Week 6: BioTech + Art

“I like to take the least connected things and try to build connections between them” – Joe Davis

Mad scientist, or utter genius? I found this week’s topic to be very interesting as it frequently brings up the topic of ethics.

As Professor Vesna mentions while introducing Biotechnology, artists have been fascinated by nature for years, but my question is, can one still consider something to be nature when it is manipulated by human intervention? This topic also prompts me to think about Ruth West’s question of whether or not there should be any limits to human creativity.

I believe creativity breeds creativity. However, with the field of biotechnology, issues of ethics arise making it controversial and probably unsustainable.

[Image 1:“Alba” – Transgenic bunny by Eduardo Kac]

Through the injection of a jellyfish gene into a fertilized egg of an albino rabbit by a process called zygote microinjection, Alba the fluorescent bunny was created. Although one could argue that the bunny’s coloring is unique, I would argue that what the bunny represents is more unique. Kac writes that one of the purposes of the bunny was to “place genetic engineering in a social context,” but others in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) state that this work takes advantage of the animal’s life. The debate and interest does not stop there. Ellen Ullman, who was quoted in a published piece in “Artswire” further poses the question, “how far should we take this new power we're developing, to mold other creatures -- not to mention ourselves -- to suit our plans or whims?”

Biotechnology + Art could blur the lines of ethics. In some way, the research could ultimately shed light on new procedures or even medical advances.

[Image 2: Blood Wars by Kathy High]

“Blood Wars” is ultimately a competition between people’s white blood cells. What may seem like a game or art to people could actually help question traits inherited by blood and could help us think about immunity.

Another “BioArt” case to learn more about is Stelios Arcadious’s “Third Ear.”

[Image 3: "Third Ear" Surgical implant on forearm ]

It is certainly disturbing, but like Professor Vesna mentioned, BioArt is known to be about the “shock value.” As artists and scientists continue to experiment in this field, I don't see the issue as long as there's a strict supervision system intact and no harm is being done to animals or humans. We should not disregard the “creations,” as it may bring fields together and could even surprise us with a cure to a disease.

WORKS CITED:

"Eduardo Kac's Gfp Bunny Incites Debate About Ethics Of Transgenic Art."Artswire. N.p., 26 Sept. 2000. Web. 10 May 2015.

High, Kathy. "Kathy High: Visual/media Artist, Independent Curator, Educator." Kathy High: Projects: Blood Wars. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2015

Melanson, Donald. "Performance Artist Stelarc Implants "third Ear" in Forearm." Engadget. N.p., 16 May 2007. Web. 9 May 2015.

"Transgenic Bunny by Eduardo Kac." Genome News Network. N.p., 29 Mar. 2002. Web. 9 May 2015.

Vesna, Victoria. "BioTech Intro." YouTube. N.p., 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 9 May 2015.