Week Four, Part 1: BioTech + Art

Of all the art forms we’ve studied so far, for me BioArt is where the line between art and science becomes so blurred that it’s impossible to distinguish one from the other or to give this work such a boxed-in title.  

I think this question in particular is the most difficult to answer: Should the restrictions be more or less stringent for artists using medicine, biotechnology ad neuroscience than for scientists in industry/academia? If pressed, I think I would say the restrictions should not be based on the person’s title, but on the problem attempting to be solved. If the problem is at a level of obvious human benefit ie: defeating cancer cells, the restrictions should be less. If the problem is of a ‘lighter’ weight, ie: let’s see if I can implant a human ear on my arm, then yes, I do think that not everything should be allowed, particularly when it comes to the experience and pain levels of other living creatures. Therefore, I do not agree with allowing animal testing for beauty products, but I understand the necessity for it in projects that could eventually save and extend human lives and lower human suffering. Of course now we get into the existential question of what makes a life valuable, are some lives more valuable that others, etc etc. 

I think there’s the potential for a lot of BioArtwork to become narcisstic and unecessary. For example, Alba the rabbit seemed to be mostly something that Joe Davis created just to see if he could. And I think when your artwork is messing with living beings that feel pain and joy and emotion, the ethics gets very very tricky! For example, just because you’re a French trained chef who prepares a beautiful sous vide pork belly, doesn’t mean that Wednesday night dinner for your kids is the appropriate place to use that technology and knowledge. I feel similarly about Joe Davis -- just because he put in the time and research to understand the glowing jellyfish cells, doesn’t mean that creating a glowing rabbit is the appropriate place to use that technology.  I found Kathy High’s work caring for lab rats really touching and sad and beautiful and pointless and meaningful all at the same time. I found it disturbing in the most profound humanistic sense because to me it is a metaphor for the pointlessness and meaning of life and how one spends one’s time here on earth. Adding to my confusion, Kathy High’s work with ‘Rat Laughter’ (which is attempting to answer the question, Can rats communicate their level of well being through ultrasonic sounds?) is to me a valued scientific and not artistic experiment, even though she defines herself as a visual/media artist.

This class actually sparked a heated conversation between my husband and myself at our date night this week.

I brought up my difficulty in determining whether a lot of these people were primarily artists or primarily scientists. My husband’s perspective is that it depends on the viewpoint of the consumer of their products -- ie whether they experience the end result as art or science. Myself, I don’t think that someone’s self-definition should be primarily related to result, but should be connected more to personal process. For example, if I consider myself an artist and discover a cure for cancer during my creative biotech experimentation, does that then make me a scientist? If I’ve trained as a scientist and consider that my profession, and develop technology that is then hung in an art gallery, am I now therefore an artist? See, I’m stumped because I don’t think I even have an answer here! The line between the Two Cultures becomes quite blurred for me.  

On the positive, enjoyable side of this week's intellectual dilemmas, I was tickled by SymbioticA & Adam Zuretsky-- I really appreciate the humor he brings towards his experiments. In a world that often seems to be populated with people who take themselves too seriously, I value his light attitude and the joy he brings to his work. This project in particular made me giggle: "The Brainus is an anus made of biopolymers, which was then seeded with brain tissue. The Analolly is a lollypop made of biopolymers, which was then seeded with anal tissues. The primary tissues used for these sculptures were taken from a dying eel. The eel was killed for food and the primary brain and anal tissues were isolated from the waste of culinary excess. The public is invited to vote: Which would you rather lick? Brainus or Analolly and Why?"

My absolute favorite project from this week is Natalie Jeremijenko’s ‘Impatient’ health clinics in Manhattan. Again, is this eco-activism, or interactive performance activism art, or creative medicine? I LOVE all her theories and plans and dreams for how to deal with the environmental issues in Manhattan. “Reimagining our relationship to natural systems” reminded me of the work of FoLAR in reestablishing a natural environment around the LA River. “Displacement is not the way to deal w environmental issues” reminds me of this RadioLab story where they were shipping NYC waste out to somewhere in the midwest but it was actually, in this case, beneficial for both places. I wonder what Natalie's viewpoint would be on this solution. I love what a problem solver she seems to be, particularly her solution for putting living gardens right in the street in front of fire hydrants in Manhattan. Absolutely brilliant, and now I can't see a hydrant in LA without thinking we should have some sort of small succulent garden living there. Or course, we're a different climate, so it's a slightly different issue, but I love all these environmental solution thoughts I'm having since hearing about her work! 

Resources:

Adam Zaretsky: Dangerous Liaisons, Part 1
TED Talk: Natalie Jeremijenko

Lecture 1: BioTechnology + Art
Lecture II: Biotechnology + Art 

Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classification | Ellen K Levy
RadioLab: Poop Train