Three weeks ago, Melbourne’s famous Hamer Hall hosted its final concert before closing it’s doors to make way for a $128.5 million renovation, funded by the State Government.

Originally known as the Melbourne Concert Hall, the complex was designed by Sir Roy Grounds and opened in 1982 after a lengthy land dispute with the City of Melbourne, ongoing engineering problems and industrial action had hampered its construction for several years.

^{The exterior of Hamer Hall, illuminated at dusk}

After its opening, the Melbourne Concert Hall became a much-loved cultural hub, playing host to the world’s finest performers, orchestras and groups from Australia and abroad.

Whilst the Melbourne Concert Hall wasn’t very striking from the outside, the interior was fitted-out by expatriate designer John Truscott, who created a distinctive and luscious environment in which the public could enjoy a ‘special night out’ in the city.

^{Cadbury-Schweppes Room}

John Truscott’s opulent interiors are very special: The colours have been very carefully selected to create a rich atmosphere (a signature trait of Truscott’s).

From the box office with its gold-leaf ceiling to the lobby spaces with their rich red carpet or the verdant green of the Cadbury-Schweppes Room, Truscott created unique and distinctive interior spaces that contained only the finest of furnishings and fittings. The use of padded leather as a ‘wallpaper’ in many of the corridor spaces is certainly something I have never seen elsewhere, but suited the building extraordinarily well.

Sadly, it seems that most of Truscott’s legacy is to be destroyed during the renovations.

The huge glass chandelier in the foyer, created by Michel Santry and called Arcturus, is to be removed and won’t reappear. And if  the official preview images are anything to go by, there won’t be much of Truscott’s work left when the renovation is complete. The Victorian Arts Centre website states rather vaguely:

“The important contribution made to the interiors by interior designer John Truscott has been a key consideration in planning the redevelopment of Hamer Hall. The proposed changes to the interiors, both in the foyers and the auditorium, have been arrived at following considerable thought and care to ensure that the existing interiors are retained as much as possible”.

I don’t see much evidence of this.

^{Illustration of the planned refurbishment of Hamer Hall}

Last year I made a detailed photographic study of Hamer Hall as part of Melbourne Open House. Recognising the significance of Hamer Hall’s interior architecture, and suspicious that the State Government would trash yet another of our modern architectural masterpieces in it’s never-ending quest for the “modern” , I made a studious attempt to capture the essence of Hamer Hall, before it was all destroyed.

And destroyed it will be.

The original plans showed a horrible glass shard that would pierce the rear balcony to create a new entrance, but the latest renders seem to have omitted this particularly ugly feature.

^{The latest render of the redeveloped Hamer Hall.}

We can’t halt progress forever, but it seems a tragedy to me that we care so little about mid- to late- 20th century interior design. The National Gallery of Victoria had it’s interior destroyed, now it seems to be Hamer Hall’s turn. I wonder what we’ll have left from this period, if even John Truscott’s work is not considered significant enough to preserve?

Some pictures, for posterity:

During the week, I decided to attend the Gertrude Street Projection Festival in the Melbourne inner-city suburb of Fitzroy.

I first attended this intriguing event in 2009, and was suitably impressed to make a return visit in 2010. The free festival, which runs for a week every July, provides an opportunity for artists to utilise the shops and buildings in Gertrude Street as a ‘projection screen’ upon which their electronic artworks can be presented for all to enjoy.

It works like this: An artist sets-up a projector or projectors from which emanates a light show. Projections range from those presented on a small screen in a shop window to small projections on trees or footpaths right up to elaborate patters over entire buildings. They can be animated, or static. It seems that the traders get right behind the festival each year, which adds to its charm.

There are so many impressive works which in 2010 have been contributed by 23 artists. The enjoyable part of the Gertrude Street Projection festival is that projections can be found in the most obscure of places, so the visitor has to be really observant so as not to miss anything.

Street projection is a democratic art form; projections can be enjoyed by children, parents and grandparents alike. The varied presentations can be appreciated for their simple luminescent beauty or the complex but subtle metaphors hidden in some of the more complicated pieces.

One of my favourite works in this year’s Festival was Ménage à Trois, by Nick Azidis. His work involved projecting a series of patterns over the Builders’ Arms Hotel from an upstairs shop window on the opposite side of the street which had the effect of draping the entire pub in luminescent patterns that were changed each day. His work is simple, but bold and eye-catching and it is his style of wallpapering whole buildings with light that I appreciate the most at the Festival. Fellow artist Kit Webster also illustrated an entire building with animated projections that rearranged like a deck of cards thrown across a table top. The effect was stunning, and it’s a pity that this treatment isn’t applied to more buildings.

I happened to be photographing Ménage à Trois when Nick Azidis introduced himself to me. He’d been setting up his display when he saw me set-up my tripod outside the Builders’ Arms Hotel and was curious to see what I was up to. After a friendly chat about the various aspects of projection art Nick Azidis kindly agreed to answer some of my questions for The Grapevine.

How long have you been projecting images onto buildings?
It all started when I lived in the city of Melbourne in 1992. Constant temptation, being surrounded by colossal buildings, set the inner spark.

What is the creative process from inspiration to execution?
Responding to the projection site and transforming it into an object of beauty that will inspire or provoke a new and different way of thinking, for a short moment in time.

How did you come across the Gertrude Street festival and how long  have you been participating?
This is the second year I’ve been involved with the Gertrude Street Projection Festival. In 2009, I was introduced to the co-founders of the festival, by a good friend of mine that I have worked on many show with over years, Olaf Myer (Technical Director for the GSPF).

Are you a full-time artist, or do you have a ‘day job’?
Always a struggle to find that balance from week to week. I do have a casual job in the television industry and most of my spare time is spent doing pre-production for commissioned projection work.

Is there a projectionist ‘community’ in Melbourne, or is it an individualistic pursuit?
Yes! The Projection art community has been growing every year in Melbourne, especially now with the Gertrude Street Projection festival on the calendar.
I find it interesting and always exciting working and collaborating with other projection artists. It can often lead to mysterious and unknown outcomes, which I like.

Do you  have artistic influences?
Yes. With projections, some of the things that inspire and influence me include architecture, photography and repetitive background patterns and motifs. I’m also influenced by symbols; logos; trademarks; geometrical and optical art; Chinese lattice designs; traditional Japanese stencils; silk fabric designs; textures; traditional Islamic designs and Aboriginal art.

You mentioned that you have some commissioned works? Where can we  see those?
Alumbra (Shed 14, Docklands) : 14 Kodak slide projection installation
The Lounge (Swanston Street, Melbourne) :11 Kodak slide and moving projection installation
La Di Da (Little Bourke Street, Melbourne) : 8  Kodak slide projection installation
Red Bennies (Chapel Street, South Yarra): 5 Kodak slide projection installation

^{Image: Nick Azidis}

Late last week, I submitted a photograph to ABC Television here in Melbourne for consideration as the “weather photo” on ABC News Victoria.

Yesterday, I was watching the weather segment when I realised that my image of a cold morning on the Yarra River had been selected!

The ABC uses the same image for several nights in a row, so I was able to record the broadcast this evening. You can watch the segment below (or on YouTube):

If you’d like to have a photo considered for broadcast, you can upload your image to ABV2 via their “weather photo” website at http://www.abc.net.au/victoria/tvweather/upload.htm

Yesterday, the Australian Tourism Commission released their latest attempt at a commercial designed to lure the world’s tourists to Australia. Entitled There’s Nothing like Australia, it showcases some of Australia’s finest clichéd attractions and a truly awful song.

One would consider that after Where the Bloody Hell are You? and Go Walkabout, the government’s tourism agency could produce something substantially better. Alas, they’ve remained true-to-form and produced an absolute shocker of an advertisement: A tuneless parade of clichéd scenes, sedated animals and people who really can’t sing. Take a look for yourself:

The problem I have with this woeful presentation is that it appears to be so astonishingly amateurish. For starters, the lyrics to the song are poorly-written. To suggest that kangaroos are “furry things that bounce around in herds” is neither factually correct (they form mobs) nor particularly cute. And “Da-da-da-daaaaa, da-da-da-daaaa” in place of half a verse suggests that we lack eloquence or even verbal skills. Is this really the best song-writing that several million dollars can produce?

What I also dislike about this embarrassing film is the lack of any real message. Apparently Australia consists almost entirely of larrikins, some sedated animals and various Outback landscapes. There are almost no references to our vast cultural heritage including aboriginal traditional painting, stage performances, our vast music scene, our architecture or our unique sports such as Australian Rules. Even the tokenistic opera singer at the Opera House is overshadowed by a Missy Higgins look-a-like in the front row!

But finally, I think the cinematography compares poorly to the previous advertisements. Couldn’t they at least film the rowers on Melbourne’s Yarra River on a sunny day? That aside, the overall presentation isn’t especially creative and lacks the crispness that one would expect from a national tourism campaign.

The big question we have to ask is “Why are Australians so poor at marketing themselves?“

Look at our last effort: Filmed by Baz  Luhrmann, it starred a stressed American woman (played by an Australian) who is stalked by a creepy Aboriginal girl in the middle of the night:

The Walkabout campaign was regarded as a failure despite it being linked to the release of the film Australia. Tourist numbers declined, and few people understood the true message of the advertisements. (In addition, walkabout can be a racist reference to the supposed lack of discipline and work ethic that Aborigines are said to possess; they’d rather ‘go walkabout’ or wander off).

Before Go Walkabout, there was the much-criticised Where the Bloody Hell Are You? campaign that was banned in Britain and censored in other markets such as Singapore:

Whilst in Australia the word bloody is just considered course, in most English-speaking countries it is considered offensive. So whilst creating a controversy might have seemed like clever advertising tactic by media-savvy marketing boffins at the time, it backfired in most markets and tourist numbers fell.

Looking back now, Where the Bloody Hell Are You? looks like the work of a genius when compared to There’s Nothing like Australia. The music was better, there was more personality expressed, a more representative image of Australia was shown and the cinematography was polished.

So what should we do? I guess we have three options; 1. Give up and accept that Australia is ‘out of vogue’ as a holiday destination; 2. Consider asking foreigners to make our ads, since they are probably more in touch with what works than we are or 3. Consider a serious brand transformation (i.e. no more clichés and the development of a memorable slogan).

We weren’t always so poor at marketing ourselves. Despite the fact that Australians call shrimps prawns and rarely barbecue them, Throw Another Shrimp on the Barbie was a worldwide hit because it increased brand recognition and tourist numbers.

I have no idea whether this advertisement will work. And as an Australian, I am admittedly not the best person to judge. But the reception domestically hasn’t been too good thus far. But for what it’s worth, I reckon we’re going to have to do a lot better than this if we’re seriously going to get recession-affected foreigners to come to Australia for a holiday.

The world of molecular biology has taken a massive step forward today, with the publication of a paper in the prestigious Science journal outlining how Craig Venter’s research team have created the first cell to be controlled by an entirely synthetic genome.

Without question, this is a significant breakthrough. Yet, it raises many moral, ethical and philosophical questions, in particular about the true nature of life itself.

^{Scanning electron micrographs of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1. Samples were post-fixed in osmium tetroxide, dehydrated and critical point dried with CO2 , then visualised using a Hitachi SU6600 scanning electron microscope at 2.0 keV. Electron micrographs were provided by Tom Deerinck and Mark Ellisman of the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at the University of California at San Diego. (Image: JCVI)}

Craig Venter’s revolutionary project cost US$30 million (A$36 million) to fund and has taken 15 years to achieve. The research programme was lead by Dr. Daniel Gibson (under the guidance of Dr. Craig Venter, one of this century’s most distinguished geneticists) and has involved more than 20 scientists. The team has successfully created an entire bacterial genome synthetically and then transferred that genome into a different species of bacterium, which has then replicated itself in the lab under the control of the synthetic genome.

^{Dr. Daniel Gibson. (Image: JCVI)}

The science behind this development is complicated, and almost impossible for a lay person to comprehend without a good understanding of biology and molecular genetics. Therefore, I have tried to summarise the concepts to a level that a person with high school or first year biology should mostly understand.

Developing the Synthetic Genome (In brief)

To achieve the synthetic genome, Craig Venter and his team sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. capri (strain GM12), a bacterium that causes lung disease in cows and goats. Using computer software, the genome sequence was ‘corrected’ so that a consensus sequence was generated. In addition, to allow for future identification of this synthetic genome, four ‘watermark’ sequences were inserted. The ‘watermark’ sequences encode unique identifiers whilst limiting their translation into peptides.

From there, small gene fragments (cassettes) of approximately 1080bp length were prepared from chemically-synthesised oligonucleotides manufactured by Blue Heron. A total of 1078 of these small gene cassettes were incorporated into yeast cells and cultured.

From these, 10kb synthetic intermediate cassettes were generated by extracting the 1kb cassettes from yeast, joining them within a vector and inserting them into E. coli which was then cultured. The E. coli strains that contained the synthetic inserts were then identified.

Form those 10kb fragments, eleven 100kb synthetic intermediates were assembled and transformed back into yeast. An electrophoresis gel was used to confirm which yeast plasmids contained the full insert. The plasmids were then purified to remove all traces of yeast chromosomal DNA.

From those eleven 100kb intermediates, the synthetic genome was assembled, then re-inserted into yeast. From there, the M. mycoides synthetic genome was transformed into M. capricolum cells.

Under the total control of the M. mycoides synthetic genome, the M. capricolum cells were proliferated in the lab.

Because the M. capricolum cells weren’t created de nov0 (ie: the synthetic genome was inserted into existing cells), the proteins for the original genome remained in the cells for a while. But with the passing of several generations, the new synthetic genome took over and the cells took on an appearance (phenotype) consistent with the new synthetic genome.

^{The assembly of a synthetic M. mycoides genome in yeast. (Image: JCVI)}

Implications

Whilst from a biological perspective, this is a brilliant scientific endeavour, it raises a lot of very deep philosophical questions. Most importantly: What is the essence of life?

Some argue that genetic engineering is “tampering with nature”. I reject such an argument, as hybridisation and ‘traditional’ breeding are essentially a less-efficient form of the same process of selecting genes in and out of populations with the exception that it has been practised for several thousand years.

But the process of adding an entirely synthetic genome (even if it is a copy of an existing genome) provides a deeper moral conundrum on two levels: (1) Will this lead to the de novo synthesis of life (ie. “playing God”) and (2) How will such technology be used?

On an ethical level, I cannot immediately say whether there is a legitimate moral objection to this technology based on an interpretation of Christian theology and/or general ethics. That said, some Bishops in Rome have expressed some concerns.

To understand the nature of de novo life, we first have to ask ourselves about the nature of death, and in the case of higher organisms, murder or killing. Under ordinary circumstances, causing cells to stop respiring almost always causes them to die, and therefore that is an act of killing those cells (and potentially the organism if certain cells are targeted). Such non-respiring cells are unquestionably dead. But what if we instead substitute those cells’ (or organism’s) entire genome with another?

The cells are still alive because they are still respiring, and therefore they haven’t died. But their fundamental character or nature has been destroyed.  Under such a scenario where we replace the genome of an entire organism with another, we have to ask ourselves, have we then killed that organism’s character (and therefore them) by destroying their genome?

To illustrate this point, imagine that a brain transplant were possible. Would the substitution of a person’s brain with another be an act of murder, when the body remains alive? If we accept that the person’s nature/character/soul exists within their brain, then perhaps yes, it is murder. If we argue on biological terms that respiration continues and the body remains alive, then it surely isn’t murder at all.

This is the conundrum that we as a society will have to grapple with, as synthetic genome technology is further developed and applied to mammalian (and possibly human) cells in future, such as embryos (for example). If the technology is imported into existing cells/organisms, and we feel that this could be interpreted as an act of murder, then moral objections will probably make the technology ethically bankrupt. If we don’t accept this viewpoint, then there is possibly no direct ethical problem with proceeding. The ethical issue might then lie with how the technology would be used rather than the technology itself.

At present, we can only import a genome into an existing yeast cell (created by God/existing in nature). If we were also eventually able to synthesise functional cell membranes, organelles, and cytoplasm artificially to compliment our synthetic genome, then perhaps we are not guilty of murder or killing when the genome is added, as no organism has been destroyed.

That said, if  such ‘synthetic cells’ can be created so that they can respire on their own, are we then really creating de novo life at odds with God’s Law/The Law of Nature? Or are we merely creating a sophisticated robot that is capable of ‘synthetic respiration’ and therefore we’re crossing no moral-ethical boundary? To decide whether such an approach is morally/ethically legitimate, we need to decide the boundaries between robot and organism and living or non-living. In essence: We need to define life.

At this moment in time, I really have no firm view other than to say that the creation of de novo life forms leaves me feeling quite uneasy. I will require further time to consider my full position on this matter. I will be listening carefully to the public debate that will no doubt follow.

So what is the point of this technology, really?

With all these potential ethical-moral problems, we really need to step back and ask ourselves, “What do we have to gain from this technology?”.

As it turns out, quite a lot.

Aside from its application in better understanding cell biology and genetics, such technology could be used to do considerable good.

Maryland biophysicist Dr David Thirumalai told the ABC’s AM programme that such technology could be used to create synthetic cells to heal particular parts of the body or to create synthetic organisms to clean up an oil spill. Many would argue that this is a decent, humane and ethical application of the technology.

Perhaps we could create blood cell lines that destroy viruses such as HIV? Or use those cells to create industrial biofuels? Perhaps we could create tiny organisms that convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen more efficiently than plants or synthetic trees, thus reversing the effects of Climate Change.

That said, such technology could also be used to enable despotic regimes to create nastier and more virulent forms of biological weapons.

The possibilities of this technology are endless, as are the ethical, moral and philosophical questions. Already today, the US president has announced an investigation into the use of synthetic genome technology. No doubt Australian authorities will announce a similar investigation soon.

Venter’s team have announced that their next target will be to apply their technique in adding a synthetic genome to an algae.

In their scientific manuscript, Dr. Daniel Gibson and Dr. Craig Venter write that their approach to creating synthetic cells might eventually “be applicable to the synthesis and transplantation of more novel genomes as genome design progresses” but counsel that they “… anticipate that (their) work will continue to raise philosophical issues that have broad societal and ethical implications”.

Lets hope that synthetic genomic technology, if adopted, will be used for good instead of evil. Lets hope that as a global community, we can have an inclusive debate about the proper use of such technologies.

Further Information

This article is based on the manuscript published in Science today:

D.G. Gibson, J.I. Glass et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesised genome. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1190719