This week’s topic is Biotechnology with art. Before watching
the lecture video clips, I do not have a very clear understanding of the link
between the two terms. The materials really broaden my perspectives and help me
better understanding the relationship between such unlike ideas.
In part III of the
lecture, professor Vesna discusses about Marta de Menezes’ artwork of modifying
the genes of butterflies. I believe that
Marta’s initiative about this art piece is very nice, but this gets very
controversial when people get to see the holes on the wings of the butterflies.
I feel that Marta should take the courage to admit the horrible part of this
artwork. I believe that the public will accept his apology if he is willing to
say a few words as there are definitely uncertainties on modifying the genes of
butterflies. I agree with Marta that this is a mix of art and life, but she
should show more respect to the butterflies and the people who care about
butterflies.
http://martademenezes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/BYCAUT27-copy-400x225.jpg
the butterfly with holes on its wings
At the end of part IV of the lecture, professor Vesna talks
about Stelarc’s third ear. I feel that it looks horrible to me, but it is
truly a very creative art piece which can bring people many fresh thoughts
about what biotechnology can do for us. Human needs to admit and accept the
limitations of human body, and biotechnology is definitely something which can
improve the human conditions in the future.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/05/stelarc-ear.jpg
the picture of "third ear"
Another part of the lecture piquing my interest is the genetic
Folk Art by George Gessert. In contrast with Marta de Menezes, George focuses
on genetic modifications for aesthetics on plantations, especially flowers. George’s work seems less horror to me even
though the unethical part of changing the way of the flowers growing still
exists.
http://www.viewingspace.com/genetics_culture/images_genetics_culture/gc_wk_02_gessert/gessert.jpg
George Gessert's art piece: Hybrid 487
All in all, I believe that the artists should pay more
attention to the ethical part of the artwork. I am not saying that the artists
should set self-restrictions and avoid any controversial ideas, I just feel
that they should think about if their art pieces will lead to any discussions
on other issues which drive the public’s attention away from the real art.
Work sited:
"Nature?" Marta De Menezes. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/>.
"Leda." Marta De Menezes. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://martademenezes.com/portfolio/leda/>.
"For Extreme Artist Stelarc, Body Mods Hint at Humans’ Possible Future." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 30 Apr. 0012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/stelarc-performance-art/>.
"Artist Gets an Extra Ear Implanted into His Arm." The Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/14/performance-artist-ear-impant>.
"Green Light." The MIT Press. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/green-light>.
You post touched on various artists and I believe this shows how interested in the topic u were. I also find Stelarc’s third ear quite ugly and I don’t think I can imagine myself with an ear on my arm. I agree with you that bio art raises a lot of moral debates but I think when used on plants to enhance their aesthetic value, it changes the whole topic on morality.
ReplyDelete