Das Week 6: Bio-Tech and Art

FERNÁNDEZ, CLARA RODRÍGUEZ. “BioArt.” LABIOTECH.eu, 26 Aug. 2019, www.labiotech.eu/best-biotech/bioart-exhibitions/.

            This week’s discussions on the realm of biotech and art were intense and intriguing, inciting a lot of unanswered questions on my end. The question I aspire to touch on in this post is, “is there a need for separate standards for artists creating or manipulating living organisms and semi-living systems?”, and ultimately, “should there be limits to human creativity”, which are two questions prompted by Ruth West in an effort to help us analyze this topic.

“Alba the Glowing Bunny.” House Rabbit Society, rabbit.org/fun/famousrabbits.html. Accessed 5 May 2022.

Bio-art is as terrifying as it is inspiring…and questions the capability of human judgment; just because you can, does that mean you should? Take Alba, the “glowing” bunny, invented by bio-art creator Eduardo Kac, a self-declared “work of art” that proved the possibility of transforming genes into a genome, which could aid in the development and study of treatments for various diseases, and could become a very significant foundational example in that process (“GFP BUNNY”). There were many “pros” to this feat, including the fact that the bunny would not be affected in life expectancy and the additional advancement in health studies, but to what extent do we deem animal testing beneficial enough to defend the circumstances of its discovery? This situation may have made incredible strides in observing how “invisible processes” function, like the spread of cancer cells, but who decides when the profit outweighs the moral cost (Vesna)? Who draws the line?

Lewis, Lauren. “Animal Testing.” World Animal News, worldanimalnews.com/help-hawaii-ban-testing-on-animals-for-cosmetics-in-the-u-s-support-nationwide-legislation-against-the-cruel-practice/. Accessed 5 May 2022.

This conversation brings me back to the idea of testing makeup on animals, even using live animal fur for the sake of fashion, which are two other forms of “art” that I believe are worth adding to this discussion. Animal testing in the cosmetics industry has been prevalent for years to test the “safety” of products before coming into contact with the general public and the average human. While more modern methods have been developed that are far more affordable and of sound moral structure, the aftermath of the “working relationship” between animals and humans has been called into question (“Cosmetics Testing FAQ.”). On a fundamental level, many would agree that animal cruelty is, for lack of a simpler term, bad. Furthermore, studies show that the overall harm and cost of animal testing outweigh the possible benefits, hence the powerful movement to avoid cosmetics brands that continue the outdated use (Akhtar). 

This background information applies to this topic of bio-art in the same way; to what extent do the costs, both financially, physically, and morally, outweigh the possible benefits? My personal opinion is that if artists truly feel that the only way for them to express their creativity is by taking a creature that cannot speak for or defend itself, and transform and transfigure it in ways that they do NOT know the results of, they are not truly artists. Art is about the balance of breaking rules and boundaries for the greater good, whether that be in respect of the art itself, the artist, or the world, but when you choose to follow a path or supposed calling that would bring more harm than good, your judgment is called into question. The same applies to the concept of bioart - one must ask themselves the question of whether or not it is worth it, whether or not they are treating this life with gracious hands and gentle hearts, and if the sacrifice is worth it. In some cases, it may be. It may benefit cancer research and critical understandings of the inner workings of life. In other cases, it’s just a glowing rabbit. The fact is, “Biological art is legitimate as long as the artist is aware of his/her motives behind the work and taking the responsibility for the consequences of his/her actions” (The Ethical Claims of Bio-Art: Killing the Other or Self-Cannibalism?”).

SOURCES:

AKHTAR, AYSHA. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 24, no. 04, Sept. 2015, pp. 407–19, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180115000079.

 

“Cosmetics Testing FAQ.” The Humane Society of the United States, www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-testing-faq#still.

"GFP BUNNY." GFP BUNNY. N.p., n.d. Web.  5 May 2022.

"The Ethical Claims of Bio-Art: Killing the Other or Self-Cannibalism?" Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web.  5 May 2022.

Vesna, Victoria. “Biotechnology and Art: Part 1 2 & Part 3.” Lecture.. Youtube, 18 Sep. 2013. Web. 5 May 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg.