As a new art form, the combination of biotechnology and art is
avant-garde but controversial. I was surprised by how the same idea of glowing
rabbit can result in different results in different situations. According to
Professor Vesna’s lecture, contemporary artist Eduardo Kac’s artwork Alba
brought him a bad reputation because Alba was only treated as an artwork
without any benefit to human beings. While another artist Osamu Shimomura used
those glowing rabbits in his medical experiments and received a Nobel Prize for
making great breakthrough in medication.
Different attitudes towards the same project bring the artists completely different outcomes.
In my opinion, the difference in their outcomes is caused by the different
attitudes of the two artists. An artwork involves a life invokes people’s fear
of mad scientists and the immorality involved. I can totally understand why
Eduardo Kac and his artwork cannot be widely accepted and even be accused of
animal abuse. Compared to the artwork, animal testing is disagreed by many
people though it can benefit human beings at some extent. Considering animal
testing is already removed from laws in many countries, those “artworks” that
hazards the animals’ lives should not be accepted either.
Though beneficial to human beings, animal testing is protested by lots of people because its immorality.
In contrary to Eduardo, Joe Davis shows people the harmonic state
between art and biology. According to Chris Kelty, who classifies artists in
the biotechnology realm into Outlaws, Hackers and Victorian Gentlemen, Eduardo
sounds more like a Hacker as “the pleasure of hacking comes from impressing
others by understanding a system well enough to control it and to make it do
something it wasn’t meant to do, not just de-mystify it”. By contrast, Joe
Davis is more similar to a Victorian Gentleman, whose “innovation is the
innovation of Big Bio in miniature, but projected on a big screen and tuned to
different purposes, critical purposes and renewals of energy and focus”. Joe’s
artwork “Microvenuns” is basically genes of bacteria that carry the information
of a graph. It takes the blank spaces in DNAs, which causes no moral problems.
Also, the highly reproduced graph has a profound meaning about life.
The most reproduced picture, which has a profound meaning about life.
Kac, Eduardo. “Follow the Green Rabbit”. GFP Bunny, 2000. <http://www.genetology.net/index.php/117/beeldende-kunst/>
Mehlin, Hans. “The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008”. Nobelprize.org.
12-10-2008. <http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2008/shimomura-photo.html>
Kelty, Chris. “Meaning of Participation: Outlaw Biology?”.
NocKairu. “No more experiments.” fanpop. 2012. < http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/against-animal-testing/images/29038373/title/no-more-experiments-photo>
Davis, Joe. Ars Electronica Festival 2000. <http://www.thegatesofparadise.com/joe_davis.htm>
Hi! I really like your comparison of Kac to a Hacker and Davis to a Victorian Gentleman. You connected the materials that we talked about in lecture well with our readings. When I read the reading, I did not think about relating it to Kac or Davis at all, but in fact, just like how you explained in your post, Kac and Davis fit into those categories very well. Your post offered me a new insight into the reading! Great post!
ReplyDeleteShuoyan,
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up how the same procedures can produce completely different reactions. I think the most important aspect of bioart is intent. A lot of the pieces I read about, such as the transgenic bunny you mentioned, had the explicit intent of stimulating dialogue about social issues. That's why bioart and biotechnology go hand in hand. As technology evolves, new ethical issues are presented and these artists do a great job of sparking the debate.