Week 6: Biotechnology + Art
Week 6's topic focuses on how the relationship between biotechnology and art is to create unique genetic and biological materials unlike any other. The most prominent Bioart is the method of manipulating and altering genetics (Vesna 0:40-1:36). The last couple of blogs I discussed not liking AI, but now I prefer those robots over this week's discussions. Bioart, in my opinion, is how people try to become gods, create their species, and move to the next step in developing human AIs.
Bioart moves to create better interventions to improve the health of species and make them superior. But like some of my research states, "Regardless of their potential for health benefits and quality of life, genetic technologies have consequences" (Yetisen 724). The move to improve and play with genetics brings eugenics to mind quickly. In today's world, many would believe eugenics was a thing of the past, but bioart makes it once again a point of concern. The worst part is that some bioartists openly discuss eugenics. One resource states, "We already practice positive Eugenics on all of the major commodity plants and animals. We breed our meat for tenderness, why shouldn't we breed ourselves for intelligence or good looks" (Zaretsky Aesthetics, Muntation, Ethnics, and Heredity). It becomes a terrifying world when people think they can sell eugenics as a positive development.
Another point of concern from the topic of bioart is the development of combining humans with robots. The bioart method is discussed as "Cyborgs… also challenge conventional classifications through the merger of nature and ingenuity "(Levy 3). It seemed as if the creation of human robots was only for the movies, but bioartists are making developments that will soon become a reality. Recently they have been moved to creating biological materials like "[T]he first self-replicating species that we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer… first species to have its own website encoded in its genetic code"(Venter 0:33-0:47). But Bioart has not only began the process of making human robots from scratch but to start making people of today to this new species of cyborgs. For example, an article states, "[H]e had neural interfaces implanted that allowed him to control a robotic arm on another continent and communicate, nervous system to nervous system"(Bennett).
Overall, the relationship between biotechnology and art brings to question how doomed our future is and whether this is still considered art.
References
Bennett, Hayley. "Rise of the Cyborgs: Inside the Technology Transcending Humanity's Biological Limits." Science Focus, 1 July 2021, https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/cyborgs-transhumans.
Levy, Ellen K. "Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications." 2011.
Venter, Craig. "Watch Me Unveil 'Synthetic Life'." TED in the Field, May 2010, https://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_watch_me_unveil_synthetic_life?language=en.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 bioart pt 1" Youtube, UCLA: DESMA 9, Accessed May 9, 2024.
Yetisen, Ali K., et al. "Review: Bioart." Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 33, no. 12, 2015, pp. 724-734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.09.011.
Zaretsky, Adam. "Aesthetics, Muntation, Ethnics, and Heredity." Emutagen, 1999, http://emutagen.com/germline.html.
Hi Isabel! I enjoyed reading your blog post for this week as I though it provoked a lot of questions regarding biotechnology and art. I had a question regarding the last few thoughts on your blog that states, "overall the relationship between biotechnology and art brings to question how doomed our future is"... Do you think there is a need for separate standards for artists creating or manipulating living organisms and semi-living systems? Would this protocol for standards create a brighter vision for the biotech and art field in the future?
ReplyDelete