The Rise of Biotechnology: The Origins of Bio-Art

The enormous technological advancements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have resulted in the invention of new tools that allow us to probe deeper and more clearly into the organic structures that give shape to living organisms such as ourselves.

Like Prometheus bestowing the gift of fire upon mankind, the 1953 discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick not only established DNA as the basic code of life, but also set forth an explosion of biotechnological research with an emphasis on genetics. Darwinian concepts of natural selection and evolution became insufficient and old school as people began looking at how they could fashion and construct the future of mankind instead of allowing nature to play the hand of Fate. These marked the beginnings of an era of biotechnology and genetic engineering of which we are very much a part.

In this age of constant change, where nothing is for certain, where new theories and discoveries relentlessly seek to supersede old ones, artists are constantly searching for new forms of art to invest in experiment. Art is deeply influenced by the age in which it exists, for it is impossible for art to be pursued in a vacuum: artists need external stimulants to provoke and shape their thoughts and concepts. The twentieth century saw the rise and fall of various art movements that were constructs of scientific and social phenomena. As genetic engineering emerged as the hotbed of social and ethical discussions, it was inevitable that a new art movement which responded to these issues would be created.

Bio-Art and its Controversy

Bio-Art is a form of art that traverses into the field of biological sciences, with the purpose of investigating and appreciating, critically, the aesthetic qualities and functions of living systems and organisms.

New technologies and scientific investigation, no matter the area of focus, are seldom spared from evaluative judgements from both authorities of relevant fields as well as the general public. Genetic engineering, as being an aspect of biotechnology, has been rife with controversy, especially in the past few years, with creations such as tumour-inflicted mice and genetically modified foods. For not only has it become possible to inquire about life, by looking at the primitive structures that give it form, but to control it, as though we were the very authors of life itself. Genetic engineering involves the manipulation of genetic structures in order to alter the physical appearance and physiological functions of the organism in question. Perhaps its ultimate goal is to engineer life itself — not through ‘primitive’ methods of reproduction, but to synthetically create entirely new life forms by means of what we dictate.

The ethical issues that revolve around Bio-Art are inexorably linked to that of biotechnology, for they are both agencies of society and culture that employ the use of similar technology or scientific means. However, Bio-Art has been subject to arguably deeper criticism. As art traditionally centres on inanimate objects, or on artificial representations of real life, it is acceptable for these art objects to be manipulated, redefined and placed into galleries for exhibitions. Bio-Art on the other hand, ‘plays’ with real living specimens, not just superficially but often at microscopic levels. It may never be known the extent of damage or trauma inflicted to these living organisms, simply for the rhetoric ‘Art for art’s sake’.

Apart from ethical criticisms, like many other works of art that converge with the fields of scientific inquiry, detractors from mostly the public have sometimes derided Bio-Art for lacking in aesthetics. If art does not succeed in providing the type of aesthetic value that we expect of it, is it still considered art? With all the controversy surrounding Bio-Art, should there be more ethical considerations in producing a piece of Bio-Art?

Before attempting to answer this question, one must first acknowledge several important issues. First, due to the wide scope of biology, the term Bio-Art is only a general description of art relating to biology. There are various types of Bio-Art that focus on different areas of interest with different levels of complexity. Second is the issue of opinion. There are differing views as to what are the aesthetics of art, as well as the definition of ethical standards.

In this essay, I will attempt to answer this question by describing and evaluating specific examples of Bio-Art, in the process identifying and comparing their aesthetic values with the ethical issues that they arouse.

Some Ethical Debates

In Improving Nature, biologist Michael Reiss and philosopher Roger Straughan write about the ancient origins of traditional biotechnology, where animals such as dogs were domesticated for functional and aesthetics purposes. They list four main processes that took place during the rearing of these animals:

• Breeding of animals, or sowing or seeds
• Caring for the animals or plants
• Collecting produce (e.g. harvesting, milking, slaughtering)
• Selecting and keeping back some of the produce for the next generation

Clearly, these processes are not dissimilar to the purposes of biotechnology today. Artist George Gessert exemplifies this fact in his 1990 art show at the University of Oregon Museum, where he demonstrated the process of plant breeding to his audience. By personally selecting particular plants for their aesthetical features and collecting their seeds, and by marking off the plants that he did not want, he was evidently interested about the element of human control in breeding. He took this concept further in his 1995 installation work Art Life where he allowed his visitors to choose specific features that they wanted to see in future coleus hybrids that were the objects of his exhibition. In this, his motive was to investigate as well as document the wants of people if given the opportunity to choose.

George Gessert’s motives in his work are recognised, and are generally acceptable because his work employs old tried-and-tested methods of horticulture. This is despite the fact that research has shown that traditional methods of plant breeding can result in plant creations that drastically differ from their ancestry in terms of genetic structure. Gessert wrote in an earlier 1990 article On Exhibiting Hybrids that when he first began exhibiting plant hybrids as art, he expected “to defend [his] work against the criticism that plants were not art”. He was surprised in the end to find that that no one questioned the use of plants as art. Though there were the occasional instances where people in the audience would get angry when they were asked to “participate in making aesthetic decisions that [would] affect the lives and deaths of plants”, he attributes this more to the fact that these people could have been haunted by the negative aspects of eugenics (that were much the focus of the media) and had inadvertently imagined plants as symbols of human beings.

While Gessert’s artworks do not give main focus to the ethical issues of plant breeding, then again, society does not expect his works to do otherwise. Perhaps the antithesis of the generally neutral social responses earned from George Gessert’s artworks would be the ethical debated directed towards the artwork GFP Bunny by artist Eduardo Kac.

In the December 1998 issue of the Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Eduardo Kac proposed a new form of art, transgenic art, which as the name suggests, is “based on the use of genetic engineering techniques to transfer synthetic genes to an organism or to transfer natural genetic material from one species into another, to create unique living beings”. As it has become a fact that increasing numbers of natural species are becoming extinct, he encouraged other artists to participate in building this form of art with the reason of “contributing to global diversity”.

Eduardo Kac’s original plans were to create dogs that would express the green fluorescent protein (GFP) normally found in the luminous jellyfish (Aequorea Victoria). This would enable the animals to glow fluorescent green as a result of the excitation of the protein when placed under light of suitable frequencies (either UV or blue light of at least the minimum optimum frequency). However, the realisation of a chimerical creature of mammal origin with the (enhanced) gene of an aquatic creature was eventually found in February 2000, in Jouy-en-Josas, France, with the creation and birth of the transgenic albino rabbit Alba, a.k.a. the GFP Bunny, under the supervision of several scientists collaborating with Kac. The name ‘Alba’ was chosen by Kac together with his wife and daughter.

In his essay[1] GFP Bunny, Eduardo Kac wrote that the birth and naming of Alba was only the first phase of his project. The second phase was to publicly present Alba and him together in Avignon in the middle of June 2000, which would also involve a public debate on the creation of Alba. During the presentation, he planned to recreate a living room as the setting, in which he would be together with Alba for the entire duration of the presentation, to demonstrate their close relationship. The third phrase would allow Alba to go to Kac’s home in Chicago, where she would be integrated into Kac’s family.

The public presentation of Alba and the third phase of the GFP Bunny project were never realised, as the director of the institute where Alba was born decided to deny the release of Alba despite Kac’s protest. This turn of events however, did not stop the media from taking interest in Kac’s project, which not surprisingly, resulted in a global ethical controversy.

GFP Bunny was criticised by many journalists and reviewers on several grounds. Firstly, if ethical considerations were put aside, the main criticism was that the expression of green fluorescent protein in animals (and also plants and Prokaryotes) was not a novel idea as these animals had already been in use for several years in laboratory experiments, as part of scientific inquiry. Since the procedure of genetically modifying an animal to enable it to produce GFP was one that was already tried-and-tested, some critics felt that the resultant work produced was trivial. Secondly, and more importantly, with ethical considerations in mind, the idea of creating the rabbit for the sake of being an art object brought up some questions of whether a living creature could be considered an artwork and whether it was humane to do so. Finally, there was the philosophical question of “to what ends is Man allowed to control life and its evolution?” Many did not consider Eduardo Kac’s work as art but rather a disturbing project that made a mockery of animals.

Eduardo Kac has maintained that the Alba project was not a breeding project but a transgenic artwork. Whereas in the breeding of animals, the main objective is to produce animals of desired physical attributes, or that can perform specific functions, one of the motives behind the GFP Bunny was to elicit social response. The fact that Alba can glow was not the aesthetic that Kac was seeking for in his art, but that he was using the new attribute that was given to Alba to represent the capabilities of science today as well as human influence in the evolution of the animal.

The patenting of DNA code for the sake of science has allowed genes to become a commodity. In order to legally utilise a patented gene for research, companies that need the gene have to pay fees to the company that owns it. Life in the form of non-human organisms is often used for scientific research. Lab animals that are used as subjects of experiments in the process of scientific research are often deemed to be worthy sacrifices because it is for “the betterment of humankind”. Few actually consider the pain these animals suffer as a result of artificially induced cancers and illnesses that are made to mimic human ones.

Although Alba’s physical characteristics are unique and unnatural, by naming Alba and loving it like a member of his family, Kac wants to show that transgenic animals can be like any other animal in the world. If science often puts the ethical treatment of animals to the sideline, art can do otherwise. By creating a transgenic animal in the name of art, it creates a greater symbolic statement than if it were created in the name of science.

Whether Kac’s Bio-Art project deserved more ethical treatment is a matter of interpretation and contention. As Reiss and Straughan write in Chapter Three of Improving Nature, because moral principles differ from person to person, and ethics are really the philosophy of these moral principles, ethics “cannot offer conclusive answers about the rightness or wrongness of genetic engineering for ethics cannot provide ‘proof’ of this kind”. Likewise, it is impossible to provide a definitive judgement on whether transgenic art is right or wrong.

It is apparent to me that as humans, our so-called evaluative judgements and criticisms are often subjective to time, situations and object. George Gessert had expected debates in his use of plants as art, but to his surprise and disappointment, did not receive any. On the other hand, when a living animal is used as art, despite the fact that it is treated like any normal pet, condemnation awaits the artist. The issue is often not on whether life can be used as art and is it ethical to do so, but rather, what kind of life. To take it further, if animals are the cause of controversy, it comes down to what type of animal. What makes Kac’s work provocative is in part due to his use of a familiar household pet. Yet the very reason for the existence of most of the domesticated animals today can be accredited to human efforts in animal breeding over the centuries. Certainly, the process of change is less rapid and radical than if genetic engineering was involved, but the fact is that there is the manipulation of genes, regardless of whether the process was direct or indirect, acted upon with knowledge or without.

In the GFP Bunny (as well as many of Kac’s other art projects), Kac demonstrates artistic interest in a variety of different yet interrelated fields of interest with an emphasis on the dialogical interaction between them; he describes GFP Bunny as a “complex social event”. In the creation of Alba, he had given thought to the ethical issues and was prepared to face them in his second phase of the project. The aesthetics desired of GFP Bunny was a social one, of which ethics is a part.

Kac’s concept of a social aesthetic of art is not a new one since art has always been about capturing Man’s relationship with his environment, be it in the tangible, which deals with scenery and physical objects, or the intangible, which are culture, religion and social phenomena: Western Art’s depiction of the Crucifixion of Christ, or Renaissance Art’s central theme of humanism all demonstrate this social aspect of the aesthetics of art. These messages were conveyed in the artistic forms of painting, sculpture, music or literature, firstly because the mediums and tools that facilitated the production of these forms were the most commonly available at the time. Secondly, there were in effect few other mediums that could aptly depict the transcendent.

Since art is didactic, and Kac’s project mostly achieves his goal of his social aesthetic, I do not think that the problem of classifying his project as art is as problematic as it appears to be on first evaluation. Art provokes, but it does not always please. Perhaps one ethical consideration that Kac may not have put thought into was the treatment of Alba, not by him, but by the public. Alba is still in captivity because of fears that she may escape to the wild to breed a host of mutant rabbits. This is, I think, less humane than if she were put under the care of Kac who loves her for what she is. It appears that the public is not ready to accept transgenic animals as pets. The tragedy is that in order to change social opinion, one must set a precedent. But whether the public is ready to begin to accept the change is something that is unpredictable. Whatever the case, there is an intricate relationship between the ethics and aesthetics of Kac’s art: the ongoing ethical debate can only mean a deepening of the social aesthetics desired.

Other Bio-Art Works

The gene has become a symbol of culture of the past few decades. It is scientifically complex yet part of our everyday lives. Throughout history, countless poets have found inspiration in nature symbolism in classical mythology. Likewise, some artists of today have found allegorical meanings within biology. Not surprisingly these artists have taken it upon themselves to comment on the iconic value of the gene through the expression of visual metaphors.

The theme of Bio-Art centres on that of Life and there are two main ways in which we can look at it. The first is the reductionist view as suggested by Jeremy Rifkin, where Life is attributed solely to the genes that compose it. This is the view taken upon by many researchers in molecular biology. The other is the holistic view where Life is a system of complex relationships between various life forms and the philosophies of how life should be governed. In the former view, the gene is deterministic, whereas in the latter, the gene is merely an incomplete representation of life. Earlier in this essay, we have seen how George Gessert and Eduardo Kac have embraced the holistic view of life in their projects, despite the controversy in interpretation.

The following are two other Bio-Art projects that embrace one or more of these concepts.

Alternative non-scientific views of the Chromosome

In “Art+Bio”, Suzanne Anker’s artwork Cellular Script contemplates on chromosomes as the calligraphy of life. Here, the chromosome is symbolic. According to Anker, unless the genetic material that is generated from replication is completely identical to its source, “grave consequences” would occur. Similarly, in calligraphy, characters must be drawn precisely. Any error would ruin the piece of work. In Anker’s artwork, ethics are not discussed and its focus is philosophy of the aesthetic object that is the chromosome.

I wonder, however, if Suzanne Anker has considered that perhaps mutation as a result of replication isn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, evolution has only become possible through the process of ‘imperfect’ replication.

Music as Art, Music and Life

In Life Music: The Sonification of Proteins, artist John Dunn and biologist Mary Anne Clarke have found similarities between the structure of proteins and music composition. Dunn realised that the usual algorithmic DNA music techniques, where each of the 64 DNA codons or 20 amino acid combinations would be mapped to a particular note, were problematic. This was because the music produced would be a variety of pitches and would lack musicality in the way melody is normally perceived. Since the external areas of a protein contain mostly water-soluble amino acids, while the amino acids found in protein interiors are mostly insoluble, they added a third property into this mapping by sorting the various amino acids according to their levels of solubility and assigning higher pitches to the insoluble ones, lower pitches to the rest.

The aesthetics of this artwork lies in the refinement of the relationship between music and protein sequences, which are part of the composition of life. The music produced becomes more melodious and easier to appreciate. By comparing the similarities between music to proteins, it also makes it easier for the uninitiated to understand the dynamics and complexity of molecular biology. This Bio-Art work has not broken any ‘rule’ of ethics because it does not utilise the more controversial techniques of biotechnology nor pursue an entirely new form of Bio-Art.

I believe, however, that there is a social aesthetic that is masked in within Life Music that indirectly criticises the reductionistic view of life.

Although DNA is frequently known as the ‘code of life’, it really is an incomplete and imperfect code. For example, it has been found that not all parts of the DNA sequences of eukaryotes are actually used in protein generation, but are discarded as they are read; genetic mutations either occur unexpectedly or are caused by external environments. In Life Music, whenever the amino acids are mapped to a different pitch setting, the resultant musical piece changes in its entirety. Similarly, the gene does not completely determine life but enjoys an interactive relationship with its environment.

Conclusion

Through the study of genes, we have discovered the dynamics of life. To suitably demonstrate this dynamical aspect of life, perhaps there is no better a canvas than life itself. Whereas art of the past was limited by the technology available to it, modern technology has made available specially designed tools for Bio-Artists to use to achieve their objectives.

In general, people are terrified of things that are unknown or unfamiliar to them. The realm of bioengineering, despite having origins that are deeply rooted in history, has only really begun to flourish in the last two hundred years. The justifications for their fear are derived partly from the memories of the horrors of eugenic experiments in the Nazi regime of WWII, as well as from exaggerations in stories of fiction that depict how man’s artistic feats can have disastrous consequences — Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein (which is aptly subtitled The Modern Prometheus, Prometheus in this case, is the doctor who creates the monster). As the common phrase goes, “it is better to be safe than sorry”: it is more reassuring to remain in familiar territory than to venture terra incognito. Not surprisingly, these visions of dystopia are better taken into consideration than stories that place greater optimism on the artistic creations of Man.

In producing a Bio-Artwork (or any form of art for that matter), though ethical and aesthetical considerations must be evaluated, it is impossible to satisfy all manners of taste and standards. The artist may have, like in Kac’s case, intentionally left certain ethical avenues ambiguous and variable, and as a result, is criticised for lacking in ethics. Or, like in Suzanne Anker’s artwork, where interpretation may contradict artistic intention. In the GFP Bunny, it is evident that its ethical issues cannot be separated from its aesthetics. On the other hand, Life Music suggests that ethical issues may or may not be an aesthetic depending on how one interprets it. Therefore, the question of whether there should be more ethics or less aesthetics in Bio Art can have no clear answer. Whatever the case, there should be, as Kac implies in his artwork, discussion and perhaps collaboration between the practitioners of the various fields involved.

There is instrumentality in Bio-Art, for it can help us to understand the ethical implications of the life sciences as well our social condition. How then, should we accept — if not embrace — Bio-Art as an entity?

George Gessert claims — in his Ars Electronica ‘99 essay A History of Art Involving DNA — the late British philosopher Olaf Stapledon to be one of the most significant representatives for Bio-Art. Having read Stapledon’s speculative fiction novels, I largely agree with him on this. Thus, it is with a quote from the Preface to the English edition of his 1931 novel Last and First Men that I think would suffice in explaining this question.

Stapledon writes:

“Today we should welcome, and even study, every serious attempt to envisage the future of our race; not nearly in order to grasp the very diverse and often tragic possibilities that confront us, but also that we may familiarise ourselves with the certainty that many of our most cherished ideals would seem puerile to more developed minds… But if such imaginative construction of possible futures is to be at all potent, our imagination must be strictly disciplined. We must endeavour not to go beyond the bounds of possibility set by the particular state of culture within which we live.”

Well-plotted Bio-Artworks that challenge the notion of how we perceive life must be treated with fair assessment and should not be dismissed merely for the reason that it is different, or ‘frightening’. Nevertheless, artworks should not stray beyond the limits of tolerance where artistry becomes monstrosity. It is from the study of ethics and aesthetics we can have a clearer understanding of these limits.

---

Bibliography

“Artists Working with Microbiology”, Information Arts
©Stephen Wilson
MIT PRESS
Pages 94-110

“GFP Bunny” in Telepresence, Biotelematics, Transgenic Art
©2000 Kac, Eduardo
KILBA
Pages 101-111

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 2002 Standard Edition CD-ROM
©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, INC

“Philosophy of Art”
“Aesthetics”
 “Mutation”

Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering,
©1996 Reiss, Michael J & Straughan, Roger
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ISBN 0-521-63754-6
Pages 2-5, 46-51, 169-171

Last and First Men and Star Maker - 2 Science Fiction Novels
©1931 Stapledon, Olaf
DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC
ISBN 0-486-21962-3
Page 9

Net Resources

The Biotech Century — Genetic Commerce and the Dawn of a New Era
©1998 Rifkin, Jeremy
ARS ELECTRONICA ‘99 — LIFESCIENCE
http://www.aec.at/20jahre/artikel.asp?
 jahr=1999&nr=E1999_047&band=101

Cellular Script
Artist: Anker, Suzanne
ART + BIO
http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/gallery/
 gallery314/anker.html

GFP Bunny
©2001 Kac, Eduardo
KAC WEB
http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html

A History of Art Involving DNA
©1999 Gessert, George
ARS ELECTRONICA ‘99 — LIFESCIENCE
http://www.aec.at/20jahre/artikel.asp?
 jahr=1999&nr=E1999_228&band=101

Life Music: The Sonification of Proteins
Artists: Dunn, John & Clarke, Mary Anne
LEONARDO ON-LINE
http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/articles/
 lifemusic.html

“On Exhibiting Hybrids”, Circa 90: Art+Technology Supplement
By George Gessert
CIRCA ART MAGAZINE
http://www.recirca.com/backissues/c90/8.shtml

Transgenic Art
©1998 Kac, Eduardo
KAC WEB
http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html

---

Notes

[1] There are two different versions - one published essay and another on his official website.

Subjects: School 学校

Tags: bio-art, new media, Olaf Stapledon