiny mutter.
Mailer: Yes, yes, but I listen to you spellbound.
Flanner: I won’t bother you anymore. [laughter]
Mailer reported later that it was at this point that he began to wonder whether anything he did was going to work, and that he made a small vow never to drink again before going on TV.
It was here that Vidal made some nice remarks about Mailer’s writing and how like the Phoenix he re-bears himself in ever fresh manifestations.
What happened next should play out for you uninterrupted.
Mailer: You seem to have figured out that the next reincarnation for me is going to be Charles Manson.
Vidal: Well, you left yourself —
Mailer: Why don’t you read what you wrote?
Vidal: You let yourself in for it, and I will tell you — I’ll give you a little background here — that Mailer has —
Mailer: We all know that I stabbed my wife years ago, we do know that, Gore. You were playing on that.
Vidal: Let’s just forget about it.
Mailer: You don’t want to forget about it. You’re a liar and a hypocrite. You were playing on it.
Vidal: But that wasn’t a lie or a hypocrisy.
Mailer: People who read The New York Review of Books know perfectly well — they know all about it, and it’s your subtle little way of doing it…
Vidal: Oh, I’m beginning to see what bothers you now. I’m getting the point.
Mailer: Are you ready to apologize?
Vidal: I would apologize if — if it hurts your feelings, of course I would.
Mailer: No, it hurts my sense of intellectual pollution.
Vidal: Well, I must say as an expert, you should know about such things. [laughter]
Mailer: Yes, well, I’ve had to smell your works from time to time, and that has helped me to become an expert on intellectual pollution, yes.
Vidal: Yeah, well…I was going to say, I —
Flanner: Not only do you insult each other, not only in public, but as if you were in private. That’s the odd way —
Mailer: It’s the art of television, isn’t it?
Flanner: It’s very odd that you act so — you act as if you were the only people here.
Mailer: Aren’t we?
Flanner: They’re here, he’s here, I’m here . . . and I’m growing very, very bored. [Throws kiss to Mailer with her white-gloved hand, getting big laugh.]
Mailer: You still haven’t told me whether you’re Gore’s manager or the referee.
Cavett: If you make history here by punching a lady. [laughter]
Flanner: I won’t have it! I won’t have it!
Mailer: Now, look, you see the sort of thing that goes on. Now you say I make history by punching a lady. You know perfectly well…you know perfectly well that I’m the gentlest of the four people here. [laughter]
Cavett: I just hope it lasts through the next whatever we have left.
Mailer: I guarantee you I wouldn’t hit any of the people here, because they’re smaller.
Cavett [beginning to steam]: In what ways smaller?
Mailer: Intellectually smaller.
Cavett: Let me turn my chair and join these people. [I do.] Perhaps you’d like two more chairs to contain your giant intellect. [applause]
Mailer: I’ll take the two chairs if you will all accept finger bowls.
(Mailer wrote later about this moment: “This remark was sufficiently gnomic for Cavett to chew and get to no witty place.”)
Cavett [mystified]: Who wants to grab this on our team? [pause] I nearly have it. It means something to me. Finger bowls. Things you dip your fingers in after you’ve gotten them filthy from eating. Am I on the right track? Am I warm?
Mailer: Why don’t you look at your question sheet and ask a question?
Cavett: Why don’t you fold it five ways and put it where the moon don’t shine.
[Following this exchange, wild, sustained laughter. Mailer, eager to reply, can only stab the air with his finger until it subsides.]
Mailer: Mr. Cavett, on your word of honor, did you just make that up, or have you had it canned for years, and you were waiting for the best moment to use it?
Cavett: I have to tell you a quote from Tolstoy?
[Mailer turns his chair away from us and to the audience.]
Mailer: Are you all really, truly idiots or is it me?
[A chorus replies, “You!” Then, applause.]
Cavett: Oh, that was the easy answer.
[Bobby Rosengarden’s band plays us off into the commercial break after with the Gillette fight song (“To look sharp…”)]
I think we all agreed without ever saying so that of our little quartet of alleged luminaries, Janet Flanner came off best.
TV critics writing about the show — and it seemed like every single one did — mostly agreed with Mailer’s appraisal of himself as “a lout and a slob.” A much smaller number felt sorry for him. “Pitting Norman in a battle of wits, particularly these three wits — Vidal, Flanner, and Cavett — was like putting him in a boxing ring with Ali and adding Frazier and Forman for good measure,” wrote one. (I still want to know which of the three boxers I was.)
All of us still spoke and both men were — singly — on later shows of mine. Not together, but on. Vidal said his relationship with Mailer finally resolved itself into pretty much what it had been for decades: “We pass, and like two old whores on the street, say ‘Still at it, Norm?’ ‘Yep. Still at it, Gore?’ ”
What with Norman dead, in going over that transcript I feel twinges of guilt about not having treated him nicer, but what the hell? He wasn’t dead then. And he certainly asked for it and gave as good as he got.
My affection for him has never faded and I saw him many times after that. And God knows, the man who could write a book called “Advertisements for Myself” got huge delight out of the evening’s notoriety. He claimed that after that show he got more mail than in the rest of his career put together, adding, laughingly, “and some of it was even on my side.”
I know someone who sure as hell hates being dead.
http://www.uic.edu/orgs/LockZero/iv.html - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport,_Chicago - http://www.wikitree.com/articles/Daley/racism.html - http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/travel/19surface.html - http://www.weirdnews.aol.com/tag/bridgeport-mural
Mutualism is a positive reciprocal relationship between two species. Through this relationship both species enhance their survival, growth or fitness. To a certain extent the relationship is more a reciprocal exploitation rather than a cooperative effort on the part of the individuals involved. (Smith, Ecology & Field Biology).
Mutualism can take on many forms:
Symbiosis: in which both organisms live together in closely proximity, and in which both generally derive benefit. The relationship is obligate, meaning at least one of the species must be involved in the relationship to survive.
Non-symbiotic mutualism: the species do not live together, nor are dependent on each other; the relationship is facultative or opportunistic but does profit the organisms when together.
Many mutualistic relationships have been documented.
The wood termite-protozoa relationship, the yucca-moth relationship & ant acacia described below courtesy of the web sites are common examples given in textbooks.
How can mutualism evolve?
Most agree that mutualistic relationships evolved from negative associations ( predator prey, parasitism etc.).Basically the organism being negatively impacted had two options: escape the relationship or adapt to it, and in the process make the relationship more advantageous to itself.
A potential example is (fungal) mycorrhizae- initially they may have been parasitic on the roots they inhabited. -However in those couplings where mineral nutrients leached from the fungal tissue to the plant host resulting in better survival of the plant, more carbohydrate were then available for the fungus. Eventually a truly mutually beneficial association evolved.
Birds, bats & insects who visited plants for a number of reasons and in the process picked up pollen, allowed those plants hosted a greater opportunity for genetic diversity. If enhanced outcrossing lead to higher reproductive success, those plants who encouraged visitors with enticements of nectar, pollen or pseudo-mating opportunities naturally increased in frequency over time.
Mutualism may also be defined by a functional approach:
* Termite fungus gardens
* Cockroach endosymbionts
* Ant mimics (inquilines)
* Slavemaker ants
* Gall insects
* Torsalo (Human bot flies): think back to my parsite problem
* Scelionid wasps
* Nectar guides
* Yucca moths
* Bumblebees and scotch broom
* Fig wasps
* Pseudocopulation in orchids
* Ants and acacias
* Aphid farmers
Theory of mutualism
1. This is a relatively poorly studied ecological interaction
Alternative way to present this is as:
dN1/dt = r1N1[(K1-N1+a12N2)/K1]
dN2/dt = r2N2[(K2-N2+a21N1)/K2];
where all variables are same as in logistic model, except for a21 is mutualistic per capita effect of species 1 on species 2, and a21 is effect of species 1 on species 2.
Behavior of model? Very simplistic, this leads to an “orgy” of spiraling upwards populations of both species involved in mutualism .Such spiraling population abundances do not actually occur in nature, so this model must be substantially unrealistic, and inapplicable to nature.
Better models not yet developed.
What generalizations can be made about mutualism, to give us a more realistic picture?
The need for mutualism (and thus the benefit) decreases with increased resource availability.
i. Examples: Leguminous plants like alders dominate in nitrogen-poor environments, because legumes frequently have nitrogen-fixing bacteria as mutualists; mycorrhizal fungi in nutrient poor soils (phosphorus limiting)
Theory of mutualisms must incorporate resource-use dynamics
Mutualisms are most frequent in stressful habitats
i. E.g., tropical dry forests, severely stressed seasonally by water shortages)
ii. Thus, theory of mutualism must increase life-history characteristics, and how these provide negative feedback against simple population expansion of both participants in mutualistic relationship
Penalties accrue to mutualists that provide more resources to partner than necessary; one would expect natural selection to favor just enough contribution by mutualists to other species involved to maintain mutualism, and no more–i.e., selection for some “optimum level” of participation (e.g., plants that produce nectar just sweet enough to attract pollinator, but no sweeter so as not to waste energy & metabolic products)
Mutualisms are more complicated than just positive feedback, cooperation, or altruism.
Also mutualisms, alone, do not necessarily stabilize interaction of two species
Here are examples of symbiotic relationships:
II. Examples of mutualisms: obligate nonsymbiotic relationship
“In this relationship found most commonly in Central America savannas, the ant hollows out the large thorns of the plant for nests, feed on sweet secretions from the four nectaries at the base of each petiole and on the protein rich Beltian bodies found on the tips of the leaves, which together provide an almost complete diet for the ant. The ants in return protect these trees from invertebrate as well as vertebrate herbivores. With any movement of the branch, the ants emerge releasing a nasty odor as well as physically attacking the surprised herbivore. They are quite effective.
African ants and acacia trees get along great: The ants live in the acacia’s special swollen thorns and pay the tree “rent” by attacking leaf-eating insects. But the ants steer clear of bees and other insects that pollinate the acacia’s flowers, allowing the tree to reproduce, which in turn keeps alive the symbiotic relationship. Now scientists know why the ants turn up their feelers at pollinators: The tree exudes a chemical that tells ants to keep away. The findings, reported in Nature, show how a plant has evolved a way to thwart a potential conflict with a symbiotic insect. Studying acacia trees in Tanzania, ecologists Pat Willmer of theUniversity of St. Andrews in Fife, the United Kingdom, and Graham Stone of the University of Oxford observed that Crematogaster ants seem to avoid crawling over young, fresh flowers but not older ones that had already been pollinated. They were puzzled until they realized that on rainy days, “the effect seemed to disappear,” Willmer recalls, and the ants would patrol new flowers as well. Thinking the young flowers might be making a water-soluble repellent, Willmer rubbed a young flower on an old one. The ants avoided that older flower. The researchers are still trying to identify the warning compound, although they speculate that pollen from the acacia blossom might be it. The bottom line, says Willmer, is that “the plants can manipulate the insects to do what they want.”
The temporary repellent is particularly ingenious because it ends up maximizing the number of seeds the acacia can produce. After pollination, when the repellent wears off, the renewed presence of the ants protects the developing seeds from being eaten, says Ted Schultz, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History inWashington, D.C. This work is among the first to demonstrate conflict resolution in plant-animal interactions, he adds. “But there are probably all sorts of conflicts and controls [in such symbiotic relationships]. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.”
From ENN: Parasitic ants ; In a study that may help define the line between a mutualistic interaction and a parasitic one researchers at the University of California, Davis, have been studying a species of African ants that are killing the acacia trees that host them. Many specialized plant-ant species live cooperatively with their hosts; the plants house and feed the ant colony, while the ants protect their hosts from herbivores, pathogens and competitors. Not so with the African ant C. nigriceps. Maureen Stanton, a professor of evolution and ecology, says their results suggest that the selfish pruning behavior has evolved because it increases the life span of C. nigriceps colonies, even though it removes all the host tree’s flowers and stops the tree from reproducing. The study was published in the Oct. 6 issue of the journal Nature.
From a web site on termites…….
“Termites eat wood, a lot of wood. But this dietary preference for cellulose is most unusual because cellulose, the macromolecules forming the cell walls of green plants, is a tough, insoluble carbohydrate,a potential sources of energy but indigestible by all but a few animals. Termites, cockroaches, cows and other grazers can use it only because their guts contain tens of thousands of microorganisms which convert cellulose to sugars, usable by both microorganism and host. Termites are much more efficient than cows and other grazers; they remove undigested cellulose from cow pies.
Termites eat dead plant material and animal dung, thereby removing this litter from the surface of the land, permitting sunlight and moisture to reach new growth. On its own, dung and other organic plant material decomposes slowly in a dry environment. Without subterranean termites to break it down, the dry litter would cover the land.
When dead plant material is broken down inside a termite’s gut, carbon and minerals (N, P, S) are released. These nutrients are used by the insect and its gut flora, or returned to the soil, where they can again be recycled. In these ways subterranean termites are responsible for most of the cycling of carbon and other nutrients in a desert or desert grassland.
As subterranean termites build their nests and foraging galleries, they greatly improve the fertility and productivity of the soil. In plots of soil from which they had chemically excluded termites, scientists found that water infiltrated much more slowly, and that the soil was more dense and stored less water than in plots which contained termites. Foraging galleries around dead grass stems and other food items are made with material brought up from deep in the soil. These galleries eventually erode and are added to the surface soil – at a rate of 44 kilograms per hectare (about 40 pounds per acre) per day, according to one study. Over time, the turnover of soil significantly affects the content and even the creation of soil. “
Lichens:an obligate symbiotic relationship & mycorrhizae
The basic structure of a lichen is a mass of fungal hyphae; imbedded in this mass is a zone of algae .
25+ different algal species are involved in associations, with the majority of them green algae (although some species are cyanobacteria ( blue-greens)).
The fungus partner itself is generally an ascomycete, although again many different species of fungi can form this relationship.
The fungi gain nutrition from the photosynthetic algae while the fungi house and supposedly protect the algae from the elements providing moisture, perhaps protection from the sun and a source of minerals.
There is some dispute how mutualistic the relationship is. There is a fine line between the role of protector and hostage holder. It may be, that as the algae can do well on their own that the relationship may be less obligate, though certainly intimate. Nutrients may be simply leaking out of the algae; it may be that the fungi is benignly parasitizing the algae.
SEM of lichen: the linear fungal hyphae and the roundball-like algal groupings.
Mycorrhizae is the relationship between a fungus and a higher plant’s root system. In this relationship, the plant feeds the fungus, while the fungus supplies the plant with mineral nutrients ( especially phosphorous) and according to some sources additional moisture.
(Note red inclusions in root cells – these are the endomycorrhizae living in parenchyma cells)
In endomycorrhizae, the fungus actually penetrates the root cells, forming a network in the root itself. In ectomycorrhizae, the fungus develops a mantle about the root that extends into the soil and internally about the cells. The relationship is critical in nutrient deficient soil, with the fungi aiding in the absorption of the nutrients as well as the breakdown of decomposing materials. The fungi also aid the plant in defending it against pathogen invasion by preventing carbohydrates from leaching out through the root thus attracting potential invaders.
This relationship is so important, that some researchers believe the the association formed early in evolution, allowing the first land plants to survive on a soiless, nutrient poor landscape.
When reestablishing forests in areas decimated by intense logging or forest death due to pollution ( from copper smelting for example) seedlings are first inoculated with spores of symbiotic fungal species to aid in successful reintroduction.
Over 2600 square feet of gallery space outfitted with track lighting, maple floors and 15 ft high tin ceilings. The large open rectangular space also features three 12′ X 9′ x 3′ movable walls that allow you to reconfigure the room. The double doors opening to the street offer convenient unloading of items from vehicles. Parking is available on the street.
for images space see:
Mutualisms: September 9 – September 25, 2011
Opening: Friday September 9, 6- 10 pm
Talk Show Event: Sunday September 11, 1-5 pm