A number of years back, The Sunday Times suggested that I was the first person in the world to create a piece of art using e.coli bacteria. Initially, it was a bit strange to be recognised for creating art out of a substance that is best known for its ability to make a human seriously ill, but I quickly got used to it as I realised that the story itself was an fascinating anecdote.

The process started when I was dealt the challenge of designing an interpretation of the MTV logo under the simple brief of the word ‘virus’. Before I continue, it is worth pointing out that in my final year of studies my aim was to experiment as much as humanly possible, and that included artistic mediums that had never been used before.

My idea was to literally grow the symbol using bacteria and record the process occurring with time-lapse equipment. Now, I suspect that some of you are wondering why I would choose to do this, so I will endeavor to explain. As a visual artist I am attracted to the investigation of the positive and the negative. In particular, I find it the greatest challenge to transform a substance that once held negative aesthetic connotations into something that is utterly beautiful.

Once I had fully resolved my concept, I approached various commercial and education bio labs to further research the practicalities of the work. After hours of e-mail correspondence, I was fortunate to get through to a professor by the name of Chris French at the University of Edinburgh, who said that growth into the shape of the famous mark would not be a problem using e.coli bacteria. I have to confess, at that point I was a little worried. The most dangerous strains of e.coli can kill, which puts a whole new spin on suffering for one’s art.

I pulled on a white coat and protective gloves and carried out several experiments by growing the fluorescent, genetically modified e.coli bacteria under controlled conditions. I continued the pursuit until ultimately, I was happy with the result. It was only then that I took the footage and carried out post-production on a Mac.

The Process

Stage 1
The invisible genetically modified e.coli bacteria was ‘drawn’ directly on to the petri dish.

Stage 2
Each experiment was carried out under ‘controlled conditions’ for optimum growth.

Stage 3
The petri dish was placed on top of a light box and the growth was recorded by using time-lapse equipment over a 48 hour period.

Stage 4
The successful result with accidental contamination.

I direct music videos, so thought it may be appropriate to share some thoughts I have on the matter.

MTV is dead. The flagship channels of the international MTV brand no longer show any music videos. The UK charts is dominated by phone-vote X-Factor shows.

So where do people find new music these days?

All of my previous videos have been shown on MTV 2 in the UK, and a few on MTV America, although online views have surpassed traditional delivery methods.

The healthiest place for music to thrive is within the democratic Internet cloud. For the first time, everyone has a platform to broadcast their message for free. No other medium can reach as many people as quickly for as little money. With blogging and social news network sites, the audience is no longer passive. So, if the content is good you can be assured that it will be forwarded or featured.

I think that the process of social bookmarking generates a stronger bond between the content and the viewer. An online audience member will have more of a loyal connection with the band, as they actively decided to participate and help to shape the landscape. One internet-viewer is potentially worth more in terms of statistics than a captive TV audience member.

I think that it’s much healthier for a track to survive on its own merits as opposed to the amount of money that the label is prepared to pay for airplay. This means that more focus is geared towards quality content, which can only be a good thing.

So, delivery – where does a music video fit in?

YouTube is such an empowering service.

The problem is that there’s a lot of low-quality content on YouTube. I don’t mean that in terms of resolution and bitrate, but of creative merit. There’s also the feeling that content online is more disposable than TV content. This is partly because there’s a much higher turnover online – really good videos will briefly do very well, before being quickly replaced with something else. The cycle repeats. A greater amount of content means less time in the limelight for each video that “makes it”.

Sparks burn brighter, but for a shorter time. People consume more, so they are quick to digest the video then move on to something else.

Music videos need to change. Partly it’s the entire music industry as a whole that’s leading this transition, but mainly it’s how the viewer now consumes his media. We have moved on from the one-way feed of television. Now we are all hunter-gatherers.

Find out more about James here.

/////

Mix-Blog: A bit like a mix-tape but with blogs instead. Read more from the series here.