WEEK 6: BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ART

Biotechnology, according to the Convention on Biological Diversity, is any technological application that uses living organisms to modify products or processes for specific use. The use of biotechnology in art seems almost inevitable, given how easily technology and robotics have been used in art. More specifically use of genomes in art has been particularly of interest.  George Gessert’s work is a great example of bioart. Gessert created genetic hybrids of irises by hybridizing wild varieties and removing undesirable results. This created unique synthetic breeds of irises that had immense aesthetic beauty.

However, this has been a very controversial area. Genetic engineering has raised many ethical dilemmas and discussions, which were only furthered by using it in art. The most important ethical question facing bioart, is whether life itself is a valid expressive medium. Bioartists seem to constantly face this question, especially when they use animals in their artwork. Eduardo Kac faced was accused of cruelty for his artwork, GFP Bunny, in which he used an albino bunny with the genes of a fluorescent jellyfish. The main reason this was considered cruelty was that he was using genetic engineering for an “unworthy purpose”. However I would disagree. The purpose of his artwork was to make people reflect upon the fast growing and potentially dangerous area of biotechnology, which is a very worthy purpose.


Biotechnology is an area that needs to grow in order for human beings to progress. One of its main uses is developing genetically modified (GM) crops. GM crops are more resistant to weeds and can provide a higher yield, which will be increasingly important to support the fast growing world population. However, there also problems associated with this. Given the little information we know about the impact of these crops on nature, there is a need to proceed with caution. There is worry in the scientific community, that pests could grow resistant and produce similar harmful changes in the environment nearby. There are lots of issues to consider with biotechnology, and that is precisely why bioart is needed. It is a powerful tool to start discussions about biotechnology, and that is why I think that life is a valid expressive medium.

REFERENCES:
  • "Article 2. Use of Terms." Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity, n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02>.
  • "Benefits of GM Food:." GMO - Benefits. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm>.
  • Magazine, Bruce Stutz for Seed. "Seed Magazineabout." Wanted: GM Seeds for Study § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/wanted_gm_seeds_for_study/>.
  • Rubinowitz, Susan. "Glowing Rabbit Sparks Controversy." Glowing Rabbit Sparks Controversy. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017. <http://www.ekac.org/petplace.html>.
  • Vesna, Victoria. Lecture. DESMA 9. Web. 14 May 2017.

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 16, 2017 at 11:57 PM

    I really like your point on whether life is a valid expressive medium. There has been artists like Joe Davis who try to use genes as a form of information carrier and build machines that can translate genes into meaning rather than proteins. Therefore, technically life can be used as a way of communication. However, ethical issues cannot be ignored whenever people manipulate life to serve their own purposes. Scientists might question the validity of artists programming genes into artworks, but the purpose of these artworks is exactly to raised people's concern about about whether scientists have the right to manipulate life such as lab rats to serve namely scientific purposes. I do wonder whether scientists questioned artists involved with biotechnology to defend themselves from being accused of abusing laboratory animals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 17, 2017 at 12:03 AM

    Below is a repost that has the same content as above but have some typos fixed:

    I really like your point on whether life is a valid expressive medium. There has been artists like Joe Davis who try to use genes as a form of information carrier and build machines that can translate genes into meaning rather than proteins. Therefore, technically life can be used as a way of communication. However, ethical issues cannot be ignored whenever people manipulate life to serve their own purposes. Scientists might question the validity of artists programming genes into artworks, but the purpose of these artworks is exactly to raise people's concern about whether scientists have the right to manipulate life such as lab rats to serve namely scientific purposes. I do wonder whether scientists questioned artists involved with biotechnology to defend themselves from being accused of abusing laboratory animals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMay 20, 2017 at 10:23 PM

    Me too! I really enjoyed reading your post, and I couldn't agree more! I believe bio-artist and the work they do are significantly important for initiate ethical discussions on use of bio-technology. Apart from creating their artworks and the aesthetic aspect of their work, artists are also responsible toward the public in the sense that they're the speakers and the critics of current social norms. They can stimulate change and reforms!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WEEK 8: NANOTECH AND ART

Image
Nanotechnology is a field of incredible potential. It is surprising that a field such as nanotechnology, which has revolutionized all aspects of our life, from food to our clothes to medicines, is known so little. It was fascinating to see the mere number of subfields that have been created under the umbrella of nanotechnology, such as nanomedicine, nanoelectronics and nanophotonics. One of the most surprising examples of use of nanotechnology by the Romans in the Lycurgus Cup. The cup will appear green when lit from front, but if it were lit from the back it would change color to red. This change in color happens due to presence of gold and silver particles that are 50 nanometers in diameter. The fact that romans were able to do this 1600 years ago is absolutely amazing. Furthermore, nanotechnology is also present in nature. The wings of the Blue morpho butterfly seem to have a blue iridescent color but are in fact transparent. Their wings consist of many nano-scale structure...
Read more

WEEK 7: NEUROSCIENCE AND ART

Image
The intersection of art and neuroscience is a very interesting area. Historically, art was needed to study neuroscience. In the 19 th century, microscopy was not very advances, which meant that studying neurons was very difficult. Thus, scientists turned to artists to provide this information so that they could study neurons in more detail. Santiago Ramón y Cajal, the father of modern neuroscience, who was both an artist and a scientist, drew very detailed drawings of neurons and helped this field grow. This was followed by the use of neuroscience to create art. One cool example mentioned in the lecture was Brainbow. Brainbow involved using fluorescent proteins of different colors to light up neurons in order to be able to distinguish individual neurons. Also now, neuroscience is being used to study art. This falls under the field of neuroaesthetics , which specifically explores how and why people appreciate art, music and the very concept of beauty. Semir Zeki and Vilayanu...
Read more