 |
| Stelarc with the third ear he implanted into his forearm <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150812130237-stelarc-large-169.jpg>
As a biology major who has been involved in research since my sophomore year, I found this week's lecture to be a bit frustrating.Though I understand why artists want to use advances in biotechnology to further artistic expression, I personally believe that some of the artists that were covered in lecture wasted resources and money on useless projects. The artist Joe Davis is an example of this. Though I can appreciate his desire to push the boundaries of what is considered art and the philosophical discussions that arise due to his ideas, I find, for example, his pursuit to codify a poem and input it into the genome of a frog, as wasteful and unnecessary. These technologies are not cheap to use, and seeing someone use them to create a work of art that nobody can physically see is nonsensical to me.
|
 |
| Stelarc with a robotic third arm <http://people.ucsc.edu/~joahanse/onlineexhibit/thirdhand/stelarc.jpeg> |
 |
| Davis codified this symbol, of the human genitalia, put it into E.coli, and sent them into space as a 'message' for extra-terrestrials
I felt the same way with respect to Stelarc's "3rd ear" that he implanted beneath the skin on his forearm. He believes that "art is interesting when it becomes surprising," and with this mindset, it makes sense as to why he believes that implanting an ear onto his forearm is "art." But from my perspective, there is a line to be drawn between what art is and what it is not. If implanting an ear onto your forearm is art, then where is the line drawn? Perhaps hooking yourself up to an IV from your forehead veins is also art?
Though I understand that this is an extremely complex discussion on 'what is art,' I believe it is important for artists and scientists to work together to create certain ethical boundaries. This incredible technology does not come cheap, and it is aggravating for me to see it be used in this way. There are people across the world who do not have access to the most basic medicine, and here in the United States we have artists being commissioned to implant unnecessary ears onto their arms. References: Vesna, Victoria. "Biotech and Art." UCLA. Los Angeles, CA. 20 April 2016. Web.
Nadis, Steve. "Creating Art from Microbes and Molecules." Discover Magazine. 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 07 May 2016.
"Artist Implants 'third Ear' on His Own Arm." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 11 Oct. 2007. Web. 07 May 2016.
House, Patrick. "Object of Interest: The Twice-Forbidden Fruit." The New Yorker. 13 June 2014. Web. 07 May 2016.
"Joe Davis (artist)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 07 May 2016.
|
As someone in my third year as a Design/Media Arts major, I find your point of view on this issue to be interesting but mildly problematic. I think it is completely fair to be critical of work (and it should be encouraged, in fact), but I think it is unfair to discount all of these artist's work as a "waste of resources." If in creating their work, these artists had the goal of opening a dialogue about science, technology, ethics, morality, art, life, nature, and so on, I would consider these pieces to be successful. Also, I think it is important to note that, in all likelihood, the funding for these art works is not coming from the same source as cancer research or other biological/medical research, so ORLAN, Stelarc, Kac, High, and other biotech artists aren't preventing medical advancements by creating their work but rather, bringing the conversation about the above topics from a purely scientific perspective into the frame of the humanities, social justice, culture, and so on.
ReplyDeleteHi Ava,
ReplyDeleteI also found the lectures this week frustrating but in a different way from you. I agree that some of the projects were useless but I feel like the bigger problem is the ethics behind it. The use of animals to create is not okay even if is considered art. I think the better solution would be to use plants like Greg Gressert did with his manipulation of irises. I also agree with your point that creating this type of art is not cheap at all. I think these artists could be spending their money somewhere else rather than using animals to create unique art. I mentioned in my blog that I feel as if artists are using biotechnological projects as seen in lecture to further their careers but they are harming animals and people in the process of it.
I'd like to believe that the dialog that their art experiments opens up is a justified use of these resources - even if it isn't benefitting anyone directly. Which also brings up another point, that is very much relevant to this week's discussion as well - if it doesn't bring any useful benefit to humans, then should it not be done?
ReplyDeleteLab rats are continued to be experimented upon because of their biological similarity to humans in the evolutionary chain - yet they aren't covered by the Animal Welfare Act. But it's okay because by experimenting with them, we may one day be able to come up with a cure for cancer? Whereas artists should take a step back and rethink their approach because it's a waste of resources i.e. it's not really benefitting anyone? I think it's points like these that their art work specifically raises, showing the irony in the way we think about these matters.
Thanks for the comment! I think the biggest thing for me is, where are these discussions that have supposedly sprung up as a result of the aforementioned art? I think because I haven't heard these discussions that are a direct result of the artworks we learned about, it is difficult to me to not dismiss them as unnecessary. I feel like most people's reactions to seeing such things is 'woah, that's weird!' and the general public is more inclined to talk about how weird it is for a human to have a third ear on their arm, for example, than to discuss the implications of such a piece. Hope that cleared up my opinion a bit :)
DeleteI really enjoyed learning more about your perspective in how biotechnology is used in art. As a biology major myself, I found some of these artworks, such as the third ear, were very unique and possibly unnecessary. Do you see this trend occurring in the future? What kinds of art do you think will result as the biotech field is growing?
ReplyDelete