Hello Everyone! I'm posting to prod some initial discussion and also to share a couple of links.
After our first class, I must admit that I was initially caught up in the mechanics or the what-is-possible-as-an-artist-ness aspect of our introduction to bio-art. On a personal note, the last time I took any sort of biology class was my first semester of college. I had always enjoyed biology and thoroughly enjoyed the labs/experiments that went along with it. When push came to shove, and I realized I couldn't be a dedicated student of every field, the humanities nudged out any room for meaningful exploration of the sciences. From there, I became an armchair student of science, looking at the sciences through an art/humanities lens. This class presents itself as a bridge between two fields.
After completing the readings for Wednesday's class and doing some research on both bio-art and related topics of interest, I've been thinking less about experiments in the lab and more about approaches (on the conceptual level) to biological and neurological topics that interest me. While I still harbor an interest in conducting hands-on experimentation, the issue of ethics in bio-arts practice has made me look ahead a bit more cautiously. The Stracey article points out that Victimless Leather's existence is partially due to the sacrifice of fetal cows and that the florescent molecules in GFP Bunny may actually be toxic. Ultimately, Stracey states that bio-art is "least successful...when science is reduced to mere aesthetic spectacle," and most successful when it "can show that life is more than brute matter and more than the sum of cells, proteins or genes..." I'm not sure I have the best words for my thoughts at the moment, but these seem like good thoughts to govern how I - personally - will move forward as an artist in relation to the sciences. As we move forward, I wonder if anyone in the class already has rules set-up to govern what he/she will/won't do in bio-artistic practice. Let's say the sky is the scientific limit and you, as an artist, can clone or genetically modify an animal or life form... would you do it? Would you set up restrictions for yourself? When would/wouldn't it be OK to clone, modify, etc.? Any thoughts?
Moving on... I should note that the photo I've included in this post is of a schizophrenic mouse (supposedly). As an artist, some of my interests include mental illness and, more recently, autism. I found several articles online about scientists at Duke, MIT, and the NIH who've created transgenic mice that mimic behaviors of humans diagnosed with schizophrenia and autism. The humanities/arts side of me kicks in with a number of questions -- questions I may explore this semester...
Next.... I wanted to post a couple of links. A site that I enjoy is io9.com . It's a hodgepodge of science and pseudo-science and science fiction that can get the creative brain churning. Specifically, I found a fun article on the site yesterday about nanobots taking over the world: http://io9.com/5836916/when-the-world-ends-will-you-be-covered-in-grey-goo
Also - in terms of food - a number of articles appeared earlier this year about a food printer. So...here it is...food for thought (bad pun, I know) : http://www.physorg.com/news199080001.html
Howdy!
ReplyDeleteFirst, to answer your question: I wouldn't clone anything at all, nor would I genetically modify anything that isn't rooted into the ground. I do think it's "okay" to play around a little bit with plants, mostly because they already seem to do a bit of this on their own.
I don't think cloning is acceptable, period. Yet, at the same time, I suppose I do accept it; I must, because I don't seem to be losing sleep over it... I am losing sleep, but there are a lot of other reasons for that!
That photo of the schizophrenic mouse is haunting. Poor thing...
One thing I want to point out, though, since it's tangentially relevant, is the topic raised by your parenthetical tag about the mouse - it is *supposedly* schizophrenic... but, how do we know for sure? I mean, I'm looking at it, and it certainly appears like a mouse that has gone crazy, but perhaps it only appears that way because I'm anthropomorphizing it; I'm looking for and/or ascribing perceived human characteristics to this beautiful, frightened-looking creature.
It reminds me of the study I heard about once which claimed that tomatoes feel "pain" when pulled from the vine [I think I mentioned this in class]. It makes me laugh a little bit -- how in the world do we get away with thinking we know what kind of experiences a tomato has?! We have a hard enough time understanding each others' feelings, let alone those of another life form!
I've been reading and experiencing a lot lately, so I'm having trouble tracking my sources, but I also remember hearing or reading about a bird(?) species that communicates history through complicated choreography. That could have just been a dream, though. Or it may have been from the class readings. I really have no clue, but the point still stands that we have very little understanding of how other creatures communicate.
Ah, it might have been the Michael Pollan TED Talk we watched during the first class..? Maybe not. Either way, he talked about the same thing - talking "from the species' point of view."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_gives_a_plant_s_eye_view.html
ha, okay, last comment:
ReplyDeleteI read the 3D food printer article, which is... well, frightening! Chalk me up as a Luddite, but every day I seem to be getting less and less interested in technology, especially technology that directly deals with what we put into our bodies. What do you (collective "you") all think?
Good timing, though. I recently made a verbal slip that I was trying to print potatoes (although, again, I can't remember the context at all).
I thought the comments were funny, though. Some favorites:
- "...or even a 3-D pizza that looks exactly like your own face. Gives a whole new meaning to "Eat me"."
- "i want two chocolate infused extrusion burgers with frozen jelly nuggets of habaneros"
- "Can't wait for the over priced proprietary food cartridges..."
The voice of a sane mind:
- "Just another one of those things that can be done but probably shouldn't."
And the most frightening comments:
- "Completely robotic fast-food chains"
- "Imagine an ice cream shop at the mall with no employees. Someone just changes out the cartridges once or twice a week and people could pay with a bank card. The article says that it can manage its own inventory and re-order supplies. That sounds awesome!!"
...Ah, yes, how wonderful! Just another way for us to not have to deal with other people! After all, it's not like we're social beings or anything!
- "As a diabetic I would love to be able to just program a machine for the proper carb/protein/calorie ratio for my meals. It would be great. The time consuming, mind numbing juggling of numbers related to our diets would be a thing of the past, allowing us to live fuller, healthier, less stressful lives. Thank you MIT guys."
Although I am sympathetic about this individual's diabetic issues, I have to ask... what exactly is a "fuller life"? Sounds a lot like an empty abstract concept to me..! I don't think the product is expected to take care of your diet for you; it's just there to implement your calculations. Even if it did plan out your diet for you, we all know that printer failures are the most frustratingly common technological malfunctions, as exemplified by that unforgettable line in Office Space: "PC Load Letter?? What the f*** does that mean?!"
Anyway... I'm clearly in word-vomit mode tonight..
I am interested in picking up on Julie's thread about how large a roll ethics may play in bio art. Where one sets the line to not cross - is individual. And line crossing is an intrinsic part of being an artist in my book. This made me think about this country’s unfortunate history with racism and how it has manifested in this country (past and present.) Historically one drop of blood could designate someone's race. If one organism's DNA is mixed with another what happens? Has a new organism been created? Is it a hybrid? Is it a “tomato-fish” (thinking about tomatoes which have fish genes added to them,) or is it a fish-tomato? Is it a “Fomato”? Maybe the semantics don’t really matter but what if one organism is preferred over the other or the other is reviled? What if you hate fish? Could this prevent you from ever eating a tomato again? Could a segment of the public learn to hate others who happen to eat these new kind of tomatoes with a fish gene because as a group they hate fish? This makes me wonder if the metaphor of racism could be used or exploited in someway for one's work.
ReplyDelete(please note this thought occurred to me before the latest readings - next time I will be more prompt in posting!)