Coined by Joe
Davis, BioArt is an art practice in which humans work with live tissue,
cells, and living organisms to synthesize DNA to insert it into living
cells. Animal biotechnology includes
practices such as artificial insemination, cloning, and genetic engineering.
Davis aided the
collaboration between molecular biologists and himself. His inventive ideas were
extremely controversial because they tested the limits on what was considered
feasible and ethical. However, without
him, we would not have transgenic art. Eduardo
Kac also explored with this type of art, which is the “transfer of natural or
synthetic genes to create a unique organism.”
This idea eventually led to the creation of SymbioticA in 2008, a
permanent space for both artists and scientists to work together and experiment
in labs. This is an extreme jump from
the glowing mice and luminescent jellyfish experiments of the past.
Biotechnology is
one of the most divisive issues our units have covered to this point. As it takes art to design a cellular
structure, and science in order to complete the process, biotechnology is the epitome
of this class. However, this does alter
what would occur in the natural environment.
Thus, there is a major divide on whether it is beneficial for society
due to its scientific and artistic exploration, or whether it is unethical
because it transforms the natural world.
I believe that this can only be decided on a personal basis, as each
individual may interpret nature differently.
In my opinion, however, it should not be used if it harms any organism
or is merely for aesthetical purposes. Yet,
it may be necessary for scientific advancement or artistic purposes.
Davis, Joe. "Genetics and Culture." Design|Media Arts 98T, n.d. Web. 8 May 2016. <http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/pages_genetics_culture/gc_w03/davis_joe.htm>.
Kac, Eduardo. "Bio Art." KAC. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 8 May 2016. <http://www.ekac.org/>.
“SymbioticA.” The University of Western
Australia. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2016. <http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/>.
UCtelevision. "Animal Biotechnology."
YouTube. YouTube, 25 July 2008. Web. 08 May 2016.
Vensa, Victoria. BioTech + Art Lectures I-V.
UCOnline. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2016.
George Dvorsky. Digital Image. BioArt Bunny.
2003. N.p. <http://io9.gizmodo.com/7-bio-artists-who-are-transforming-the-fabric-of-life-i-558156053>.
SymbioticA. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May
2016. <SymbioticA. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2016>.
BioArt. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May
2016. <BioArt. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2016.>
I took a similar stance in my blog post regarding the uses of biotechnology. I definitely agree that art and design are needed for any biotechnology purpose, whether it is designing new cellular structures or trying to find cures for new diseases. But, I do believe that sometimes the use of biotechnology is not for good enough reasons. I completely agree that the mixture of biotechnology and art should not happen if it is purely for aesthetical purposes or if it could possibly harm the organism with no real purpose to do so. When biotechnology is used to find cures and uses some organisms to try to do that, I think it is justified. But now with the rise of transgenic art, I do not believe that art is a good enough reason to alter a live being.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you said that biotechnology should not be used if it harms an organism or if it is merely for aesthetical purposes. While I completely agree that transgenic art should never come at the expense of an organisms health or well being; however, I think transgenic arts for purely aesthetic purposes is completely fine, as in the case of the glowing rabbit.
ReplyDeleteYou analyze bio-art from two perspectives. The first talks about Davis and Eduardo, who test on feasible and ethical biotechnology. From another perspective, you refer to scientific experiments, which may alter natural lives. These experiments are considered as controversial topics especially from the ethical side. However, I agree with your conclusion that these processes may be necessary for scientific advancement or artistic purposes, since experiments are necessary for us creating and discovering the world.
ReplyDelete