Week Six | BioTech + Art
After I watched all the videos of this week, one question rose: What is the meaning for artists to merge biotech and art, bearing so many controversy? At first, I cannot really understand them, since I am actually quite conservative regarding this topic. I am a person who supports science and traditional arts like sketching, painting and sculpture, and I never thought about that things like implanting a third ear in one's arm can be a form of art. This really raises some important questions: What is art? What is the line dividing art and other things, such as terrorism mentioned in the video? What is art for?
Levy's article Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications comprehensively answered my questions. "Art in its broadest sense has been one way to acclimatize the public to new scientific discoveries and new technologies." For example, one artist that I mentioned in my previous post, saying that I could not really understand in the beginning, to a large extent revealed this point. Orlan, who is famous for her several plastic surgery projects, created a biotechnological coat that was formed by her own skin cells, the skin cells of a fetus of African origin, and the muscle cells of a marsupial. This sounds terrifying to me at first, because I cannot think of a reason for one to make a coat out of human skin cells and put it on. Why is it a kind of art? The Harlequin-style diamond design seems like coming from nowhere to me as well. But after I heard that the theme of the coat is cultural cross-breeding, this piece of art becomes reasonable.
The reason why the combination of biotechnology and art is often controversial is mainly that the public do not understand where its significance is. We may think it is dangerous, horrifying, or simply weird. But, as Levy said, art can reveal underlying assumptions built into our technology. Art uses its own method to communicate and to convey information to the world. I used to think an art form that cannot communicate to its audience smoothly is an unsuccessful one. After having seen so many art that does not receive recognition, I realize the art that really failed is actually the one that does not have a social value.
Reference:
Vesna, Victoria. "5 bioart pt1 1280x720." Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 18 Sep 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt pt2" Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSt-Hjyi2I.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt pt3" Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EpD3np1S2g&t=2s.
Levy, Ellen K. Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications. PDF. Web.
Cavanagh, Sheila, Angela Failler, and Rachel Alpha Johnston Hurst, editors. Skin, Culture and Psychoanalysis. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2013.
 |
| What is art? (uoregon) |
 |
| What is art for? (BETNS) |
Levy's article Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications comprehensively answered my questions. "Art in its broadest sense has been one way to acclimatize the public to new scientific discoveries and new technologies." For example, one artist that I mentioned in my previous post, saying that I could not really understand in the beginning, to a large extent revealed this point. Orlan, who is famous for her several plastic surgery projects, created a biotechnological coat that was formed by her own skin cells, the skin cells of a fetus of African origin, and the muscle cells of a marsupial. This sounds terrifying to me at first, because I cannot think of a reason for one to make a coat out of human skin cells and put it on. Why is it a kind of art? The Harlequin-style diamond design seems like coming from nowhere to me as well. But after I heard that the theme of the coat is cultural cross-breeding, this piece of art becomes reasonable.
 |
| Orlan - Biotechnological Coat (Vogue) |
The reason why the combination of biotechnology and art is often controversial is mainly that the public do not understand where its significance is. We may think it is dangerous, horrifying, or simply weird. But, as Levy said, art can reveal underlying assumptions built into our technology. Art uses its own method to communicate and to convey information to the world. I used to think an art form that cannot communicate to its audience smoothly is an unsuccessful one. After having seen so many art that does not receive recognition, I realize the art that really failed is actually the one that does not have a social value.
Reference:
Vesna, Victoria. "5 bioart pt1 1280x720." Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 18 Sep 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaThVnA1kyg.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt pt2" Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdSt-Hjyi2I.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt pt3" Youtube, uploaded by uconlineprogram, 17 May 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EpD3np1S2g&t=2s.
Levy, Ellen K. Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications. PDF. Web.
Cavanagh, Sheila, Angela Failler, and Rachel Alpha Johnston Hurst, editors. Skin, Culture and Psychoanalysis. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2013.
Comments
Post a Comment