I am here invited, to present myself so-to-say as a representative of the artists or rather the art  and by that deliver a part for discussion.
First I would like to put more concrete the role given to me in selfdescribing addition: I am sitting here as an intellectually manic art type, and the more so as the title of discussion 'metabolism' is part of me being mad.
The leading term of our communication meeting, the term "metabolism", first seems to me to be a term to which one wants to gain relation when one reflects about what the world and oneself as part of it should be in the sciences. Then I ask myself if a term taken from science is usable for a desription of itmes of art interest or if one shouldn't presume from using such terms in the area of art that here we are dealing with a penetration of natural scienes into art and that this nowadays more than ever is just accepted without questioning. As artist I would rather welcome if art should not become like natural sciences, by that logical and rational, analytical and reducing, but that rather sciences become more like art. Because I am convinced that with all the interdiciplinary longing for an all reaching absolute explanation of the world there is still an important difference between art and sciences.  Proceeding on the assumption that  art like sciences actually both have their basis in natural phenomen.
Then the artist is astonished in the face of these phenomen and celebrates at the best their usage. Science on the other hand sees in the phenomological matter for objectivity, so any wonder-ful is so-to-say rationalized off and destroyed, to reach basic laws in a reducing process.

In the face of the complexity of our society machinery, which is involved a great deal in what nature could be, this kind of  a view of the world seems naturally as necessary. Without it no pronosis and no possibilities  to develop technics that can possibly delay the threatening catastrophy. I find it dangerous though, when this scientific approach of the matter of the world starts to replace what life could be by its chance to be explained, hence ending in the statement that everything is a cybernetic machinery which we could get power over. Just there science in its demand of totality should let itself been put into question by art.
Because: artist most of the time are tangled with the world in their emotional life, suffer kind of nature  on their own body, put out of control in the process of creating and try not to go down during it for which they have to distance themselves again.
Hey may experience cultural influences as problematic, just because they are at the end of their creation. "World" in art is often experienced as non-reasonable manyfold waste and therefor artists spent oneselves in the squandering of power of imagination, so-to-say spend their lives on it. In other words: that what science looks into thoroughly as matter of world and by that want to  make available to the reason, that it makes it in the end in its constuctions itself, the artist leaves  be as manyfold liveliness in the face of its nonacceptable  individual mortality.
He / she therefore tryes, to follow the contradiction of his/her experience of the world, what the artist does not cut of him/herself to make it objectiv by making it borderless and doing this giving  his/her aesthetical emotion medial expression and in the best of cases leave it for discussion.