Alot
of controversy surrounds the topic of biological sciences and art. May people
attribute the works of genetically modified fruits and vegetables as well as
the genetic modification of animals and organisms and something inherently bad
for either religious reasons or animal activist reasons.[1]
Figure 1: Potential genetically modified fruit, lime
apple.
The modification of fruit and other plants has been
something that has taken place since 1982, and have for the most part benefited
society. [2]
For a long time in fact cross pollination of certain version of the same fruit
(seedless and seeded watermelon) in order to meet an aesthetic level to customers.
However it is tough to say whether using biological species is moral, let alone
is it actually art. Arguing this as a form of art could also lend to the
argument that the offspring of two attractive people (such as Tom Brady and his
wife Giselle is a piece of art.
Figure 2: Tom Brady and his super model wife.
Additionally what can this art form lead to? In our current
society some of our best art form is found in advertisement. With genetic
modification like of butterflies[3],
will we eventually see advertisement like the one below?
Figure 3: Genetically Branded Butterfly
It’s hard even to differentiate between what is art and what
is biotechnological advances. Fluorescent rabbits and rats for example, while
they do prove to have some artistic quality to them (in my opinion a very
abstract), they do prove to serve great scientific benefits to society especially
in cancer research. [4]
Lastly, something we should consider is the limits that should be placed on
human creativity. Is it ethical or even necessary for humans to use biological
beings as a means to express art? How far can this expression go, in a later century
will we be witnessing humans becoming Fluorescent. These questions all need to
be considered when dealing with biotech and art, how far can art go before it
becomes detrimental to society.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]Ferris, Robert. "Scientists Have Now Bred Bunnies That Glow Green." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 14 Aug. 2013. Web. 10 May 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-grow-fluorescent-green-rabbits-2013-8>.
[5] "The Story of How An Artist Created a Genetic Hybrid of Himself and a Petunia." Smithsonian. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2015. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-story-of-how-an-artist-created-a-genetic-hybrid-of-himself-and-a-petunia-25148544/?no-ist>.
You had some great point in your blog this week! I enjoyed the end when you connected advertisement to biotechnology and its advancements. I didn't realize that brand logos are often a hybrid of art and biotech. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteI never made the connection of what is considered art and biotechnological advances when I went through the lecture and readings. You bring up a good point and I wonder if it even matters since in this class we've come to learn that some things (medtech, robotics, and etc) are also considered art. I believe that in the future if we keep on allowing biotech to grow, it will become detrimental to society because of the military implications.
ReplyDelete