skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Lyndal Osborne, mixed media installation: glass, foam and paint, (detail), Photo credit: Mark Freeman
An Artistic Exploration of Science, Society and Social Change: Nov 14 - Feb 1 at the ART GALLERY OF ALBERTA. IMAGINING SCIENCE is an exhibition project built on conversations and collaborations between internationally recognized artists, scientists, bio-ethicists, lawyers and philosophers. It addresses the impact of genetics, bio-technologies and human engineering. This blog is intended as a forum to respond to the project, to the artwork and to weekly questions posed by tour volunteers.
THIS WEEK'S QUESTION
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?
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?
ab ovo
Lyndal Osborne, mixed media installation: glass, foam and paint, (detail), Photo credit: Mark Freeman
Curatorial introductions to the exhbition
In the fall of 2006, the Art Gallery of Alberta was approached by Professors Sean Caulfield and Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chairs in the fields of Printmaking and Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta about a unique idea they had for an exhibition and publication to celebrate the University of Alberta's centenary. The project proposed an innovative collaboration between artists, scientists, cultural theorists, bio-ethicists and social commentators as a way to investigate the wide range of issues that have arisen from new developments in the life sciences as well as the impact they have had on our beliefs, assumptions and values.
The Imagining Science project officially began in August 2007, with a 3-day workshop at The Banff Centre that brought together a multidisciplinary group of internationally recognized artists and social commentators (philosophers, sociologists, ethics scholars and scientists) who met to discuss the many significant breakthroughs, challenges and controversies that have arisen in the last decade with advancements made in new life science technologies: stem cell research, cloning, genetic testing).
The artists that we invited to participate in this project represent a diversity of aesthetic practices.
While some have been critically engaged with an examination of science and bio-technology for many years, others came to the project with a sense of wonder and excitement, responding to our challenge to take their work in new directions. What has resulted is a multi-layered exhibition and publication with a diversity of approaches to the subject at hand, with works of art that visually reference the objects of science: its tools, devices and hardware; works that reference the human body and the mysteries of its form and interiority; works that critique specific bio-technical developments, such as genetic modification and gene alteration, and works that directly engage with biotechnology's accepted methodologies and protocols.
While the final works vary in the level of their engagement with the specificities of science and its trajectories, inevitably none of them are representations of science itself. They do not provide explanations or justifications for science and its infinite areas of research and investigation. Instead they are reflections, critiques, musings and semblances. They are not about fact per se, but about experience, interpretation and contemplation. They engage us with the possibility of their ideas and images, and leave us to decide what we will learn from them.
Catherine Crowston
Deputy Director/Chief Curator
Art Gallery of Alberta
--
We live in a time that has been characterized by many as the start of the biotechnology century - an era when biotechnology will emerge as the dominant scientific field and influence a broad array of human endeavors. Even if one does not agree with such grand predictions, it is hard to deny that biotechnology has become, rightly or not, a focal point of research investment, scientific inquiry, economic activity and public debate. Indeed, emerging areas of biotechnology, including genetics and stem cell research, have the potential to drastically alter the way we treat disease, view ourselves and our communities, and conceive children. Biotechnology has permeated the landscape of popular culture. It can be found on TV, in Hollywood movies, and throughout the mainstream press. Rarely a day goes by without at least one headline about biotechnology - be it a new breakthrough or a new controversy.
In many ways, it is the profoundly controversial nature of the field that makes it so unique, at least from the perspective of social policy. The great potential for benefit is accompanied by possible risk. Public excitement about promising medical breakthroughs is often accompanied by uncertainty about the ethical appropriateness of the research. So, as the research moves forward, we continue to struggle with a surplus of seemingly unresolvable ethical dilemmas. Does the human embryo have sufficient moral status as to preclude stem cell research? Should we use genetic testing to select the traits of our offspring? Should we be able to patent genes? Will knowledge of our genetic make up lead to an overly deterministic view of humanity? Such questions, and many more, have been debated for decades and remain a focal point of academic inquiry for a wide variety of scholars, including artists.
Art has always been a powerful tool of social commentary. In the west, pre-Renaissance art was often used as a way to legitimize and glorify the status quo and the ruling icons, be they secular or spiritual. Subversive elements snuck in, but art's most visible social utility was not as an agent of change. During the Renaissance, the palette expanded greatly. The economic, philosophical and scientific changes that were occurring throughout Europe were reflected in (and, no doubt, partly caused by) new perspectives in art. In the 1800s, art challenged social norms and the conventions of artistic expression.
Today, artists continue to play the role of provocateurs. Many of the present-day artistic responses to the fundamental ethical questions associated with biotechnology build on past creative works - such as Leonardo da Vinci's portrayals of the human form and Dante's contemplations on the status of the human embryo. However, the pace and scope of change that society is facing today as a result of scientific advance is so pervasive as to give rise to the specific, targeted and truly unique field of "bio art." That is, a field of artistic inquiry which both utilizes the techniques of biotechnology and serves as a medium of reflection on the societal implications of the research.
As a mode of commentary on science, art can be both commanding and subtle. Unlike an academic article, a quick glance at a piece of art work can produce an immediate response - be it wonder or revulsion. It can draw us into novel situations or invite us to see things from a fresh perspective. But artistic images may also affect the viewer on a more understated level, simply asking us to see beauty in new places and in new ways.
In the context of biotechnology, art can be used to put forward a gamut of perspectives. Bio-conservatives voice concern about the impact of biotechnology on our environment, health and personhood. Some of this work has the force of a broad intuitive reaction to the entire area of research. Here, the theme is often one of caution. Other work is more specific in its intent, tackling discrete topics - such as the role of market forces in shaping the research agenda. But other work suggests a less pessimistic outlook. This art embraces the potentially transforming power of biotechnology, asking the viewer to consider "what if?" and, perhaps more provocatively, "why not?" Underlying all of this commentary and discussion is the question of how as individuals and as communities, we decide.
Timothy Caulfield
Canada Research Chair in Health Law & Policy
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health
Research Director, Health Law Institute
University of Alberta
The Imagining Science project officially began in August 2007, with a 3-day workshop at The Banff Centre that brought together a multidisciplinary group of internationally recognized artists and social commentators (philosophers, sociologists, ethics scholars and scientists) who met to discuss the many significant breakthroughs, challenges and controversies that have arisen in the last decade with advancements made in new life science technologies: stem cell research, cloning, genetic testing).
The artists that we invited to participate in this project represent a diversity of aesthetic practices.
While some have been critically engaged with an examination of science and bio-technology for many years, others came to the project with a sense of wonder and excitement, responding to our challenge to take their work in new directions. What has resulted is a multi-layered exhibition and publication with a diversity of approaches to the subject at hand, with works of art that visually reference the objects of science: its tools, devices and hardware; works that reference the human body and the mysteries of its form and interiority; works that critique specific bio-technical developments, such as genetic modification and gene alteration, and works that directly engage with biotechnology's accepted methodologies and protocols.
While the final works vary in the level of their engagement with the specificities of science and its trajectories, inevitably none of them are representations of science itself. They do not provide explanations or justifications for science and its infinite areas of research and investigation. Instead they are reflections, critiques, musings and semblances. They are not about fact per se, but about experience, interpretation and contemplation. They engage us with the possibility of their ideas and images, and leave us to decide what we will learn from them.
Catherine Crowston
Deputy Director/Chief Curator
Art Gallery of Alberta
--
We live in a time that has been characterized by many as the start of the biotechnology century - an era when biotechnology will emerge as the dominant scientific field and influence a broad array of human endeavors. Even if one does not agree with such grand predictions, it is hard to deny that biotechnology has become, rightly or not, a focal point of research investment, scientific inquiry, economic activity and public debate. Indeed, emerging areas of biotechnology, including genetics and stem cell research, have the potential to drastically alter the way we treat disease, view ourselves and our communities, and conceive children. Biotechnology has permeated the landscape of popular culture. It can be found on TV, in Hollywood movies, and throughout the mainstream press. Rarely a day goes by without at least one headline about biotechnology - be it a new breakthrough or a new controversy.
In many ways, it is the profoundly controversial nature of the field that makes it so unique, at least from the perspective of social policy. The great potential for benefit is accompanied by possible risk. Public excitement about promising medical breakthroughs is often accompanied by uncertainty about the ethical appropriateness of the research. So, as the research moves forward, we continue to struggle with a surplus of seemingly unresolvable ethical dilemmas. Does the human embryo have sufficient moral status as to preclude stem cell research? Should we use genetic testing to select the traits of our offspring? Should we be able to patent genes? Will knowledge of our genetic make up lead to an overly deterministic view of humanity? Such questions, and many more, have been debated for decades and remain a focal point of academic inquiry for a wide variety of scholars, including artists.
Art has always been a powerful tool of social commentary. In the west, pre-Renaissance art was often used as a way to legitimize and glorify the status quo and the ruling icons, be they secular or spiritual. Subversive elements snuck in, but art's most visible social utility was not as an agent of change. During the Renaissance, the palette expanded greatly. The economic, philosophical and scientific changes that were occurring throughout Europe were reflected in (and, no doubt, partly caused by) new perspectives in art. In the 1800s, art challenged social norms and the conventions of artistic expression.
Today, artists continue to play the role of provocateurs. Many of the present-day artistic responses to the fundamental ethical questions associated with biotechnology build on past creative works - such as Leonardo da Vinci's portrayals of the human form and Dante's contemplations on the status of the human embryo. However, the pace and scope of change that society is facing today as a result of scientific advance is so pervasive as to give rise to the specific, targeted and truly unique field of "bio art." That is, a field of artistic inquiry which both utilizes the techniques of biotechnology and serves as a medium of reflection on the societal implications of the research.
As a mode of commentary on science, art can be both commanding and subtle. Unlike an academic article, a quick glance at a piece of art work can produce an immediate response - be it wonder or revulsion. It can draw us into novel situations or invite us to see things from a fresh perspective. But artistic images may also affect the viewer on a more understated level, simply asking us to see beauty in new places and in new ways.
In the context of biotechnology, art can be used to put forward a gamut of perspectives. Bio-conservatives voice concern about the impact of biotechnology on our environment, health and personhood. Some of this work has the force of a broad intuitive reaction to the entire area of research. Here, the theme is often one of caution. Other work is more specific in its intent, tackling discrete topics - such as the role of market forces in shaping the research agenda. But other work suggests a less pessimistic outlook. This art embraces the potentially transforming power of biotechnology, asking the viewer to consider "what if?" and, perhaps more provocatively, "why not?" Underlying all of this commentary and discussion is the question of how as individuals and as communities, we decide.
Timothy Caulfield
Canada Research Chair in Health Law & Policy
Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health
Research Director, Health Law Institute
University of Alberta