I found it interesting that Professor Vesna mentioned body
modification in this week’s lecture, as I wrote a bit about it in last week’s
blog post for MedTech + Art. What is fascinating about the topic in light of
this week’s line of thinking is that idea of going even farther than just sub-dermal
implants, piercings, and tattoos, into playing with genetics. So far, most
biotechnological art has dealt with bacteria, plants, or animals, but I would
not be surprised to find it moving into human genetics in the future, once
legal obstacles have been surmounted. In answer to one of the questions posed
by Ruth West, no, I do not think there are limits to human creativity, although
I do believe that there should be limits to what is actually carried out, based
on ethical and moral standards.
 |
| Figure 1. Painting made with bacteria. |
This week seems to be a good week to connect to another
class I am currently taking, MCDB 50, which deals with the ethics and politics
of human stem cell research. In the context of this topic, I will give my
answer to another one of Ruth West’s questions: that of whether the
restrictions for scientists and artists should be the same or different. I
think that human embryonic stem cell research should be used solely for
scientific research purposes, to develop treatments that can save people’s
lives. I do not think it would be morally justifiable for artists to use these
stem cells (which, it should be noted, require the destruction of human embryos
to derive) for non-therapeutic purposes. In other words, there is a need for
separate standards in some cases.
 |
| Figure 2. A prototype of bioreactor-grown tissue in the form of a jacket. |
That said, I do believe that there is a value to the use of
biotechnology for art, as I believe that in working together, bio-technologists
and artists can build of the knowledge of each other and in doing so, advance
both the field, and other aspects of society, at a much faster rate. Unlike
scientists, artists are not limited by “some greater medical or biological
necessity” (Miranda).
 |
| Figure 3. Bioart project that uses DNA to 3D print faces. |
Works Cited:
"Bio Art & Design Awards." Bio Art Design
Awards. Web. 11 May 2015.
"From the Laboratory to the Studio: Interdisciplinary
Practices in Bio Art." School of Visual Arts | SVA | New York City. Web.
11 May 2015. .
Ghose, Tia. "Bio-Art: 3D-Printed Faces Reconstructed
from Stray DNA." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 May
2015.
Miranda, Carolina. "Weird Science: Biotechnology as Art
Form." ARTnews. 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 May 2015.
Solon, Olivia. "Bioart: The Ethics and Aesthetics of
Using Living Tissue as a Medium." Wired.com.
Conde Nast Digital, 28 July
2011. Web. 11 May 2015.
I love that you connected this week's topic to your other class. I am part of the science community also and I agree with you that artists should be limited in what they can actual carry out. Artists are incredibly creative and should work together with scientists to advance medicine and scientific research. I do not believe that artists should be allowed to use any living species in a project unless it furthers scientific research or answers a posing question. I believe the GFP bunny and the third ear were fascinating but a waste a time and money. We should not be harming animals or implanting extra tissue in a human just for "fun". The third ear was made from tissue that could have been used in a skin graft for a victim of a tragic accident.
ReplyDelete