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>.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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