Week 6 - Biotech & Art
This week, Professor Vesna went over the idea of biotechnology in art, and how the two seemingly polarized subjects can be unified into one form of aesthetic. Being a STEM major, I initially found it difficult to understand how genetic alteration can be used as a form of artistic expression. What made it a lot easier to swallow, however, was the work of Edward Steichen.
Edward Steichen was a prominent photographer who bred hybridized flowers (first flower exhibition in a museum was in his name). Although this is such a sharp contrast from animal and human modification, I believe it still provides insight on the motive/incentive for it.
One reason to modify organisms is to make them align with aesthetic ideals. This is shown by Steichen and Gessert, who modified plants while throwing away the hybrids that were not aesthetically appealing.
I find that this can be used as justification for human/animal modification when it is used to "correct" unnatural characteristics. For example, I find it reasonable that if someone was missing an ear due to an accident, they can get an ear attached for aesthetic purposes.
I also understand the usage of such methods for health research purposes. One example is the oncomouse. The oncomouse is a mouse that was injected with the oncogenes to make them more susceptible to cancer, which was done in order to have opportunities to research cancer. Although it is cruel for the mice, it is a small sacrifice for such a big prospect as curing cancer.
However, when ears are attached to arms (ex. Stelarc's artistic endeavor), it totally changes the idea. When bodies are modified to be unnatural and unorthodox, it becomes taboo, and it creates a significant shock factor. Although it is in Stelarc's rights to perform such a task, I believe that artists should have more restrictions than scientists on biotechnology.
While scientists have the ethical and logical appeals of educational background and advancements for human health, artists do not really have much to justify the use of living organisms in surgical experimentation. Additionally, if an artist was to have a reasonable experiment proposal, it is not necessary for him to perform it himself.
This week's lecture makes me believe that artists have taken advantage of the biotechnological field, without accounting for the ethical implications, so much so that I find it irresponsible and even harmful.
Sources
"Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse." WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
"Edward Steichen." International Center of Photography. N.p., 08 Apr. 2017. Web. 14 May 2017.
"MoMA | Edward Steichen Archive: Delphiniums Blue (and White and Pink, Too)." InsideOut. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
McCafferty, Georgia. "The man with an ear on his arm." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 May 2017.
"Patent Law In Biotechnology And Bioethics." Law Teacher. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
Edward Steichen was a prominent photographer who bred hybridized flowers (first flower exhibition in a museum was in his name). Although this is such a sharp contrast from animal and human modification, I believe it still provides insight on the motive/incentive for it.
One reason to modify organisms is to make them align with aesthetic ideals. This is shown by Steichen and Gessert, who modified plants while throwing away the hybrids that were not aesthetically appealing.
I find that this can be used as justification for human/animal modification when it is used to "correct" unnatural characteristics. For example, I find it reasonable that if someone was missing an ear due to an accident, they can get an ear attached for aesthetic purposes.
I also understand the usage of such methods for health research purposes. One example is the oncomouse. The oncomouse is a mouse that was injected with the oncogenes to make them more susceptible to cancer, which was done in order to have opportunities to research cancer. Although it is cruel for the mice, it is a small sacrifice for such a big prospect as curing cancer.
However, when ears are attached to arms (ex. Stelarc's artistic endeavor), it totally changes the idea. When bodies are modified to be unnatural and unorthodox, it becomes taboo, and it creates a significant shock factor. Although it is in Stelarc's rights to perform such a task, I believe that artists should have more restrictions than scientists on biotechnology.
While scientists have the ethical and logical appeals of educational background and advancements for human health, artists do not really have much to justify the use of living organisms in surgical experimentation. Additionally, if an artist was to have a reasonable experiment proposal, it is not necessary for him to perform it himself.
This week's lecture makes me believe that artists have taken advantage of the biotechnological field, without accounting for the ethical implications, so much so that I find it irresponsible and even harmful.
Sources
"Bioethics and Patent Law: The Case of the Oncomouse." WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
"Edward Steichen." International Center of Photography. N.p., 08 Apr. 2017. Web. 14 May 2017.
"MoMA | Edward Steichen Archive: Delphiniums Blue (and White and Pink, Too)." InsideOut. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
McCafferty, Georgia. "The man with an ear on his arm." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 May 2017.
"Patent Law In Biotechnology And Bioethics." Law Teacher. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2017.
Comments
Post a Comment