Annie Wu- Week 9

The development of nanotechnology is without a doubt going to benefit humankind. This science and technology are conducted at such a minute and complex scale that there are so many possibilities for the future. However, also due to its extremely small scale, the implications of nanotechnology are difficult for many to understand and to fully accept. Without visualizations of what is taking place at the molecular and atomic scale, it is hard to believe that nanotechnology can result in so many helpful innovations, that it can actually bring about great changes in the world.

Honestly, before this week’s discussion on nanotechnology, I really had no idea what it was really about. I knew that it was science done at the molecular state, but that was about it. The concept of nanotechnology seems pretty amazing to me now, because of how much we can achieve with it. It seems to be so unthinkable that there is actually the possibility of effectively fighting against cancers, or other diseases, with the developments of nanotechnology. Instead of actually physically having to remove the areas infected with cancerous cells from the body, now there could be a way to directly fight against the cancers, internally. With nanotechnology, cancer treatments would not only be more effective, but they would probably be less painful. Hopefully nanotechnology will reach the point where we can use it in medical treatments without having any doubts of its abilities.

Not only can nanotechnology greatly improve the human’s defense against diseases and other threats to the body, but it can also help improve our environments. They can really be used to “gain greater performance and new capabilities in green technologies,” to clean up the air, water, and soil in our surroundings. Also, with the advancements in nanotechnology, we can be more efficient with our resources. Nanotechnology can help us generate energy, as well as, reduce waste. I feel like we really need these nanotechnology developments, because honestly, humans have really changed the Earth, and it has not necessarily been for the better. The amount of living space is decreasing, as the human populations grow and proliferate. With more and more people becoming “modernized,” more vehicles are used, thus resulting in the mass emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere. Our ozone layer is depleting due to the harmful gases released into the air from human activities, which are also spurring global warming. There is more waste on Earth and we are running out of places to dump it. Basically, we have been polluting and wasting our resources, and we need some way to conserve and to regenerate them. With nanotechnology, we can save and make the most of whatever we have left. Also, we can make the world a cleaner and healthier place to live in, and maybe even contribute to helping out areas of poverty.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif


With nanotechnology, the possibilities for the future are seriously endless. I think it is so interesting how nanotechnology can even affect art. These two areas are so seemingly different that at first, I could not really see how they relate. However, now I realize nanotechnology has the potential to really further art. For example, with claytonics, art will be THAT much closer to representing reality. It would be a closer representation of reality, compared to something like sculpture or a lifelike painting. Also, claytonics requires human interaction, in order to mold and shape things. By having to interact with claytonics, viewers would get a firsthand experience of creating art themselves, thus drawing some kind of reaction from them. And isn’t that what art is all about? Interaction and discovery. From nanotechnology/claytonics, people would truly get a new sense of what art is all about, because it is “synthetic reality.” It seems as though representation and reality are bridged that much closer; because of nanotechnology, people would have another way to perceive the real.

Read more!

Christopher Flannery - Week 8 - Genes

The majority of this week’s discussion focused on Eduardo’s “GFP Bunny” and his thoughts about the artist’s role in altering the genome. As we discussed in section and on the blog, Eduardo is wrong about introducing new species into the biosphere and uses scientific processes that are norms in the scientific community. Despite this, I believe his project succeeded because he forced many people to consider the future of genetically altering animals and humans. A lot of people are aware of genetically altered plants, but a domesticated animal brings the subject closer to home. Eduardo does come off as ignorant to a person more knowledgeable in the scientific field, however he is spreading the awareness of transgenic art.
Eduardo’s vision of a future with artists creating new life forms reminds me of the argument over Steve Kurtz’s rights to do biological experiments in his home. The ability to build genes could be a very dangerous tool and should not be allowed in the hands of any qualified or unsupervised person. The morality of creating life is an even larger topic …
In the past couple of weeks, this class has felt more like a philosophy of science class. Art has a place in this because it is a tool to draw attention to, comment on, and influence progress in both these fields. In the same way, science and philosophy have influenced art and forced it to evolve alongside them.
I got the feeling that no one was listening during the Charles Taylor lecture. His points seemed too unrelated and hard to follow. I was only able to take a few notes and don’t feel that I took too much away from the lecture. At first I thought this was because I am not a south campus major and did not understand his examples, but a majority of the people in the room seemed even less interested.

Read more!

Biotechnology and the like

This week's topics raised my eyebrows and picked my brain. It is a little scary how fast science in progressing, and how much closer we are to things we thought would never exist. Discussion always happens the same way each Wednesday morning: we browse through a few topics, then get stuck on one topic for over half an hour. This Wednesday, section discussed the ethics regarding the production of meat. In fact, the world could progress in this direction. On one side, we have the traditional slaughter houses that raise animals, slaughter them, then distribute their parts. This is the current "humane" way of eating meat. On the other side, we have science and the production of cultured meat (using mice tissue to culture "meat" cells). People may not be ready for that, because it is "unnatural." It is interesting what also comes up as a result of scientific advancement: discussion regarding ethics, new manufacturing laws such as placing stickers that say "unnatural meat" or the like on new products, and an overall stirring of emotions because some people just can't accept this kind of thing.

It's hard for anyone to grasp their own existence, let alone begin to comprehend the fact that 9 billion people live on the earth, and that at our current ages none of our cells are the same as when we were first born yet we are the same person with the same memories and experiences. Life is crazy, and we don't understand it. This brings me to 2 points about this week: 1, the idea of maniplating genes/cells/growth in living systems and 2, the importance of art in scientific discoveries. Mainpulating genes, or the core of any living system, has been debated for a very long time, since even before the first cloned animal. Some people have manipulated genes as an art form, for example Eduardo's GFP Bunny, which serves no purpose but to "glow green." To me, this doesn't seem ethical because to perform experiments on something that is living that won't benefit anyone seems like a stupid thing to do. However, things such as stem cell research are beneficial in certain instances where the living object isn't harmed. Moving on to the second point, it is interesting to note that scientific discoveries and art can feed on each other. Originally, I thought the main link between science and art existed in the idea that science discovers something and then art comes in the visualize it so it can be taught to other human beings. For that is all art is: human expression. But, I learned this week that the opposite is also true, and that makes so much sense too!! I recently watched a documentary on Watson and Crick entitled Life Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093815/). At one point, Watson and Crick, as they race to be the first to discover the structure of DNA, use models of various shapes and size to ultimately discover the shape of the structure, and ultimately explain how it works. They did this through the use of models! To me, that's artistic because someone had to design these models, and design = art.

I was browing popular science today and decided to check out the new section on biotechnology and stumbled upon a very crazy article that somewhat related to class, especially in regard to cultured meat. We have been genetically modifying plants for some time now because arguably they don't have a consciousness. People accept this. In fact, this article, found here: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/5a4d4c3ee4d05010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/4.html, stresses the biotechnology might be the only way to save BANANAS!! Everyone loves bananas, but they are seedless. So what they are doing is culturing some 1,200 strains or so of bananas in test tubes in laboratories in attempt to save them. Science may have to come through in the clutch because we surely do not want to lose bananas.

P.S. Sorry I didn't submit this Sunday, I forgot because of the 4 day weekend because my mind was under the mentality of "the last day of the weekend" which would be today, Monday. I hope that's not a problem!

Read more!

Juliet Lee – Week 8 – Biotechnology, Human Genome etc.

This week I happened upon an art reception at the Kerckhoff art gallery, it was called the “Art Science Fair” presented by the UCLA Neuroscience Undergraduate Society. The show had around 30 pieces and for the most part was drawings, paintings and sculptures, but they were all done by non-art, science majors. I enjoyed the show because it had nothing to do with science (besides one piece that was a water color of a neuron) except for the fact of their majors. And I also liked the show because I was able to vote for my favorite pieces and received free food in return.
Another interesting thing that I found this time online, was the development of a 4-D model of the human body called the CAVEman. It is supposedly going to help teach medical students and to aid in the preparation of more complicated surgeries. I thought that this related to other topics that we had touched upon in class; like the clip Professor Vesna mentioned and showed on YouTube of the section of the human body in a 3-D model. This new 4-D digital human image uses time as its 4th dimension so that the progression of an illness can be better tracked and shown in relation to the rest of the body. It has taken six years to develop and was a combined effort of computer scientists, biologists, mathematicians, and artists to make a high resolution image of the human body. I think that this is a great example of how collaborative projects between scientists and artists can be very successful. It is also like our guest speaker Charles Taylor’s point about how science needs art to put into images abstract concepts that allow better understanding for other people to learn about difficult subject matter.
About the questions posed at the end of Tuesday’s lecture, I do not think that there is a limit to human creativity. Everyday I witness someone doing something either artistically or just in everyday life that I am simply amazed that someone could have thought to do such a thing. If there is any kind of limit it is only our social and cultural constructs that keep people within a boundary of acceptable art. I do believe that life is an expressive medium, artists and scientists have always been trying to gain a better understanding of the world around us and how it works.

Read more!

Monica Tse - wk.8 - Chris O'leary - transgenic art

Using art, in terms of illustration, in science never really struck my mind before, but looking at its role in how science is studied and portrayed as well as hearing Charles Taylor speak about their relationship, I am further convinced of the intertwined relationship that they have. Not only does art make scientific ideas and issues known to the public, but it also can aid in scientific discoveries. !!!

For example, the four levels of geometry of proteins – primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. Without a visualization of how coils and pleated sheets may line up and twist with one another, scientists might not have fully understood how proteins interact with one another based on their orientation. It is interesting how visualizations can have such an important role in scientific endeavors. Without them, we would miss out on a lot of discoveries.

Another key role that art plays a role in and is extremely effective in is making scientific issues more aware to the public. Professor Vesna’s work very successfully does this. In her water bowl installation, by stimulating the senses and being interactive, it portrays the status of our environment. For example the water bowl in which every time someone touches the water, an image of replicating bacteria appears. This, more than a ten-page evidence paper on how our actions are affecting the environment, is effective in showing us how our actions affect pollution and how our society impacts the environment. I think that the visual has so much more impact on how we view our role in the environment and helps us understand better the severity of impact that we exert.

I also wanted to comment on the implications of biotechnological art and its role in the sciences. This type of art raises ethical questions of what type of boundaries should exist. If an artist’s goal of biotech art is to make the public more aware of an issue or to critique a new venue in the scientific field, boundaries can be less stringent; it is true that when one presents a work under the title of “artist”, there is greater leniency for what is considered ethical or non-ethical. However, if the goal of biotech art is to actually contribute to the science field, I’m not sure how far it can stretch the boundaries of scientific experimentation. Because this enters the realm of scientific research, certain rules need to be obeyed in order for a work to be considered serious and valid.

Considering Eduardo’s GFP bunny, for example, I see his efforts as stretching the boundaries a bit too far mainly because he endeavored his creations for scientific gain. He truly thought that by creating a ‘new species’ of bunny, he was contributing scientifically. He said, “in a world in which species go extinct everyday, artists can contribute by creating new ones”. It is dangerous for artists to have this mentality, not completely understanding the complexities of introducing a new species. In the scientific world, the introduction of a new species can have dire consequences, even to the point of extinguishing other species. Many factors must be considered before a new species can be introduced into the wild, and the meticulous thought process that goes into understanding how a species will impact the environment is set in seems to be on opposite ends from the lightness with which Eduardo seems to regard releasing a new species. His view that science can simply be created and released does not go well with the more thoroughly thought out scientific process used when science employs change.!!!

Read more!

Michael Nguyen - 8 - The price of new genes

As a student of molecular biology and genetics, I never considered the possibility of using the science within an art context. With the widespread popularity of organic products, there seems to be a backlash against genetically modified food and organisms. The art I’ve seen that deals with GMO is critical and seems to warn the public of its dangers. Technological advances have allowed crops to grow in harsh environments and probably provided food for people who would’ve other wise starved. Insulin produced in transfected E. coli allow millions to live with diabetes. However, I am aware of the concern about the issue of at what cost do we have these new life forms. I’m not as concerned about the potential health affects as the fact that corporation control the rights to these organisms and often have the bottom line as the main concern. In that sense I am receptive to art which brings this potential issue to light. It’s not the technology itself that we must be concerned about, but those who control it.

In Eduardo Kac’s article, he says “I suggest that artists can contribute to increase global biodiversity by inventing new life forms.” I’m not sure if he’s entirely serious because speciation isn’t as simple as inserting a single gene. A dog with a fluorescent coat is not a new species and doesn’t contribute to solving the problem of species extinction and loss of biodiversity. The principle of adaptation and evolution hinges on some sort of reproductive advantage; I’m not sure of female dogs fancy fluorescent fur or not. Whether misinformed or overzealous, I don’t think Kac’s idea is a particularly good one. It’s a better idea to work on reducing pollution and destruction of natural habitats than trying to generate new life forms.

One interesting thing I discovered was that the Simpson’s influence on molecular biology. In an episode, Homer makes a hybrid plan of tobacco and tomatoes: Tomacco. This fruit (vegetable?) ends up having an addictive effect because of the nicotine. This inspired someone to actually graft the two plants together; tomatoes were produced which had detectable amounts of nicotine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomacco

Read more!

Week 8- Duy Phung- Biotechnology and Arts

“When a species…produces a poisonous substance, it may well kill itself. If, however, the poison is more deadly to its competitors it may manage to survive and in time both adapt to its own toxicity and produce even more lethal forms of pollutant.”
-James Lovelock, Gaia

In 1979, the mathematician James Lovelock published a book, Gaia that delved deeply into two naturally profound questions: how can the individual components that constitute life coordinate their efforts and what can be said of species that threaten that equilibrium. He argued that Earth was a single, planet-sized organism, which he named Gaia after an ancient Greek goddess. Obviously the second question was more immediately relevant to us as this week lecture yet again raised another controversy: transgenic art. Should there be restriction for artists, who are using biotechnology as medium in their work? And if applied, would restriction hinder their creativity that is vital for any artist?
We all may know that Watson and Crick are scientists who discovered the structure of DNA and opened a new era for science in general and biotechnology and chemistry in particular. They did not discover the DNA structure but rather synthesized hypotheses from other scientists’ works to propose the double helix model. The information they used includes: R. Franklin DNA fibers X-ray diffraction data, keto conformation of nitrogenous bases, Chargaff’s rules (G+A)/(C+T) =G/C =A/T =1 for bases, density measurements, and C2’ endo conformation of sugar. Likewise Eduardo Kac was the first scientist who used a GPF (Green Fluorescent Protein) from a type of jellyfish to inject into a rabbit to make it glow green a specific blue light. His work, however, raised ethical questions concerning animal respect in lab. Other people wondered where the boundary of this transgenic art is.
Transgenic artists use biotechnology such as genetic engineering and cloning to create their works. Although the artists claimed this practice art would eventually bring the arts and sciences closer, since living organisms are the medium and the works are produced in laboratories, transgenic art is subject to such questions like in Eduardo Kac’s case. We all agree with Kac’s argument that genetically modified plants such as soybeans, potatoes, etc… would be useful in term of providing abundant food and cheap qualified proteins. He continued to argue that biotechnology is making tremendous positive changes and seems to be very promising in treating incurable diseases. Finally he predicted in the future “we will be transgenic”.
Eduardo Kac was also the first person to have a microchip implanted in his the lower part of his leg in 1997 to ask us to think seriously about this type of art. Therefore the question is when it comes to experiment in living organisms, would we simply accept it as a type of medium? To me there should be more restrictions on transgenic arts. Art is about artists’ creativity with intention to stimulate the human senses, thus bringing happiness for human mind. Although the green bunny was successful in stimulating human senses, the experiment/work is simply wrong in term of ethics. We should judge actions right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. The rabbit in this work were obviously being caused somewhat negative suffering. We don’t know what happened to its lifespan afterward and any discomfort and disease it had to bear because of this experiment. Was there any compensating gain in happiness elsewhere that justified it? Was greater unhappiness being prevented, for other animals or for human? To most of us, the answers were no. We all felt sorry for the rabbit. The work was not morally acceptable. Therefore, transgenic art should be limited when dealing with living forms.
To close this week’s blog, I’d like to introduce a break-through that I consider as art in science, but this work was involved with only physicists. In October last year, a team led by scientists at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering has demonstrated the first working "invisibility cloak." The cloak deflects microwave beams so they flow around a "hidden" object inside with little distortion, making it appear almost as if nothing were there at all. Although far from perfect--the ring-shaped cloak is invisible only when viewed in microwaves of a certain wavelength traveling parallel to the plane of the ring--the device could usher in a potentially revolutionary approach to manipulating electromagnetic waves. In this case the work successes in stimulating human sense and happiness, so it’s totally art. Just imagine one day in the future, you could really try this invisible cloak. It’s really cool, isn’t it?

Read more!

Alexander Yeh; week 8; Transgenic Art and Science

One of the important differences between art and science is that science always has some sort of practical application that the science is expected to contribute to. Art on the other hand is not conceived with any clear purpose. It can explore what has not been explored before, but the probability of success is much lower than with science with clear purpose. Thus, when dealing with issues of life including bioengineering and transgenetics, art should be held to a much stricter standard as to what should be explored. In the cases of stelarc and Orlan, the modification to a living body was contained to the artists own body. So if an artist would like to explore transgenic art, why should not the artist be limited to the artist’s own body as the canvas?

In the case of the GFP bunny, Eduardo Kac altered the genes of the rabbit which code its existence. Although it was somehow predictable that the result would be a glowing bunny, the cost of what could potentially go wrong was too high. When performing any alteration to DNA, the potential benefit to society must outweigh the potential cost. Clearly, it was no so in the case of the bunny.

The single purpose of art is to explore. Science has already advanced to the point where creating an animal that synthesizes jelly fish protein is no big deal. Already, this has already been applied to many organisms. Most people are aware of this, so the only question left is why anyone would want to create a bunny that synthesizes jelly fish DNA. It has no contribution to the scientific community and has little contribution to the artistic community since the topic has already been explored by the scientific community. So Kac’s GFP bunny really does not have any place.

Many times, artists do not have the scientific background to realize the scientific implications of the art that they create using biotechnology. Artists must consult with scientists and not perform transgenic art without exploring the dangers of what could happen. In the case of Eduardo Kac, after using the scientists to create the GFP bunny, he should have also listened to the scientists in not exposing the bunny to the outside world. Letting the animal go out into the wild may have had unforeseen effects upon natural species. Anyone with any sort of scientific background would realize that although the potential for danger of releasing the bunny is small, why is that a risk that should even be taken?

In the article found at http://www.jstor.org/view/0024094x/ap050117/05a00090/0 , the author explores art that creates transgenic digital creatures in digital worlds and art that uses DNA as a sort of tablet for encryption. In these forms, the artist is able to communicate the potentials of biotechnology and raise awareness of the issues surrounding transgenics without any of the damage or dangers of creating mutant creatures. I believe that these pieces are just as effective as the GFP bunny in exposing the public to the potentials of transgenics, although the bunny may have been more effective in creating controversy.

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 8-ROBOTS ARE NOT OKAY!!!

Due to the fact that we spoke about so many revolutionary discoveries and inventions this week (and I have to admit that I am thinking mostly about the discovery of Watson and Crick, considering that I have studied them many, many times prior to this week), I want to mention how desensitized we have all become to such advances. I mean, I feel like I hear about such things on the news all the time these days. Whether they are actually occurring, or even if they are merely being mentioned, they seem to be invading our televisions and newspapers constantly. I wonder how many of these things that we are told are truly revolutionary will (1) be treated with the same respect and weight Watson and Crick’s discovery and (2) hold up in time like so many of the things we have learned about this week. This all makes me wonder what it would have been like to grow up in an age when technological innovation was not nearly so ubiquitous. I feel like it would be a more exciting time in which to be raised. I cannot even fathom how amazing it would have been to see the moon landing in 1969, and now we learn about people who create bionic arm art exhibits and grow third ears in class on a bi-weekly basis. I don’t even know how impressed I would be if we were to someday land on Mars. How sad.

I don’t know about you guys, but I always wonder what it would be like if a person from around 1900 were to see one of those super-long buses here in LA, or something equally futuristic looking.

This is one of those things that makes me that we just know too much:

http://www.limblengthening.com/news/reccforpincare.html

I am a big fan of plastic surgery, and yet somehow this just seems like too much. Hmm… now that I consider my affinity for plastic surgery, it might be wrong for me to think limb lengthening is just wrong. It might be. I don’t know.

Okay- now for reals: THIS is not okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682284.ece

Frankly, growing skin over robotic limbs downright scares me. Remember Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Well, not even Luke Skywalker gets skin. He has to make due with a leather glove. And he is from a galaxy far, far away. Hmm… maybe because he’s from a long, long time ago… That MUST be it, because there is seriously no way that we should have the ability to do anything they weren’t able to do in Star Wars. That, I am SURE, is not okay… at least with me. I suppose I’m not okay with a lot of scientific things, though. It’s mainly just robots.

On the subject of robots, robots are not cool. Robots will become FAR too complex FAR too quickly, and people will all too quickly start arguing for robot rights. UGH! Robots will NEVER deserve rights, no matter how much their inner processes may resemble human feeling. And this reminds me of our discussion of Eliza and Agent Ruby and networked consciousness. It’s all just wrong to me. Just wrong. So, basically, what I’m saying is: don’t support robots. They will be given TOO much credit, and might just take over the world. SO BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read more!

Tygue Luecke-Week 8-ROBOTS AE NOT OKAY!!!

Due to the fact that we spoke about so many revolutionary discoveries and inventions this week (and I have to admit that I am thinking mostly about the discovery of Watson and Crick, considering that I have studied them many, many times prior to this week), I want to mention how desensitized we have all become to such advances. I mean, I feel like I hear about such things on the news all the time these days. Whether they are actually occurring, or even if they are merely being mentioned, they seem to be invading our televisions and newspapers constantly. I wonder how many of these things that we are told are truly revolutionary will (1) be treated with the same respect and weight Watson and Crick’s discovery and (2) hold up in time like so many of the things we have learned about this week. This all makes me wonder what it would have been like to grow up in an age when technological innovation was not nearly so ubiquitous. I feel like it would be a more exciting time in which to be raised. I cannot even fathom how amazing it would have been to see the moon landing in 1969, and now we learn about people who create bionic arm art exhibits and grow third ears in class on a bi-weekly basis. I don’t even know how impressed I would be if we were to someday land on Mars. How sad.

I don’t know about you guys, but I always wonder what it would be like if a person from around 1900 were to see one of those super-long buses here in LA, or something equally futuristic looking.

This is one of those things that makes me that we just know too much:

http://www.limblengthening.com/news/reccforpincare.html

I am a big fan of plastic surgery, and yet somehow this just seems like too much. Hmm… now that I consider my affinity for plastic surgery, it might be wrong for me to think limb lengthening is just wrong. It might be. I don’t know.

Okay- now for reals: THIS is not okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682284.ece

Frankly, growing skin over robotic limbs downright scares me. Remember Star Wars: Return of the Jedi? Well, not even Luke Skywalker gets skin. He has to make due with a leather glove. And he is from a galaxy far, far away. Hmm… maybe because he’s from a long, long time ago… That MUST be it, because there is seriously no way that we should have the ability to do anything they weren’t able to do in Star Wars. That, I am SURE, is not okay… at least with me. I suppose I’m not okay with a lot of scientific things, though. It’s mainly just robots.

On the subject of robots, robots are not cool. Robots will become FAR too complex FAR too quickly, and people will all too quickly start arguing for robot rights. UGH! Robots will NEVER deserve rights, no matter how much their inner processes may resemble human feeling. And this reminds me of our discussion of Eliza and Agent Ruby and networked consciousness. It’s all just wrong to me. Just wrong. So, basically, what I’m saying is: don’t support robots. They will be given TOO much credit, and might just take over the world. SO BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read more!

Allen Wang Week 8 - Gene Therapy?

With advancement in science, we are given the illusion that we are almost invincible. If we lose a heart, no matter, we can grow another one. If we catch some strange disease, no matter, we can most likey find a cure. But, with the limitations of research and the controversy of stem cell research, out biotechnology is limited for the time being.
If we did live in a world where biotechnology was free to explore its boundaries, it would probably be like a world of Jurassic Park. With its ability to clone and explore science freely, nature would eventually take its course and probably end up destroying everything in its path. Because man believes that it can control nature and anything else that it holds, man becomes too ambitious and eventually creates something out of its control and becomes destroyed by its creation. The dinosaurs, resurrected by man, cannot be contained because of the chaos theory, and therefore the dinasaurs break through the chains and locks and emerge to search and destroy the lives of humans in search for food.
We are not ever able to contain nature for nature is chaotic. Even in an contained enviroment, we must expect the unexpected in order to survive. The book and the movie versions of Jurassic Park has shown that even though the enviroment was well contained, with unpredictable variables and expectations, such as the backstabbing Nerdy and the storm that passes through the island, the elements can combine to devestation effects. The outcomes were the destruction of the lives of humans, dinosaurs, and as well as Jurassic Park itself. Because of the destroyed containment field of Jurassic Park, the animals, which were once contained, were released into human populations, though never to be found ever again.
Jsut because we can advance greatly in biological technology, we shouldn't because we might reach the point where we as humans cannot control the power that we discover. Though we should still advance, we need to act cautiously and realize that we are not the all powerful beings that we believe ourselves to be.

Read more!

Week 8, Biotechnology in Art - Michelle Baba

"Biotechnology in Art"

Edwardo Kac, an American artist from Chicago, created a transgenic rabbit injected with green fluorescent protein in April of 2000 as a part of his art enstallment called "GFP Bunny." Named Alba, the albino rabbit glows bright lime green when exposed to certain blue light due to the genes it contains of the Pacific Northwest jellyfish species. (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml) Edwardo Kac believes that he is contributing to science with his art exhibit, however, I feel that Alba raises many new (ethical) issues... can biotechnology be considered as still being art? Kac wants the public to believe that by integrating the first transgenic animal into society, he is pioneering the bioengineering world, however, I feel that he has lost all sight of the true scientific meaning behing the project. By using Alba as a work of art, he is showing his creation off not because of what it can mean for the future of genetic research, but because of how it looks. In a way, Kac reminds me of Steve Kurtz - a political activist/interactive artist who also turned to science yet seemed to fail to completely understand (and more importantly, respect) the seriousness of the scientific experiments that he was conducting. Kurtz seemed to find it to be amusing to release bacteria into the air of London - likewise, Kac seemed to think that a green bunny would be interesting to show off in a traveling exhibit. All in all, I feel that contemporary artists are constantly seeking ways to transcend the barriers between C.P. Snow's "two cultures" (art and science) however lose sight of the the ethics and serious mindset that should be maintained while conducting such projects. In a way, creating a green bunny to put on display is insulting to the science world. Is it a new creation? Yes. However, is it an accurate representation of what we have accomplished with years of genetic research? Most definitely not.

Read more!

Eddison Lai- Week 8-Animal Testing and Limiting Creativity

This week, we questioned if animal testing was morally acceptable. It seemed like half the class was against animal testing and the other was indifferent. I don’t think many people were in support of it because most people feel some sympathy for experimental animals. Society has a way of implanting the same morals into its inhabitants. !!! There were many different examples of immoral testing. There was dolly, the first ever cloned animal, Eduardo Kac’s GFP Bunny, and hundreds of thousands of lab rats tested through out the years of scientific experimentation.
Experimentation on humans is inhumane because humans are thought to have a choice and a free will. Animals on the other hand, cannot speak up for themselves, so they are taken advantage of often. People feel like they need to take a stand for these creatures. But if they say that we cannot experiment on animals because they're living beings, wouldn't it be same if we experimented on plants, insects, and the earth itself? In a sense we are taking the planet's life slowly as we live on aren't we?
To me, animal testing is wrong but we need a type of life form to test on. If we didn’t have a live being to test on, we can’t find cures and treatments for the diseases that plague our society. Many students in class mentioned that scientists should experiment on humans instead of rats. The reason I think scientists use rats is because its economically profitable. Rats are small, so they do not take up a lot of space. They do not consume much food so it is cheap to test on them as opposed to bigger animals.
I believe that medical and scientific experimentation is acceptable because it is for the good of human kind. This seems selfish for taking another species life, but its much more humane than the cosmetic companies who experiment on animals for their products and the artists who experiment on animals for their own selfish reasons.
So are we really limiting creativity? In a sense, I believe we are. We put a cap on how far artists can go to mutate their specimens. However, we still allow scientists to use lab rats for experimentation. Animal testing as a medium of creativity has yet to be accepted by the majority of society. Whose side am I on? I haven't fully decided yet.

Against Animal Testing
http://www.massanimalrights.org/producttesting.html

Regarding Support of Animal Testing
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-02-euroanimals_N.htm!!!

Read more!

--- Week 8 --- John Matt Ko --- Section 2 ---

This week we went over transgenic art and what it implies for society. Transgenic art is what Eduardo Kac calls his projects. The basic idea behind it is the creation of hybrids, though not in the typical manner of crating hybrids. Prior to the great advances in medicine and technology we have today, hybrids were made primarily among plants, and other times among dogs and cats. Hybrid plants are made by grafting different stalks onto each other and on the basis of dominant and recessive traits, things such as seedless lemons and oranges are made. In dog and cats, hybrids are made through the process of interbreeding. Essentially, any non pure-bred dog or cat is a hybrid. However, now that technology has come as far as it has, hybrids can be made straight at the root, the genome. Things that normally couldn’t be made, like hybrids between different animals or humans and animals, can be made. While these hybrids aren’t usually the kind of half-horse half-man you might think, the implications are pretty scary. It may even be possible to create things like centaurs and chimeras someday.

I for one, am not totally against what Kac is doing. Creating a green rabbit using GFP is a great advancement for science. It signifies the fact that we are now able to read the genome, and are on our way to fully mapping the human genome. And the concept isn’t foreign to me either. I had already heard of green mice from my friend in a Life Science class. However, deciding to call it art is the point at which I disagree with Kac. It’s a science experiment and that’s it. Perhaps there is beauty and creative expression in using the advances of science to create something new, but this happens in labs all over the world all the time, but none of these people call it art. To them it is their research, career, or even life’s work. To call Kac an artist would be to call these scientists artists as well. But to these people, this is work to advance science, not to express themselves artistically. So I don’t quite understand how Kac has the freedom to call himself an artist when he does exactly what scientists do.

Another thing we discussed in discussion was the development of actually growing cells into steaks, so that we don’t have to kill animals anymore. This I also feel isn’t art, though I would say it is closer to being art than Kac’s rabbit. I have somewhat of a problem though with doing this in the first place. Mainly because you don’t know about it’s consciousness as a living object. We can’t know that it doesn’t feel pain when you kill it, and if it does, it would be just as cruel as killing any other animal. I don’t have any problem with it myself, but if the issue is the animal cruelty, the problem I think is still there.

Read more!

Kelly Banh- Beef and... ART?

All this talk about plantimals is a bit disturbing. Combining the genetics of different kingdoms to produce crazy hybrids- I’m not too sure I would approve. I’m going to hold off on my opinions about interbreeding organisms with a brain or consciousness and discuss the mixing of an apple and a steak (which really turned out to be an internet hoax. go figure… but then again, is this really far off?). Then, I’ll attempt to link this to art.
Presenting the “applesteak,” a “New fruit's taste/texture said to be indistinguishable from an apple, but with the genetics and nutrition of beef.” The fake article was created by Ward Nicholson, highlighting the potential dangers of such a creation, the competition the “applesteak” would create for the beef market, the disputes between vegetarians and animal rights groups that would arise, and ultimately, who gets to decide genes and food choices. As a side note, the article also touched on Brave New World as Professor Taylor mentioned during his guest lecture.
The article was commented about on beyondveg.com, where this blurb was also found: “Too bad wiser heads prevailed upon the author to label this as the spoof it actually is. Just imagine the hue and cry that could have resulted had this been let loose somewhere else on the Internet as real. Think of the chain postings on email diet listgroups netwide, the barrage of protest letters to biotech firms and Congress--the panic, the fear, the mayhem! Coulda, woulda, SHOULDA. Read it and weep.” Sure it was a scam, but to Nicholson, it was an expression, and possibly very well categorized as written artwork.
During discussion, we were presented with the video of meat cultured in a lab. Ward Nicholson’s article is not much different from that video. If we are able to culture meat in a lab, then perhaps with more research and experimenting, beef could grow on trees? What’s more important? The economic efficiency of such a product? The benefits of eating an apple with the nutrition of beef minus the harmful fats? Not killing cows for food? These are the types of questions that arise from exposure to focus on videos and articles like that of the lab-cultured meat and fake article of Ward Nicholson. Just as Orlan experimented with cosmetic reconstruction, the purpose of art is believed to evoke emotions and opinions on issues like man-made beef and unnecessary surgery.
So what of this man-made cow meat? It was an extremely difficult topic for the class. One of the things that was mentioned was that it would provide vegetarians with an alternative to eating “meat” without killing an actual animal. Personally, I wouldn’t support this. Vegetarianism is a choice, and if you are going to stand by the beliefs of true vegetarianism, then there shouldn’t be any loopholes. If people have been doing it for years without the aid of biotechnology, then it should be continued in such a manner. Many of my family members are religious vegetarians, and they have been perfectly content with the natural resources that they have been given. No need for imitation beef products and shrimp-looking tofu. That’s just… weird. An article like Ward Nicholson just shows how absurd it would be. Internet hoax… maybe. Or maybe artistic expression.

Read more!

Week 8 - Daniel Baker - Ethics and More

We have studied art that modifies the body from the outside in, now the focus turns to art that modifies from the inside out. This appears to be the section where the level and of science is surpassing the amount of “art” in the projects. Possibly, it is because biotechnology a hot topic in today’s society. Perhaps it is because the process of creating the art is actually creating new life, but this subject of genetic mutation for artistic appreciation prompts plenty of discussion, specifically on ethical terms. Take one of Eduard Kac’s other pieces, “Specimen of Secrecy about Marvelous Discoveries.” The piece is basically living organisms on display, like a zoo but in an art gallery. The project evolves and changes based upon changes in its environment, meaning guests walking past could transform its evolutionary path. This has a direct link to generative art, for in both, the artist sets up the scenario and lets the art to evolve and create itself. Here however, it is life that is evolving, not just a computer program or the ways in which a robot moves about a canvas.

As time and more experiments proceed, it becomes harder to distinguish where the separation between “art projects” and “science projects” lies. Take the “GFP Bunny” for example. It is clearly a breakthrough in science, but also is a breakthrough in art as well. It challenges the norms in both, successfully bringing up new questions in both the art realm and the science realm. What therefore makes the GFP Bunny into an artwork? Is it only art because an artist makes it? It was in fact, a collaboration between scientists and artists, therefore I would say it would lie under the categories of both. The only non-scientific part of the project was the fact that the artist wanted to take his work home with him afterwards, something that would be deemed unacceptable in the scientific world.

This leads us to question what ethical rules must be laid down in order to protect the art from the artist, for dealing with living creatures for art projects is quite different than using inanimate objects for art. What is even a tougher question that what these rules are, is the question of who has the right to make these rules? The government? The artist? The viewer? It is a large problem that I am not sure even where to begin to start solving it. For the realm of science, the government has already begun to take precautions to protect individuals’ rights over then genetics, as well as the recent debates about stem-cell research. But how would the government go about protecting against art? So far, the artists have not done many things that are that different from what scientists are doing, so the rules that apply to science have also fit into the realm of art. But what comes next? Will scientists claim themselves to be artists to create experiments that are not restricted by the government? After all, artists are supposed to express their opinion through their pieces, so who will have the nerve to tell them they must limit their artistic creativity?

Read more!

jose fernandez, week 8, flourescent stick

Currently in display in the LACMA museum is an exhibition by Dan Flavin, a minimalist artist. The name of his exhibition is called a retrospective. I first noticed the advertisement a few weeks ago when I was on my way home. The art piece on display outside was a photograph of a long and thin yellow fluorescent light against a white wall. Well, at first I tried connecting this piece to the topic of the class but was not able to do so at the moment. When I got home I began to think about it a bit more.
Anyone that knows about star wars, which might be the entire world’s population, would quickly think about light savers at first glance. It really looks just like a light saver. Anyways, trying to connect it to art and science was quite difficult. I am not someone that really analyses artwork in search of meaning. I was almost forced to think about this piece though because it just would not leave my mind. Then I remembered that interpreting art has no right or wrong answers. So I began to think about it and actually came up with, what I thought, was an interesting connection.
The best interpretation I though of was the Sun. Although the sun is not actually yellow, it is the light source to Earth. First of all, light is life. Without light the Earth would have never existed. The Sun, which is a star, was required for the formation of the Solar System. So I guess I’m relating this image to the section on the universe, which is still left to be covered. The Big Bang was though to be the initiation of the universe and that was a large explosion of light that created everything that is now the universe. So the fluorescent stick can represent the Sun and life with its strong illumination. Say that this stick is alone in a dark room. The moment that the electric current runs thought the glass at the speed c, the lightless environment will become illuminated. It is giving life to a place where nothing can be seen by the eye alone. The instant the room becomes lit, it suddenly has life. Everything in the room will become visible. It’s like night and day for the Earth. At night everyone is sleeping, pretending to be dead. As soon as the Sun takes a peak at the sleeping world the dead revive with a jolt of life. It allows us to see everything
This example can be seen in the image of the galaxy that in on the webpage. The surroundings are dark but the luminescence of the stars give off enough light to create a halo around the constellation. Gather up billions of fluorescent sticks and you have a large light source enough to have a similar impact on a smaller scale.
Yet we all know that the Sun will one day die out. This is the same case for the light stick. It may burn for a long time but in the end it will cause the previously dark room to go dark again. It also represents the end. It can only burn for so long until it reaches the stage where it can no longer burn and loses its power, its life.
There are many ways in which the image of a yellow, or any color, fluorescent stick can be interpreted. I found my interpretation the moment I saw the sun glaring through my bedroom window. Like it was said earlier, light represents life. The bright day is alive while the dark night is dormant. The Sun is the only light source that can illuminate the entire planet. A fluorescent light is capable of illuminating an entire room. At first I didn’t think the stick was remotely comparable to anything. Maybe this comparison doesn’t make sense, but that’s the way I saw it.

Read more!

Week 8- Julie Fair- Ethics and Biotechnology

This week's topic of biotechnology is immensely complex. It can be analyzed and discussed on so many different levels and in so many different ways even within the same field of study. I thought it was especially interesting to be exposed to artists' perspectives on the issue. Previously I had not known that there was so much art work out there that addressed this issue. I guess I had pretty much only ever experienced this issue in the arenas of science and politics until now. I think that the artists' points of view with regard to this issue will have important implications in the future and I can see their work becoming increasingly significant in the political sphere as the field of bio tech becomes more prevalent and developed. I can see artwork pertaining to biotechnology becoming an important way to get information about the field in general and about controversial ethical issues it raises out to the public.

With this idea in mind, I will say that I found Paradise NOW especially interesting and significant. As I browsed a site detailing this project (http://www.exitart.org/paradisenow/), I found a list of the topics it proposes to address and it really seemed to hit some of ethical issues brought about by biotechnology square on the head.

Here is the list:

"Race - The implications of genetic research confirming that humans of all races are 99.9 percent genetically the same.
Economics - Ownership of genes and whether they should be patented and sold to the highest bidder
Reproduction - Germ-line gene therapy and how it could be used to design babies and/or improve the health of human beings before they are born.
Privacy - DNA identification and who has access to the information
Health - How gene therapy and new technologies will be used to prevent and treat disease
Food Safety - Risks and benefits of genetically engineered food crops and animals."

I personally believe that these issues are exceptionally important for our society to address, and feel that they have not seen enough attention on a nation wide or global level. I think that perhaps this type of art work is exactly what is needed to bring these issues to the forefront of global thought and media. They may be able to reach audiences in a way that other information relaying forms, like articles etc, cannot because they are more aesthetically appealing and attention grabbing. Here is an example of a piece from the project:

I think it does a pretty good job of orienting one's attention to a particular issue, as does the piece below, which is also from the project.

It is pretty clear that this picture is addressing the ethical issue of genetic engineering in food. It relates significantly with the issue raised by The Tissue Culture and Art Project that we discussed in section, where in the future it might be possible to grow steaks without growing animals. As I browsed the projects website I found a quote that seemed to capture the essence of the ethical issue with consuming certain animals as food, "...we must practice some kind of hypocrisy in order to be able to love and respect living things as well as to eat them." This idea can also be applied to the image above and the concept of genetic engineering of food, where I also see hypocrisy in the idea of doing genetic testing on livings things while "loving and respecting them."

On this point however, I am torn. As we discussed in discussion, where do we reach a balance between ethics and progress? As a life science student, a meat consumer, and an environment/animal lover I am able to see both sides of the issue, and have great difficulty deciding where I stand on it. However I do know that as time goes on, this issue is going to become more and more significant and some sorts of answers are going to become necessary.

Read more!

Week 8--Cui H. Cao--What is progress?

I was not ease while looking at the image of GFP (green fluorescent protein) Bunny during the lecture. Still, I am not ease now because deeply I feel sorry for the rabbit, whose gene had been manipulated and whose chance of surviving from the natural selection remained unknown.

Because of the scientific and technological progress, human beings are able to better controlling life by studying gene. Further on, because of all this "progress," artists had developed deeper insight in this genetic age. Here comes the transgenic art. Some artists thought the process of creating transgenic art is like painting on a canvas. "Similar to throwing paint at a canvas, the transgenic artist throws genes at living organisms and then waits to see what happens. "
However, this way of manipulaing life can't be taken as an expression of art at all. I admire the creativity of GFP Bunny's the arthor, as well as his knowledge and talent in both field of art and science. However, I don't consider this movement as a progress, neither in art or in science.

Read more!

Christine Dang - Week 8 - In the Name of Art and Science

Art and science are both fields that depend heavily on innovation for new discoveries and advances. As such, practitioners are constantly pushing the limits of their field, bringing in new techniques, new materials, new ideas. Also, as we've seen, science and art have a tendency to rely on one another.

However, this brings up the subject of what one of the previous posters dubbed "artists in the lab". This melding of these two fields in such a way results in these so called artistic experiments, such as transgenic art. One of the major experiments/creations discussed involved the genetic alteration of animals with the GFP gene taken from jellyfish, with a particular focus on mice and the now-famous bunny Alba.

But when it comes down to it, why are we doing this?




Many people are set on edge when they see artistic expressions such as these. Most people do not like needless torture or wanton killing. For the most part, people do not like to see animals harmed and are offended or disturbed by these transgenic creations. Personally, I agree. While I see some semblance of artistic expression, there are better, humane ways to get one's point across. Call it art if you will, but the simple presence of artistic expression does not justify the inherent cruelty of such experiments.



On the other hand, researches say they do it in the name of science. They are researching for the betterment of mankind. They are doing such things to further the research done to cure cancer and other diseases that ail people all over the world.

Grudgingly, most people accept this. They feel it is a necessary evil. They feel that they ends justify the means. And, quite frankly, people are selfish. Do they care how many rats must die in order to discover the cure to their disease? Or a disease they could possibly get?

It was a sacrifice for a worthy cause.

Worthy for who? Do the countless mice who died in experiments benefit in any way? Well, perhaps, their being dead does mean an end to the experimentation they must endure after all.

Another defense commonly used is that "these animals were bred specifically for scientific experimentation". To be honest, every time I hear someone cling to this excuse, I chuckle.

How is that any better?

Just because a creature had the unfortunate luck to be the offspring of a particular pair in a particular place and time...that gives you the right to its life? If anything, I would say that doing such a thing is an even /greater/ cruelty to the creature. Arranging, planning, giving it life. A life of sheer torture, followed by its eventual death (and if its lucky, a quick and painless one).

At least if these animals were instead captured, they had had the chance to escape. Their fate was to some degree in their hands. They had the choice to go after that particular bit of bait. The choice to wander in that particular region of their habitat. Still unfortunate, perhaps, but regardless, the creature had had some control over what happened.

And what of the failed experiments?



I recall a news story that hit last year. Taiwanese scientists had managed to create green-glowing pigs. Nothing unusual from the material covered in this class. However, the breakthrough in this story was that their pigs were 'better' than other country's transgenic pigs.

Their pigs were entirely green. Internal organs and all, everything would glow green.

When I read that story, I remember being amazed at what science could do. Then I was disturbed by the sheer fact that they had created green glowing pigs. And then, I had the thought...they know that its organs glow green. Which means, how many failed pigs did they cut open only to discover that it was not green enough for them to consider it a success?

Also, my mother once told me tales from her time in medical school involving the various labs and dissections she had done. One has remained with me all these years. For this particular lab, she had to anaesthesize a sparrow and then dissect it. It was still alive. Its lungs filled with air, its heart was still beating. The purpose of this experiment was to observe the functioning of the avian tri-chambered heart. My mother said it was 'amazing' and that she had been very 'curious' about the whole thing.

So...curiosity now is a valid reason for torture and death? If it's valid, then why are serial killers arrested. How are they tried? If a demented man mutilates his victim because he wanted to see their insides, how is that any different? He was just curious after all. The scientist is just curious. The victim has no say. The specimen has no say.

Since when did we give scientists unhindered control to life and death? Since when did science lose its ethics? To what degree are researchers allowed to go, merely for "the cause". What else shall arise in the name of science?

I fear the day when scientists are allowed to freely experiment on humans without their subjects knowledge, for inevitably that day is coming. Oh wait, correction, it has already come.

Read more!

Jacob Janco Week 8 Section 3 - Emergence

It was nice to see Professor Charles Taylor unify Art and Science in his lecture this past Wednesday. All is well in the world; the chaos, of course, was sparked by Dr. Scerri in the previous week’s lectures. Taylor’s lecture was engaging on both an artistic and scientific level. He did not water down either discipline to suit the needs of a particular group of students. As such, I found his discussion of emergence and thinking in terms of systems particularly interesting. This idea of emergence traces back to the lectures in class as well as the guest lecturers in an almost universal thematic element to the subject matter of the class. Casey Reas’s work for example is an artistic vision that emerges from simple processes and programmed systems.

I loved the evolving objects swimming and grappling with a computer created environment. I was blown away by the sheer organic feel that these “creatures” evolved into to cope with their surroundings. They mimicked biological organisms not by their inherent programming, but by inheritance patterns and the effects of the external world. I had never seen something like this, and it plays with the idea of emergence and a systems approach to biology as well as computer systems and mathematics; the last of which, I think, is the root for our understanding of the natural world. When I was young, my father would tell me that a computer is simply a machine that understandings two things, a 0 or a 1. He said that that was what it is. My understanding now is that, yes, from our current perspective a computer is nothing by 0’s and 1’s, but, no, it is far more complex once systems arise. It is easy to extrapolate this idea from a man made, simplistic computer system to the human brain and visa versa. The brain is much more complex, but understood processes form a foundation upon which the incredible, amorphous systems that lead to consciousness are built. From the simple arises the incredibly complex. The person in a crowd ceases to be a singular entity and moves with the ebb and flow of the groupthink.

What is this process? Why is it so elusive? It is so elusive because it is so hard to break it down to cause and effect, which is essentially what science is and what we understand. The problem arises when this huge amount of complexity thrown onto problems. Blue is not always qualitatively blue within the minds of different people. We are trying to piece together these processes using the infinite reduction of science to understand them. The creatures that swim through digital environments that were shown in class take a preexisting system and utilize its function. The incredibly complex mathematical formulas subject to an existent system produce similar end results as in our own tangible world. It is very strange indeed.

Emergence is the next step that we must tackle in science. Contemporary science for the most part is the filling in of what has already for the most part been discovered. I don’t remember who quoted this but it certainly makes sense to me as I read scientific journals with titles that span 5 lines with words that would scare small children. Science was created to understand our own place in the universe just like art was. Argue this you may, but it is true, our goals are selfish and what we discover and find aid us in the discovery of what it means to be human. Emergence is tied inextricably to the processes of consciousness and life and it is necessary to explore it- either as a new discipline in and of itself or as a continuation of science.
Just as a side note, rather than linking to some area of particular research for this week’s blog, I would like to recommend a book. Richard Dawkins was mentioned in lecture and he is a professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford. I have been reading The Ancestor’s Tale. It is an extremely lucid account of evolution, and although I am a life science major I find that I have a tenuous grasp on what is supposed to be one of the most important branches of study in all of human history. I find it strange that people have faith in evolution without knowing a shred of what it means. How is that better than placing your faith in some hokey mystic that claims he has the truth? It is illuminating and touches on these concepts of emergence. We are conglomerates of cells and atoms, you get the picture. Check it out, it is a fun and informative read.

Read more!

Boris Lipkin - Week 8 - Biotechnology

While we talk about and learn new ideas each week, I keep on thinking about the Two Cultures in relation to each week’s guest speakers. In week 8, we had Chris Taylor from the EEB department talk to us. He discussed his very interesting research into the possibilities of stopping malaria infection in Africa and discussed the links that he saw between art and science. He brought up a performance by a scientist, Fiengold, and the need for artists in the scientific fields.
It amused me when Professor Taylor brought up how integral artists were in helping scientists present their research. Sure, they hired artists for these jobs but these are not scientist-artists or artist-scientists. These artists do not take part in any of the research that goes into the work done by the scientist. On top of that, the artists don’t even get to be true artists either. They have very little freedom for creativity and I’m sure must follow strict guidelines so that the art meets the requirements set out by the scientists that they work with. If anything, this probably furthers the divide between artists and scientists. In today’s world we do not expect a scientist to have the artistic know-how to be able to create the art that accompanies their research. The fact that they hire artists to present their research just shows how specialized today’s world is. The artists have a very specialized, commercialized task also that does not involve any active participation in the research being done. Hence the artists aren’t doing science and the scientists aren’t doing art. The same principle can be said of Fiengold’s “performance”, what he did was a scientific demonstration that would mean nothing to anyone outside of the scientific realm. It wasn’t a performance unless we want to count scientific experiments as performance pieces, which I don’t. The links that Professor Taylor tried to set up between art and science seemed very weak to me and did as much to spread the two fields apart as bring them together.
Looking back at past weeks, the same concepts can be seen throughout the course. The artists that were “scientists” such as Steve Kurtz, Casey Reas, and others simply used science or scientists in their art like Professor Taylor uses art to describe his science. To me, when we talk about science we talk about the research being done to gain more knowledge in whatever field of scientific inquiry. Thus the work of Steve Kurtz and Casey Reas does not qualify as science to me because while they use modern science or scientists in their work, they are not pushing the boundaries of human technology or advancing research. When Steve Kurtz works with scientists, I’m sure he uses them in a similar capacity as Professor Taylor uses artists: they are there to create one piece of his artwork using well-known techniques with little freedom of ideas. The scientists are there to serve a purpose; to fill a niche that is needed for a successful performance.
Looking through the first eight weeks of this class, I cannot find one example of a hybrid (not the transgenic art style) artist-scientist or scientist-artist. In my first blog I wrote about the splitting of the Two Cultures after the idea of the Renaissance Man, who was an expert in all trades including art, science, literature, etc. disappeared. I think this class has demonstrated how the divide has grown since we’re almost done and I still don’t have an example of someone who bridged the gap of the Two Cultures.

Read more!

Misuses of Since, Andrew Modlin, Section 3 Chris

As an artist I understand the need to want to explore new mediums and make a critique on the way things work in society. YetI disagree with how artists have choosen to do so.

Art has evolved ever since humans started with basic drawings. Painting and sculpture have changed as humans have found new ways to work. We invented different types of pigments and made a verity of different mediums to use. It only seems natural that as technology evolved artists would want to find a way of manipulating it for their benefit.

As I have mentioned before I a have always been interested in both art and scince. In highschool I had an internship in a zebra fish lab at UCLA. The lab uses the GFP protein in the zebra fish to illuminate different hart problems. These hart diseases were usually a resut genetics. Usually the zebra fish eggs were injected with a small needle to insert the protein into the cell.

Now there is the whole argument about doing testing on animals and how that is wrong, but in my opinion if it is going to lead to new infermation then may it is worth it. While I worked there i saw a lot a lot of test on the zebra fish to see if they could make the whole body glow with the GFP protein. They used a mouse skin plasmid and stuck the GFP protien into it. This was before the bunny was created, probably around 2000 or earlier. It was really interesting to seen the different ways that the protein could be inserted into a gene and how we as humans have found ways to manipulate the way organisms are made.

Yet I do disagree with the ethics of projects like this. While it is cool to seen a zebra fish glow its is completely unnecessary. It was worth doing once but why do we have to keep changing animals in this way. I feel this problem relates back to my criticism of Steve Kurtz. He constantly was doing experiments and projects that would anger the government and society. He said that they had to be done in order to get a message across. But to me the only message that was shown was his disregard for the laws of society and his disregard for others safety.

I am very liberal but I believe that there are some laws that are supposed to be fallowed for everyones protection. Some laws do protect people and are not just arbitrary, like a lot of them are. I feel that a lot of artist who work with science showed blatant disregard for these laws and the scientific community. They are trying to critique the medium of science by doing the same things the scientists are doing. This is not the right way for them to get their point across.

I also have been feeling like a lot of the information we are learning about in class is little bit wrong. We are learning a lot about science from an artist’s perspective. This is a little biased and could be incorrect. In one of the other blogs I read about the hair cactus being a fraud. This would really cause the artist to loose a lot of credit. Only causing the artists message to be lost even more.

Read more!

John Milinovich - Week 8 - Transgenic Art

This week's subject matter really piqued my interests. I have always considered myself to have a scientifically-oriented mind, and it was a relief to see a crossover into this class of a subject I am familiar with: genetics and animal hybrids.

The picture above emerged on the internet about two years ago of some of the earliest "artistic" transgenic animals. In the case of these genetically altered mice, the gene that codes for the protein (GFP protein) that makes jellyfish glow was inserted into their makeup via a DNA retrovirus. Without going into too much detail, the synthetic viruses infected the mice by altering its DNA. If all goes as planned (as in this picture), the r