Week 6 BioTech & Art
Week 6: BioTech and Art
With biotechnology, genetics, and technology in general constantly expanding, it has reached a point of entry into work with our bodies, animals, and our environment. Artists have now entered into labs working with several different scientists delving into the body and what is life or art. What I cannot fully comprehend is how people working in labs on things such as butterflies or rats and changing their genes is considered art or them working as artists.
By accessing the codes of DNA, scientists or artists have been able to insert another code and create something new, but "is life itself an expressive medium?" For example, to add a third ear to your body as Stelarc did, he considers this art on the human body. There are several theories or opinions on what art is, such as art as an expression or imitation or representation. But does that mean that experimenting with genes or animals is a way to express art in nature? Personally, I think not. I believe that everything, every animal, and nature is already art, and to change it or add generic things to it is a hoax or superficial long story short.
With biotechnology, genetics, and technology in general constantly expanding, it has reached a point of entry into work with our bodies, animals, and our environment. Artists have now entered into labs working with several different scientists delving into the body and what is life or art. What I cannot fully comprehend is how people working in labs on things such as butterflies or rats and changing their genes is considered art or them working as artists.
By accessing the codes of DNA, scientists or artists have been able to insert another code and create something new, but "is life itself an expressive medium?" For example, to add a third ear to your body as Stelarc did, he considers this art on the human body. There are several theories or opinions on what art is, such as art as an expression or imitation or representation. But does that mean that experimenting with genes or animals is a way to express art in nature? Personally, I think not. I believe that everything, every animal, and nature is already art, and to change it or add generic things to it is a hoax or superficial long story short.
In an article by Carolina A. Miranda through ArtNew.com, Oron Catts states "Those cells are living, even if the object itself is not full of life..." "It means that our cultural understanding of life is incompatible with what we see in the lab." I found this interesting since it seems like with so many opinions on the table, people have not reached an understanding between life and art perhaps. My goal is to figure that out through this blog post.
In his article, Eduardo Kac introduces his "transgenic artwork, GFP Bunny." This adds to my disbelief of animals being used as artwork. Even though it is crazy that you can make a bunny glow, I still cannot grasp how it is considered art. It seems that there is somewhat of a disconnect between what is art and how art can be played out, as there are mixed opinions about the subject. Again, art is an expression, but how far will people go and what does art mean to them?
Works Cited
Fernández, Clara Rodríguez. “Stelarc - Making Art out of the Human Body.” Labiotech.eu, 9 Nov. 2018, labiotech.eu/bioart/stelarc-ear-art-human-body/.
Hospers, John. “Philosophy of Art.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 14 Mar. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/Art-as-expression.
Kac, Eduardo. “GFP BUNNY.” GFP BUNNY, 2000, www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor.
Miranda, Carolina A. “Weird Science: Biotechnology as Art Form -.” ARTnews, 4 Mar. 2013, www.artnews.com/2013/03/18/biotechnology-as-art-form/.
Online, UC. “5 Bioart pt1 1280x720.” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Sept. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg.
Hi Claire!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post for this week. I like the point you made that animals and nature are already a form of art in themselves, and I completely agree with your opinion on Kac's experiment which he calls "genetic art." I do not believe making an animal glow for an artistic aesthetic is necessary, especially when it could put the animal in danger.
-Taylor
Hi Claire! I thought that your blog was super passionate this week! I can really tell that you care about animals and their wellbeing. I think that it was really insightful for you to make a personal connection, not only to animals, but to your understanding that nature IS art. I agree that making genetic adjustments to animals and calling it art isn't exactly right. But how do you feel about the types of genetic adjustments that might add longevity to the animal's life, or help to later cure disease?
ReplyDeleteHey! I think it's really interesting how you bring up art being an expression and what it means to people. Sometimes I feel like art does not always have to mean something, with that being said if it does not have significant meaning than it should not be hurting people or other beings. I don't think that the bunnies that glow are being hurt so the Eduardo Kac is kind just doing whatever, but it would be different if he was harming the bunnies in anyway.
ReplyDeleteHey Claire. I totally agree with you and like what you said about animals and humans are art in themselves .
ReplyDeleteSondre