drewpDESMA9
Week 6 Blog: BioTech + Art
The combination of biotech and art is interesting because biotech itself is quite a controversial subject. As professor Vesna explains, biotech deals with many issues that deal heavily with humans and nature. Whether it be combining two animals species together or analyzing the food we put in our body, biotech presents issues that are prevalent in modern society. Professor Vesna also mentions how we are in a new generation of art that has allowed artists to enter into laboratories and work directly with biologists, nanotechnologists, geneticists, and neuroscientists to understand the human body at the cellular level. Regardless of how scientists use this advanced technology, the use biotech and art together is beginning to concern the livelihood of animals, questioning if there needs to be a line drawn in regards to the nature and livelihood of wild animals.
When concerning the need for a set of specific "standards," it seems that there is no distinct right answer. Ellen Levy states that when programmers compute certain simulations, what is "natural" is artificially programmed to a particular value. This means that under this simulation, even the "natural" setting is not truly natural. In reality, what is natural is really what the programs deems to be so. Now this can easily be swayed by individual opinion and therefore is not an exact representation of what is actually natural. Perhaps there is no definitive way to artificially create life because it is, obviously, artificial. Does this mean that this whole concept of replication or mutation is should come to an end? If creating life is not "natural," then what is the point of creating something that would not necessarily be accepted by the mass majority? Now these questions can surely be answered in a numerous amount of ways, however, that does not mean that any one particular answer is the right one. The idea of being able to tamper with nature itself is something that seems quite unethical and has a high possibility of failure.
Now granted, there are several instances where biotech and art have created something breathtaking. Some of these successes are purely out of aesthetics. When looking at Eduardo Kac's fluorescent bunny, it is something astonishing to look at, but when you begin to see how it is made that is when the red flags begin to arise. With the use of biotech, Kac was able to combine rabbit DNA with a bioluminescent jellyfish to create Alba, the GFP bunny. The main issue is that quite simply this is something that would never occur naturally. In no instance would the DNA of a bunny and a jellyfish combine to create this glow in the dark bunny. Here is where the question arises as to where the line should be drawn. Nonetheless, the positive side is that Kac was able to nurture this genetically created bunny in a way that was truly natural. By being able to treat Alba like any other rabbit proved that maybe these types of animals are the future. If they are able to act the same way a regular bunny does, then maybe it is not entirely wrong. The ability of Kac to pay careful attention to the progressive growth of Alba is something that does seem quite natural and genuine. This just proves how controversial biotech itself really is. Personally I think using biotech as an art is unethical because it influences artists to tamper with nature is an abnormal way, however, if scientists are able to create something that can properly function under normal conditions then I am willing to accept the use of biotech as a form of art.
The combination of biotech and art is interesting because biotech itself is quite a controversial subject. As professor Vesna explains, biotech deals with many issues that deal heavily with humans and nature. Whether it be combining two animals species together or analyzing the food we put in our body, biotech presents issues that are prevalent in modern society. Professor Vesna also mentions how we are in a new generation of art that has allowed artists to enter into laboratories and work directly with biologists, nanotechnologists, geneticists, and neuroscientists to understand the human body at the cellular level. Regardless of how scientists use this advanced technology, the use biotech and art together is beginning to concern the livelihood of animals, questioning if there needs to be a line drawn in regards to the nature and livelihood of wild animals.
James Watson
When concerning the need for a set of specific "standards," it seems that there is no distinct right answer. Ellen Levy states that when programmers compute certain simulations, what is "natural" is artificially programmed to a particular value. This means that under this simulation, even the "natural" setting is not truly natural. In reality, what is natural is really what the programs deems to be so. Now this can easily be swayed by individual opinion and therefore is not an exact representation of what is actually natural. Perhaps there is no definitive way to artificially create life because it is, obviously, artificial. Does this mean that this whole concept of replication or mutation is should come to an end? If creating life is not "natural," then what is the point of creating something that would not necessarily be accepted by the mass majority? Now these questions can surely be answered in a numerous amount of ways, however, that does not mean that any one particular answer is the right one. The idea of being able to tamper with nature itself is something that seems quite unethical and has a high possibility of failure.
Eduardo Kac
Now granted, there are several instances where biotech and art have created something breathtaking. Some of these successes are purely out of aesthetics. When looking at Eduardo Kac's fluorescent bunny, it is something astonishing to look at, but when you begin to see how it is made that is when the red flags begin to arise. With the use of biotech, Kac was able to combine rabbit DNA with a bioluminescent jellyfish to create Alba, the GFP bunny. The main issue is that quite simply this is something that would never occur naturally. In no instance would the DNA of a bunny and a jellyfish combine to create this glow in the dark bunny. Here is where the question arises as to where the line should be drawn. Nonetheless, the positive side is that Kac was able to nurture this genetically created bunny in a way that was truly natural. By being able to treat Alba like any other rabbit proved that maybe these types of animals are the future. If they are able to act the same way a regular bunny does, then maybe it is not entirely wrong. The ability of Kac to pay careful attention to the progressive growth of Alba is something that does seem quite natural and genuine. This just proves how controversial biotech itself really is. Personally I think using biotech as an art is unethical because it influences artists to tamper with nature is an abnormal way, however, if scientists are able to create something that can properly function under normal conditions then I am willing to accept the use of biotech as a form of art.
Alba- GFP Bunny
Works Cited
Kac, Eduardo. "GFP Bunny." Kac Web. N.d. Web.
http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor
Kelty, Chris. "Meanings of Participation: Outlaw Biology?' Victorian Gentlemen. N.d. Pdf.
Levy, Ellen. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." N.p. N.d. Pdf.
Uconlineprogram. "5 bioart pt1." YouTube. Web. 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg
University of California Television. "Animal Biotechnology." YouTube. Web. 2008.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIvAuwaf-o
Drew I loved your blog. You expound on what Professor Vesna has to say and make it more clear and add ideas to her thoughts. You also pose many great questions that makes you think deeply about what we are learning and not just reading the fine print. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteDrew this is a great blog. I love the points that you point out, and how engaged you where in this weeks lecture. Keep working hard.
ReplyDelete