 |
| Vacanti mouse |
 |
| Mice genetically modified to have glowing cells |
BioArt is a growing, and fascinating field, full of controversy. On one hand, while biotech, and vast amount of nature that surrounds us can be put together to create some incredible pieces of art, the manipulation of nature makes it a controversial field. I believe that in this sort of art, we should restrict ourselves to using our own bodies, and organisms we’ve engineered for art purposes. I believe that using other organisms as canvases, especially when it harms that organisms basic life or reproductive functions, and isn’t providing any important discoveries within science, is wrong. I think our tendency to meddle with nature is what has put us in this precarious situation with our own climate, and has endangered countless other species with which we share this planet. In his writing, Levy makes an interesting point that we should include organisms beyond ourselves in our ‘politics’: “Sociologist Bruno Latour (2004: 53–91) suggests that we revise our social structures to allow for a ‘political ecology’ that will encompass both humans and nonhumans. In light of the recognition that we share so much of our genetic background with other species, bioartists such as Kathy High and Adam Zaretsky challenge our sense of human uniqueness through exhibitions that explore less known aspects of animal behavior and culture.” (Levy). I believe the work of artists like these, that involves increasing awareness of our place in a greater ecology, and our relationship with the nature around us, is the most impactful. I think High's Embracing Animal and Blood Wars projects are particularly noteworthy.
 |
| Kathy High's Embracing Animal Project |
The combination of art and science in BioArt is unique in its relationship to nature, especially compared to previous art + science interactions we’ve explored previously. I believe this is true because it is the only medium in which the biotechnology used in this art form is implemented directly on the organisms that surround us. Unlike robotics or mathematics which involve manipulating circuits and numbers, BioArt often involves manipulating life. I think Levy makes an important point about biotechnology based art: “Life-forms produced through genetic engineering are necessarily a mix of nature and culture.” (Levy). I think it’s important to be aware of the way in which our culture interacts with nature. In this sense, I don’t believe biotechnology should be used simply as a creative outlet in the same way music, math, or painting can be used. I think we should be pay attention to our relationship with nature, and create art that focuses on furthering our understanding of this relationship.
References:
"Blood Wars." Blood Wars. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.
Byerley, Anne, and Derrick Chong. "Biotech aesthetics: Exploring the practice of bio art." Culture and Organization ahead-of-print (2013): 1-21.
"Embracinganimal.com." Embracinganimal.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.
Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." (2007).
Vacanti Mouse." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.
Hello Erik, I like your post, and I totally agree with your point that Bio-Art is a much more serious topic than what we learned before because we are dealing with lives. In my personal point of view, killing animals to benefit us is a sin. Human uses animals to do some experiments, and it benefits us. However, animals have life, and it is too selfish to use animals' lives to benefit us.
ReplyDelete