Week 6 Blog: Biotech + Art

            It is fairly easy to see why biotechnology as an art form can become controversial very quickly. Biotech deals with the building blocks that make humans what they are, and manipulating those building blocks into untested forms naturally makes people uneasy (Pasko, 2007). But what is hard to understand is why there is such disdain for art mixing with biotechnology even though it is basically the same thing that "scientists" are doing in labs, just with a different purpose.

            Eduardo Kac's GFP bunny Alba is a great example of this dichotomy in public opinion. Alba was created by scientists in a lab as an experiment with regards to the modifications of an animal's genes. But once the animal was put on display as a work of art, parts of the viewing public became upset and called the rabbit an atrocity. As a result, Alba was taken from Kac and placed in isolation in a laboratory over fears of what would happen if she reproduced (Rubinowitz, 2000).

Figure 1: Alba, Eduardo Kac's fluorescent bunny

            The case of Steve Kurtz is also a something that must be examined with respect to BioArt. Kurtz grew cultures of cells in his home as part of his artwork but once his wife died, the police discovered his cultures in his house. The FBI was called in and Kurtz was investigated for bioterrorism (Munster, 2005). If Kurtz had been in a secure lab, none of this would have happened to him. While there is no doubt that biological agents can be weaponized to great effect, the regulation of Kurtz seemed to be overkill. In contrast to this, when a strain of smallpox was mishandled in a CDC lab, there were reprimands but no criminal investigations into wrongdoing (McNeil, 2014). The divide between the two cultures of science and art is clearly seen in BioArt.

Figure 2: FBI agents raiding Steve Kurtz's home

            I think the most interesting and thought-provoking aspect of the mixing of biotechnology and art is that it creates the possibility of "living art" that can and will die and cease to exist at some point (Miranda, 2013). This also brings up the possibility that if someone is unhappy with a piece of art, they can in theory kill it. How society reacts to this act will provide a unique lens to examine our surroundings. Will this act be compared to book burning or shrugged off as not a big deal?

Figure 3: Victimless Leather, a living art piece that had to be killed because it grew too big

Works Cited

Mcneil, Donald. "C.D.C. Closes Anthrax and Flu Labs After Accidents." The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 July 2014. Web. 7 May 2015.        <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/12/science/cdc-closes-anthrax-and-flu-labs-after-  accidents.html>.

Miranda, Carolina. "Weird Science: Biotechnology as Art Form." ARTnews. 18 Mar. 2013.          Web. 7 May 2015. <http://www.artnews.com/2013/03/18/biotechnology-as-art-form/>.

Munster, Anna. "Why Is BioArt Not Terrorism?: Some Critical Nodes in the Networks of             Infomatice Life." Culture Machine. 2007. Web. 7 May 2015.             <http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/rt/printerFriendly/31/38>.

Pasko, Jessica. "Bio-artists Bridge Gap between Arts, Sciences." Msnbc.com. 4 Mar. 2007. Web. 7 May 2015. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17387568/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/bio-artists-bridge-gap-between-arts-sciences/#.VUqpsPnBzGc> .

Rubinowitz, Susan. "Glowing Rabbit Sparks Controversy." Glowing Rabbit Sparks Controversy.         23 Sept. 2000. Web. 7 May 2015. <http://www.ekac.org/petplace.html>.