Week 6 - Biotech and Art

Artists have always treated the human and animal forms as progenitors of artistic exploration, utilizing them both as canvases and as means of inspiration. In the rising 21st century, however, they have now taken a step further -- artists are beginning to explore surgical procedures of both the outer body and the inner genomic sequences as artistic instruments. Indeed, bio-art is a newfound form of artistry that incorporates medicine, genetics, and even bodily extensions -- however, it has also sparked a new set of questions regarding the ethics and morality of disrupting the natural systems of humans themselves as well as utilizing animals within one’s artistic endeavors.

Howard Boland's piece, Cellular Propeller
Perhaps one of the most well-known controversial art pieces utilizing genetic modification is Eduardo Kaz’s GFP Bunny, Alba. This was a transgenic rabbit created through the insertion of a jellyfish gene that's responsible for the bunny’s fluorescent glow under UV light. Undoubtedly, a multitude of animal rights activists and other critics have entirely denounced this rabbit and condemned Kaz for “exploiting the animal and tampering with nature” (Dierks). 

Another example of the controversy surrounding the use of animals in bio-art can be found in Howard Boland’s Cellular Propeller. In fact, this piece is a silicone scaffold that is able to move when prodded with certain cells; particularly, it explores synthetic biology through the creation of novel biological or biologically inspired systems. However, his first take of the piece utilized heart cells that were taken from newborn rats, which of course raised ethical concerns regarding whether it was acceptable to sacrifice animals for art purposes as it is done for research.

Alba, the transgenic GFP Bunny
Ultimately, there are indeed multiple dilemmas regarding bio-art and bio-tech, some that even extend beyond science and ethics. For instance, Ellen K. Levy mentions in her article that the possibility of scientific ventures such as human cloning raises issues in legality, particularly surrounding how living creatures can be considered artworks and are hence presumably copyrightable (14). As such, issues surrounding copyright and patents are rising in this field, causing one to question how society will develop and accept the burgeoning bio-art.

An interesting example of this can be observed by Gina Czarnecki’s Heirloom which is a piece that essentially grows living portraits of the artist’s daughters. Particularly, Czarnecki took their skin cells and allowed them to grow on glass casts of their faces in a life support system. This piece sparked concerns regarding identity, ethics, and legality, particularly over ownership of biological materials when the donors are minors -- for instance, after their mother gave consent on behalf of her daughters, they could no longer make any decisions regarding their own biological materials.

Gina Czarnecki's living portraits, Heirloom

Overall, the questions prompted by the surge of bio-art are extremely complex and hard to debate. Personally, I believe that in the same manner that scientists use physical forms and genomes as test subjects, artists too should be enabled to utilize these means to express their work --  if there's a clear purpose and intent. This is because artists do, in fact, impact society as much as scientists in the propagation of their ideas and messages. However, I also argue that there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. When individuals utilize their art in a manner that harms others, acts without regard for their wellbeing, or is done without the consent of the other, this art should in fact be prohibited. Otherwise, with full consent, artists should be able to utilize the human form as a means of art. It’s harder to say for animals, but if the artist treats them with respect and dignity, caring for them for the entirety that the art impacts the creature, it should be allowed. 


WORKS CITED

Boland, Howard. “Cellular Propeller,” gifs.com, gifs.com/gif/cellular-propeller-by-howard-boland-JZBpxo

“Cellular Propeller – Howard Boland (Project).” Trust Me Im an Artist, trustmeimanartist.eu/projects/cellular-propeller-howard-boland-project/. 

Czarnecki, Gina. “Heirloom,” ginaczarnecki, www.ginaczarnecki.com/heirloom

Dierks, Carrie. Glowing Bunny Sparks International Controversy, Oct. 2000, www.ekac.org/bionews.html. 

Fernández, Clara Rodríguez. “This Bioartist Is Exhibiting Living Portraits of Her Own Daughters.” Labiotech.eu, 14 Jan. 2017, www.labiotech.eu/more-news/gina-czarnecki-heirloom-bioart/. 

Kaz, Eduardo. “GFP Bunny,” Edinburgh Environmental Humanities Network, 13, Sept. 2017, www.environmentalhumanities.ed.ac.uk/hannah-stark-love-kinship-futurity-anthropocene-26th-october-2017/

Kelty, Christopher M. “Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?” Journal of Science Communication, vol. 09, no. 01, 2010, doi:10.22323/2.09010303. 

“What Is Bio Art?” ARTDEX, www.artdex.com/what-is-bio-art/. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Week 8 - Nanotechnology and Art

Event 3 - Contagion, May 19th, 10am

Week 9 - Space and Art