WEEK 4: BIOTECH + ART

Joe Davis, a pioneer of biological art forms, was a scientist who really interested me this week. I have always been uncomfortable with manipulation of life as an expression of art, but I found Davis's projects strange yet innovative. Using genes as his "palette," Davis created all sorts of crazy things. In his project, "Microvenus," Davis embedded into bacteria an icon representing external female genitalia which also represented the female Earth. His goal was to send the human genome into space through bacteria as a protest again censorship of radio messages sent through space. I've learned about using bacteria duplication for medical purposes but never for expression of art. 

Davis had many other cool projects, like putting a map of the Milky Way into the ear of a transgenic mouse. Though projects like this seem small, it actually requires true scientific genius, for he has to take the map of the Milky Way and transform it into 100 base pair chunks. I really enjoyed Davis's achievements because he did not do anything drastic to the human body, but instead used small cells and his knowledge of of genetics to produce art in a way the world has never seen.

As enjoyable as Davis's work was, there should be a limit to how much science should be allowed to manipulate life as a form of art. Kathy High specializes in transgenic (gene transfer) rats and injected the rats with human DNA to make them prone to disease and tried to see if she can make them healthy as an experiment. High is said to bring empathy to art, and her work acceptable because she truly cares about her work and wants to prove that rats are not the dirty rodents they are thought to be. 

There were others, like Eduardo Kac, who created a fluorescent bunny ("Alba") by injecting GFP (the "glowing gene") into its DNA and called it art. Except for medical purposes, playing with a bunny's DNA is not necessary or morally right, especially since GFP was already used before by other scientists. There was also Marta de Menezes, who modified wing patterns on live butterflies, creating "art in nature." However, the butterflies ended up having holes in their wings, which I think is unecessary damage. Overall, biological art can be innovative and eye-opening, but it can also be damaging to life, and should have constraints.

Sources:

5 BioArt Pt2. Dir. Victoria Vesna. YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 18 July 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSt-Hjyi2I&list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7>.

5 BioArt Pt3. Dir. Victoria Vesna. YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 18 July 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSt-Hjyi2I&list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7>.

High, Kathy. "The Politics of Empathy." Embracing Animal. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/iEAR Studios, n.d. Web. 18 July 2014. <http://www.embracinganimal.com/ratlove.html>.

Kac, Eduardo. "KAC." GFP BUNNY. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html#gfpbunnyanchor>.

"Nature?" Marta De Menezes. Moshi Moshi, n.d. Web. 18 July 2014. <http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/>.