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!

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!

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 result is a mice capable of creating glowing progeny.

Odd experiments such as this are greatly helping the frontier of new medicine by allowing scientists to test and observe new methods of disease treatment. Such technologies, when perfected, could lead to the prospect of a cure for diseases such as cancer. I am all for these experiments in the name of scientific enlightenment, but when this "transgenic art" crosses over into popular culture and media to become the next big thing in the arts scene I find it unacceptable.

Scientific experiments should exist and take place in laboratories and stay there - far, far away from the art world. When the GFP Bunny (shown, left) hit the mainstream, it became the next big thing. Soon enough, its pictures were plastered all over the walls of popular art galleries. Has the modern scientist taken the role of the modern artist, or have the two merely became on in the same? It is my belief that there is such a thing as the scientific artist, but he does not have to work in the labs modifying DNA do become such. More 'traditional' (it is interesting that I find myself using this term) scientific artists like Casey Reas and Stelarc are still incorporating scientific practice into their work but they are not messing with nature's natural order.

Read more!

Blogging Instructions

Each week by Sunday at midnight each student must post a 500-800 word blog entry. Reflect on the questions raised in Prof. Vesna's lecture, guest lectures, and readings. Connect these concepts to self-directed research. Provide one link for each post to something you've discovered. Examples are news articles about scientific, artistic, political events etc. that relates to class topics. Images are optional but enjoyable for everyone.

Use the "Create New Post" button in your "dashboard" once you've logged in. Use the buttons above the text box to add photos, links, and text formatting.

When Posting Always...

Label your post with your section in this format (without quotes): "Section 1"
This allows your TA to find your blog posts.

Email myself or your TA if you have technical issues.
oleary@ucla.edu
xarene@ucla.edu
zblas@ucla.edu
datadreamer@ucla.edu

Read more!