Thursday, May 5, 2016

Week 6 - BioTech + Art

          The lectures this past week brought to light many different aspects for how biotechnology and art are connected and used together.  I know that biotechnology is a process to harness “cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet” (Biotechnology Innovation Organization), but I did not realize artists were so involved with this science to create art. While art pieces like Eduardo Kac’s fluorescent bunny and Marta de Menezes’s genetically modified butterfly wings are innovative and jaw-dropping artworks, I am not sure I believe that living species should be modified for the purpose of an art piece.

GFP Mice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein
Alba
http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html
          Kac’s fluorescent bunny, Alba, seems very similar to Osamu Shimomura’s EGFG mice, but there is a big difference. Shimomura’s glowing mice were created to help “scientists find and study gene’s more quickly” (Herper). Shimomura’s experiment embodied the true definition of biotechnology. The purpose of injecting the jellyfish green fluorescent protein into the cells of these mice was to study biological processes and diseases to help improve health and understand how some diseases work. On the other hand, Kac used these same processes for the purpose of transgenic art. Kac states that he is “not interested in the creation of genetic objects, but on the invention of transgenic social subjects” (Kac). Alba was not for the purpose of helping improve lives, it was to see how a genetically engineered subject would react and interact with society.









          Similar to Kac, Marta de Menezes genetically modified an organism for art. She decided to change the patterns on live butterfly wings for artistic purposes. By genetically modifying these living creatures, we disrupt the natural process of evolution. Bunnies are the way they are because of evolution. Butterfly wing patterns have that particular pattern because of evolution. All creatures today are evolved to serve a certain purpose, so when we change the natural being, we completely disrupt the many years of evolution. I do not believe this is justified for the creation of an art piece.
GM Butterfly
http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/
          There should be limits to human creativity. Innovation and creation is very important for the purpose of moving forward in health and other similar fields, so I support the use of GMOs and other biotechnology in this way. But modifying a living organism for the sole purpose of creating art seems wrong. Due to the growing experimentation with animals and creating hybrids, I believe that there is a need for separate standards for artists creating or manipulating living organisms.




Citations
Herper, Matthew. "Biotech's Glowing Breakthrough." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 26 July 2001. Web. 05 May 2016.  
          <http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/26/0726gfp.html>.

Kac, Eduardo. "GFP BUNNY." Ekac.org. N.p., 2000. Web. 05 May 2016. <http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>.

Menezes, Marta De. "Nature?" Marta De Menezes. Marta De Menezes by Moshi Moshi, n.d. Web. 05 May 2016. <http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/>.

O'Mathúna, Dónal P., PhD. "The Role of Art in the Genetic Age." The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. N.p., 07 July 2002. Web. 05 May 2016. 
          <https://cbhd.org/content/role-art-genetic-age>.


"What Is Biotechnology?" Biotechnology Innovation Organization. BIO, n.d. Web. 05 May 2016. <https://www.bio.org/articles/what-biotechnology>.

2 comments:

  1. Firstly, I really enjoyed reading your post and your opinion on the ethical debate brought forth by the integration of biotechnology in art. Where I agree that genetic manipulation should definitely be used for the progression of health and wellness and there exist dangers in widespread genetic modification of animals , I disagree that genetic modification for the purpose of art is strictly wrong. Single- subjects like the fluorescent bunny and the butterflies exist in singularity and in controlled environments, like pets and don't seem like they could threaten the process of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too think that there should be limits on what artists can do to and with living beings. There are differences when manipulating a bunny or a mouse and manipulating a cell, the damage that is caused is different. Although overall I think that there needs to be limits and guidelines to artists pursuing this type of creativity.

    ReplyDelete