Week 6: BioTech + Art
The intersection of biotech and art seems to be one that is surrounded by controversy due to its being centered around the use of life as an expressive medium. During the lecture, Professor Vesna mentions how artist Marta de Menezes used Symbiotica to modify the wing patterns of live butterflies. This modification was a source of controversy because manipulating the cellular structure of the butterfly led to a redesign of the wing, creating art within nature. Doing this created holes in the butterfly's wings, which horrified people due to the invasiveness of the procedure and the morals behind it.
De Menezes, Marta. Nature? https://martademenezes.com/art/nature/nature/. |
I was also intrigued by the work done by Eduardo Kac, known as the "GFP Bunny," where Kac was able to genetically modify a rabbit egg cell using a trait from a breed of glowing jellyfish, resulting in a luminescent rabbit (Eduardo). Many felt as if the process behind this was simply unethical due to the fact that it goes against the natural order by manipulating and unnaturally altering the genetic code of the rabbit to get the desired results. On the other hand, some can say it is an intriguing piece of work that can spark greater interest in the fields of art and biotechnology.
Kac, Eduardo. GFP Bunny . https://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor. |
While I believe the beauty that life brings can be used as an expressive medium, it can just as quickly become a slippery slope. To temper nature as a form of art is a scary thought, especially if the creations do not come out accurately, which is why I believe there is a place for ethical guidelines to be implemented in order to invite new ways of thinking about ethics in relation to art in general and in hopes of creating artwork that can be safe and novel (Vaage).
Grimm, David. Cages of Lab Mice at an Unnamed Institution. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-many-mice-and-rats-are-used-us-labs-controversial-study-says-more-100-million. |
I believe writer Olivia Solon puts it beautifully, stating within her article that the artist’s intent should also be taken into consideration when criticizing the artwork, which I completely agree with. While as an artist you want to create something provocative and unique, you also have to take into account the reasoning behind why you are doing it, and if that question cannot be answered, it is not worth utilizing life as an expressive medium.
Citations
Vesna, Victoria. “5 Bioart pt1 1280x720.” YouTube, 18 Sept. 2013, youtu.be/PaThVnA1kyg.
Vesna, Victoria. “5 BioArt pt2.” YouTube, 17 May 2012, youtu.be/MdSt-Hjyi2I?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7.
Kac, Eduardo. “Natural History of the Enigma.” Ekac. 2009. Web. 3 Nov 2012, www.ekac.org/nat.hist.enig.html
Solon, Olivia. “Bioart: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Using Living Tissue as a Medium.” Wired, 28 July 2011, www.wired.com/2011/07/bioart/.
Vaage, Nora S. “What Ethics for Bioart?” Nanoethics, 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791467/.
Yuvraj you raise some really interesting ethical questions around biotech and art. I agree that the artist's intentions should be considered when evaluating the morality of a piece of biotechnical art. I am curious as to what you make of more contemporary technologies like CRISPR, which allow for the editing of genomes. What role do you think artists might have in helping us make sense of these technologies?
ReplyDelete