This week
we learned about biotechnology and art, including the implications it brings to
our current society. After watching the lecture videos, I find myself even more
intrigued with these two fields and their ultimate effect on benefiting
society. As Professor Vesna mentioned in the first lecture video, Joe Davis set
the foundation for biotechnology and art. Davis is a pioneer in the field; he
paved the way for the current field of biotechnology and art. His work with
genes and genomes began through inserting synthesis of DNA into specific
bacteria. His audio microscope allows for light information to be translated in
sound and continued his work with E. Coli and this bacteria’s response to
sounds, specifically producing sounds stressful to the bacteria.
A bio tech
artist who began under Davis is Adam Zaretsky. Most notable for his
work with emutagen, Zaretsky has created an embryonic transplant surgery to combine
zebrafish embryos with one another. His work has created more research and
development for the field of biotechnology as art. His methods are innovative
and scientific, as he states that his focus is on the “liminal relationships
that are formed
at the border between the creation and the destruction of living beings”. 
Looking at both Davis and Zaretsky,
I want to bring attention to some of the proposed questions by Ruth West. To
begin, I feel that while biotechnology and art is an innovative concept; I feel
that academia and science should be of the utmost importance. Therefore, I
believe biotechnology should have more stringent restrictions, resulting in
more limitations on their field. Although, I have this view limiting
biotechnology for science, I do believe there should be no capacity to human
creativity. Without creativity, like that of Davis and Zaretsky, our world
would not have the variety and abstractness that it has today. Therefore, while
I believe that all individuals should have a right to think freely and express
themselves, I believe that science and academia should be of more importance
towards the progress of society than biotechnology and art.
"Adam
Zaretsky." (biography). Web. 07 May 2016.
"Art
Biotech." Scoop.it. Web. 07 May 2016.
Bio-artist Adam
Zaretsky Sleeps with the Fishes. Web.
"HEAVEN EARTH
JOE DAVIS." We Make Money Not Art. 2011. Web. 07 May 2016.
"Joe Davis: The
Mad Scientist of MIT?" CultureLab:. Web. 07 May 2016.
"Strains:."
VivoArts: Embryonic Sculpting. Web. 07 May 2016.
"SymbioticA Biotechnology &
Art Laboratory // UWA Workshops 2003-6." SymbioticA. Web. 07 May 2016.
"VivoArts:
Microinjection." VivoArts: Microinjection. Web. 07 May 2016.
I agree with your statement that the material covered in class this week furthered my interest in biotechnology. I also thought that you did a good job explaining the parallels between biotechnology and art. Like you said, the connection between the two is becoming more and more controversial. This being said, I believe that is is an area that people need to be extremely cautious with. This is a field that, if gets to an extreme enough point, can have a drastic affect on the well being of society.
ReplyDeleteLike you and Brian, I too found this week's lecture to be extremely interesting and intriguing. I also really agree with your statement that the biotechnology field should be a bit more limited, but creativity should not. The creativity of Joe Davis and Oron Catts, has truly contributed a lot to the field of biotechnology.
ReplyDeleteI too have mixed feelings about the limits biotech should have. I love how creative scientists and artists can be with new technology but have my reservations on more personal and life altering topics. Despite my thoughts, I am a lot more interested in this subject field because of this weeks lecture. I can't wait to see where the creativity takes us in the next 5-10 years.
ReplyDelete