Eduardo Kac and the consideration of transgenic art
As Brianna mentioned in her response below, after reading these excerpts from Eduardo Kac’s book, Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond, I am also in awe of the wide array of inspiration that can go into creating and presenting a work of art. Kac begins his introduction to transgenic art through a discussion of the socially controversial aspects of biological manipulation and the “simplified treatment of life” to which scientific developments have led us. He briefly outlines some of the more recent man-made biological phenomenon, and concludes that it would be absurd to encase this discussion into the realm of science and production alone. Doing so, he seems to suggests, would promote the banality of “man-made mutations” within society – something the Kac does not seem to find as acceptable. Cultural thought and ideology are most specifically impacted by humankind’s experimentation in the biological world. Specifically, Kac uses his discussion of biological advancements throughout time to lead into “biomedia” artwork, where he considers its evolution from all disciplines, from Thomas Malthus to Darwin to Picasso, to a bioluminescent bunny, which Kac discusses in a later chapter.
Most interestingly, Kac urges artists who work in the field of biomedia to consider their efforts as having their own “subjecthood.” He says that it is necessary to “articulate a new critical vocabulary to meet the intellectual challenge posed by the emerging bio art documented here…” – a language of respect. It is perhaps our fascination with the potential of biological processes that allows us to look at works using blood and other bodily fluids as an art form. At the same time, however, the fact that living specimens can be genetically manipulated in ways once inconceivable allows for a serious discussion of bioethics and its placement in the aesthetic – rather than economic – world.. I liked how Yves Michaud defined this new art’s impact as existing in the creation of experience rather than production; artwork inspired by the new ability of humankind to create mutants and chimeras disallows the possibility of this practice to become too commonplace.
In Chapter 10, “Life Transformtaion – Art Mutation,” Kac delves even deeper into his description of biotechnology vis-à-vis art by discussing the impact of his own work. I really like his comment that states that “art can, and should, contribute to the development of alternative views of the world that resist dominant ideologies.” This idea seems, in fact, to support the reasoning behind why he creates the sort of work he does. His discussion of the work entitled Genesis allowed me to better understand the potential of transgenic artwork (beyond genetic mutation and canvassed fluid). It was extremely interesting to me that he used the translation and exhibit-induced mutation of DNA to change the context of a Biblical passage. The core purpose of this work seems to be summed up by the symbolism he mentions: we cannot assume the structure of [ideologies] that we inherit because as our culture changes we create new meanings by which to view our world.
At the same time, I was initially confused by the purpose behind the GFP Bunny. And then the more I thought about it, I realized that the global controversy surrounding the GFP Bunny’s creation allows for a constructive, conscious discussion about humankind’s capacity to change the genetic coding of living beings. It’s interesting to me that protein manipulation of this sort could exist so passionately in the aesthetic realm, and really challenged me to consider why work like this is so fascinating to society. The piece Move 36: a transgenic installation which symbolized the defeat of man by machine in a chess game, presents a similar stimulus for thought. Kac has genetically curled the leaves of a plant and placed it on the exact chessboard spot of the human’s defeat in a game between man and computer. This philosophically could represent the mutated, improved capacity of the human mind when inside a computer, and the ideological conflict of “checkmate” in the context of man, nature, and machine.
Kac’s conclusion states that the notions of what is “natural” need to be viewed under a different light and seriously questioned. He mentions that the more we are all aware of our own “transgenic mutations,” humankind may be able to consider the biotechnological art world with a greater sense of understanding.
Discussion questions:
1. What sort of future does biotechnological artwork have in today’s world? In other words, what political statements can be made through an aesthetic consideration of biotechnology; and how can it open the public’s eyes to the controversies of biotechnological developments?
2. How has transgenic technology become a “dominant ideology” in our society and how do you consider it in relation to your own life?
3. Why do we feel hesitant to accept transgenic manipulation as art? What about it is uncanny and monstrous?