Sunday, May 13, 2018

Unit 6: Biotechnology + Art

In previous units, we learned about multidisciplinary projects that involve fields such as mathematics and robotics. Biology is a completely different field that deals with tangible, living organisms. Biology is the study of life, which immediately raises ethical questions regarding BioArt because life is much more intricate and complex than a robot; all lives must be respected and treated properly. 
Image result for biotechnology
DNA- carries our genetic information. 
Alba, the GFP Bunny
            Eduardo Kac is a bioartist that created Alba, a transgenic bunny that glows green when illuminated with blue light (Vesna). While Kac’s reasons for creating a “GFP Bunny” extends beyond the novelty of it, I question the ethics of doing such a project. I agree that the “GFP Bunny” can be a social event, create dialogue between art and science, and extend the concepts of biodiversity and evolution, but the implications of his project are huge (Kac). This transgenic artwork created by Kac sets a precedent and suggests that inserting genes into living organisms for the purpose of art is permissible. While I understand Kac’s intentions, I believe that artists should have restrictions because unlike the GFP gene, an artist may want to inject a more dangerous gene such as a disease-causing one, intentionally causing an animal to experience pain. 

Kathy High's Embracing Animal project
In fact, this has been done by artist Kathy High. In her project “Embracing Animal”, the similarities between humans and animals are explored. As part of the project, High injected mice with oncogenes, inducing them to have cancer (Levy). While Kathy High clearly outlines on her website that she holistically treated the mice in an empathetic manner, not every artist will do the same (High). An artist may purposefully transfer harmful genes into an animal with no intention of curing it. Scientific research uses animals as well, but the end goals are different- research aims to cure and understand, while art aims to explore and create. Both are important, but the goals of BioArt lack the justification of allowing free creative control of doing anything an artist wants, especially since living animals are able to process emotions and feel pain. 
While the creativity of an artist is a great strength, it does come with ramifications if properly misused. There will always exist “hackers” that try to reconfigure the system from within and push the boundaries of creativity beyond what is ethically and morally acceptable (Kelty). Thus, BioArt should be regulated and limited out of respect for life and the protection of life. 



Sources:
High, Kathy. “Embracing Animal.” http://kathyhigh.com/project-embracing-animal.html. Accessed 13 May 2018.
Kac, Eduardo. “GFP Bunny.” http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor. Accessed 13 May 2018.  
Kelty, Chris. “Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?” 2010, pp. 1-8.  
Levy, Ellen. “Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classification.” Context Providers: Condition of Meaning in Media Arts. Intellect Ltd, 2011, pp. 1-22. 
Vesna, Victoria. “5 bioart pt1 1280x720.” YouTube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 13 September 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg.
Vesna, Victoria. “5 BioArt pt 3.” YouTube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7&v=3EpD3np1S2g.

Image Sources:
Kac, Eduardo. “GFP Bunny.” http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.thumbnail.jpg. Accessed 13 May 2018.
High, Kathy. “Embracing Animal.” http://www.embracinganimal.com/install/06installation.jpg. Accessed 13 May 2018.
https://briandcolwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/c3b336da-3353-4646-8ff1-76425b97a629.jpg. Accessed 13 May 2018. 
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. UnknownMay 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM

    I had heard about scientists performing experiments on mice and always wondered about the way in which it was done. I found it quite ironic that someone could inject mice with a type of cancer yet still say they were treated empathetically. As much as I appreciate that this research may help humanity, I hope that better ways of creating cures are discovered in the future. I agree with your thoughts on men though artists have great strengths, their are ramifications to their actions and they have to remember that these animals have emotions and feelings as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. andrewsdesma9May 19, 2018 at 1:39 AM

    I definitely agree that the purpose behind using organisms to create BioArt compared to using organisms to research cures are two starkly different motives. While the end goal of using organisms in science is to gather information to help the world, I worry about the end goal some artists may have. In order to get a reaction out of a viewer, some artist's go to great lengths to express their message. In BioArt, I understand when an artist will augment themselves because they have a right to their own body. But bringing those same augmentations to other living organisms who can't speak for themselves is a different topic. The FDA controls what occurs in science, but as far as I know artists have no such governing body. Perhaps as BioArt develops, rules will be set in place to put limits on what constitutes "art" and what is "abuse."

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)