Sunday, November 10, 2013

Week 6: Biotech and Art

This week we discussed the idea of incorporating biotechnology into art. A big component of this lecture is the ethical issues and moral issues which surround this new emerging field. This was the component which piqued my curiosity the most.


The picture above embodies the issues I see with Bio-art. Everyone knows the story of Dr. Frankenstein and his “monster”. The idea I want to take from this novel is the desire to create something and the eventual horror in what he has done (Shmoop). I believe the fear and horror with Bioart is two parts (Monstrous). Firstly, when has science gone too far (religious issues and non-religious issues)? Secondly, and also related, when does Bioart cease becoming art?  These two issues can be summed up by one general question: What is the definition of art?


Like all new mediums when they are first introduced, fear of its potential are always raised and society is hesitant. This can be seen from recent examples like television (Enli et al). The problem that today’s society is having with Bioart is defining what is acceptable and people’s fear of something new. 

From my reading, I believe most scientists are relatively ok with the coming of bioart. After reading the paper by Zurr and others on the ethical claims of bioart, it seems to me that a good portion of those who understand the science are ok with the direction Bioart is coming (Zurr et al). However, it still forces many religious and philosophical issues that many are not comfortable facing (McDonell). 


Time solves all problems. In my opinion, art’s definition will constantly be changing. Art is a representation of all the political, social, and economic issues of the time period. In addition, it is a response to the social norms, just slightly ahead of the general accepted definition. Whatever society dictates art is, art will evolve into something else. Right now, we are seeing a change in what will be considered art. Works such as Body Worlds, and other examples of Bioart, are emerging. Soon enough, I believe society will learn to accept this new art.

Sources
"Frankenstein Summary." Shmoop. Shmoop, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. 

"Frankenstein Influence on Art and Society." Monstrous.com. Monstrous.com, 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. 

Enli, Gunn, et al. "FROM FEAR OF TELEVISION TO FEAR FOR TELEVISION: Five political debates about new technologies." Media History ahead-of-print (2013): 1-15.

Zurr, Ionat, and Oron Catts. "The ethical claims of bio-art: Killing the other or self-cannibalism?." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 5.1 (2003): 167-188.

McDonell, Rodney. "BioArt - An Evolution In Art." SaCrIt: Highlighting the Beauty from the Intersection of Science Art. Rodney McDonell, 7 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Anthony,

    I like your conclusion, the way you say that time solves all problems. "Art's definition will constantly be changing". I agree, while many people may think art is just painting on canvas, art is far beyond that. Bioart and the modifications of the human body is the 21st century definition of art, and I'm sure new, controversial art will be developed in the future.

    ReplyDelete