In this week’s lecture, Dr. Vesna discussed biotechnology
and art; the sensitivity around this collaboration was what stood out to me. Despite
the sensitivity, I do believe that art and biotechnology is a great and healthy
collaboration.
There was sensitivity around the ethics of art interfering
with science because genetic engineering can be perceived as a “mix of nature
and culture” (Levy 8). I actually had ‘oh!’ and ‘ew!’ and ‘wow!’ reactions
towards the images used in the lecture videos, a lot more than the previous
lectures. Before I could complain any more, there’s an artist mentioned in Dr.
Vesna’s lecture this week that has already addressed it.
“The lack of a common global aesthetic and a historical
track record of bad taste (i.e., ethnic cleansing, line dancing, liposuction,
most painting) provides me with the impetus, the eclectic fecundity to
guarantee iconoclasm in a situation which could all too easily lead to the
erasure of the same,” - Adam Zaretsky
The quote helped me develop an understanding of the purpose
behind the art form that mixes with science. The purpose is for people to feel less uncomfortable around things that are coexisting around them already
but no visually ready. Even the food we consume has biotechnology behind it!
In the researches that study biotechnology, the whole
ethics issue is frequently brought up. I personally believe that art and
biotechnology is a great collaboration because it can render good outcomes such
as delivering sustainable food options for the poor (Persley 2). Art acts as a
medium to reach out and appeal to the population who are already well
economically. So together, this collaboration is one that will benefit
everyone.
The issue of ethics is definitely a legitimate problem, but
even science in Europe that tends to take a more scientific approach, they
implement preliminary sessions to ensure there are not macroscopic societal
issues (Serratosa & Simone 96). Thus it really does seem like the
sensitivity is something more bureaucratic than anything else.
Furthering my argument for the collaboration between art and
biotechnology, I believe it is important to always work together and likewise,
the saying, “two heads are better than one”, different minds help bring
different ideas and perspective to the table which supports “creativity breed
creativity” (Kelty 5).
SOURCES:
Cabañas, Marcos. “César Marcos Cabañas.” EComercio Agrario,
Redacción ECA Http://Ecomercioagrario.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/09/logo1.Png,
2 June 2016,
ecomercioagrario.com/en/pec-events/the-role-of-agricultural-biotechnology-in-food-security/.
“CUT/PASTE/GROW: The Beautiful Abominations of Bio Art.”
ANIMAL, 26 Mar. 2013, animalnewyork.com/2013/beautiful-abominations-an-exploration-of-bio-art-at-observatory/.
De
Simone, F., and J. Serratosa. "Biotechnology, animal health and animal
welfare within the framework of European Union legislation." Revue
scientifique et technique-Office international des épizooties 24.1
(2005): 89-99.
Kelty, Chris. “meanings of participation: Outlaw Biology?” BioTech + Art. Desma 9, UCLA, 2018.
Levy,
Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional
Classifications." (2007).
Persley,
Gabrielle Josephine. Biotechnology for developing-country agriculture:
problems and opportunities. No. 2. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), 1999.
Staff, TakePart. “12 Genetically Engineered Animals That
Changed Modern Science.” TakePart, 6 Mar. 2016, www.takepart.com/photos/genetically-engineered-mosquitos-fight-zika-see-12-other-animals-modified-lab/index.html.
Vesna, Victoria. “5 BioArt pt3” BioTech + Art. Desma 9, 13 May. 2018, Los Angeles, University of
California, Los Angeles, https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL9DBF43664EAC8BC7&v=3EpD3np1S2g
Hi Galen,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how you mentioned the idea of foods being considered bioart when they are genetically modified and processed. A lot of the foods if not all of it we eat have been altered in some way shape or form. I like how you also mentioned the controversy between nature and culture.