WEEK 6 | BIOTECH + ART | 🦋🌱

This week’s lecture revolved around a controversial expression of art. Before anything, I would like to express that I do not agree with experimenting with animals if the sole purpose is for “aesthetic pleasures”. As for experimenting with animals for the advancement of medical knowledge, I do not like the idea of an animal being harmed. I do believe the body can be used as a medium but I am hesitant to call something art if it involves extreme manipulations or something that may be deemed dangerous to the human or animal. Interestingly, this reason is why bioart is often differentiated from other art forms. Because some bioart involves experimenting with live organisms, I do believe there should be standards to ensure safety so that no human or animal is put into a stressful and unwanted situation. As Levy explains, there is an established boundary between a work of art and a genetically engineered invention, however, using living materials is still very much debated (Levy 9). It was interesting to hear the different points of view directly from the artists themselves. The fact that there are so many points of view on what should be considered art proves that art has no universal definition. Notably, the two artists that most influenced my understanding of BioTech and Art are Marta de Menezes and George Gessert. 

Marta de Menezes' manmade butterfly pattern

Marta de Menezes experimented with butterflies. Using technology to interfere with the development of the wings, de Menezes was able to create new patterns different from what is normally created by nature (Vesna). As seen in Marta de Menezes’ Nature? the alteration of the pattern of the wings is notable, especially with the holes. Menezes explains that these questionable patterns that never existed before in nature rapidly disappear, which her artwork represents: art with a lifespan (de Menezes). It was interesting to see how this theme is represented through something as beautiful as butterfly wings, though I believe this beauty could be represented without manipulating something that nature already does itself. In my opinion, what makes nature fascinating is its power to create such beautiful patterns whether that be natural rivers or cloud shapes. Human interference with this wonder could lessen that natural beauty, nevertheless, it was insightful to see how Marta de Menezes was able to manipulate nature!  

 

George Gessert's Hybrid 171

George Gessert, similarly manipulated living organisms. The difference is that he used flowers. Gessert worked specifically with hybrids and different versions of irises since the late 1970s (Vesna). As Gessert explained in an interview, he is interested in plant aesthetics and the ways that human aesthetic preferences affect evolution (Mulder). It was very interesting seeing Gessert’s intervention with nature.

George Gessert's Hybrid 768

Citations

de Menezes, Marta. “Marta De Menezes: NATURE?” KIBLA, MULTIMEDIJSKI CENTER KIBLA, 2006, www.kibla.org/en/sections/kibela-space-for-art/archive/kibela-arhiv/2006/marta-de-menezes/. 

de Menezes, Marta. “Nature?” Marta De Menezes, Marta De Menezes, 2021, martademenezes.com/art/nature/nature/. 

Gessert, George. “Hybrid 171 (Big Money X I. Tenax).” Science Meets Art, Science Meets Art, gamma.library.temple.edu/sciencemeetsart/items/show/38. 

Gessert, George. “Hybrid 768.” Science Meets Art, Science Meets Art, 2022, gamma.library.temple.edu/sciencemeetsart/items/show/37. 

Levy, Ellen K. “Defining Life: Artists Challenge Conventional Classifications.” 

Mulder, Arjen. “Interview with George Gessert, Bio-Artists, on Plants ‘Thier Silence Is Gift.’” Academia, Academia, 7 Dec. 2015, www.academia.edu/19534424/interview_with_George_Gessert_bio-artists_on_plants.

Vesna, Victoria. "BioTech+Art: Part II." Lecture. 17 May. 2012,  UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Class lecture.

Vesna, Victoria. "BioTech+Art: Part V." Lecture. 17 May. 2012,  UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Class lecture.