Artists Adam Zaretsky and Eduardo Kac partake in genetic modification to create new organisms—organisms that are then framed as art. Both see the creation of these organisms as a form of parentage: Kac, for example, claims the fluorescent bunny Alba as part of his family.
Should genes be used as an artistic medium? What responsibility do artists and scientists have towards the new organisms that they create through genetic modification?
Nov 14, 2008
Genes and Art
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On Nov 20, the first respondent on our Thursday evening Idea-Exchange tours: Dr. Jennifer Welchman (University of Alberta Associate Professor in Philosophy and
ReplyDeleteMedical ethics) noted that Eduardo Kac did not actually commission a genetically-modified Rabbit (“Alba”). Rather he gained permission to make use of Alba, who had already been created with other similarly modified rabbits from a French lab. Thus Alba was not designed by the artist – he was a kind of found object.
In this case, the Duchampian term is inadequate and doesn’t expose the ethical dimension involved in the use of a living organism. To be more precise, Alba should be classified as a found subject.
Artists and scientists use living subjects in their work all the time. How they are treated, to what ends, the nature of consent (with human subjects) and the humanness of the procedures are just some of the issues involved. In recent decades scientific research has become bound to increasingly stringent protocols to prevent suffering and humiliation. The use of living subjects by artists implies exactly the same ethical responsibility as their scientific counterparts, and when their work becomes similarly intrusive – they should adhere to the same guidelines and standards.
Marcus Miller