What makes the rabbit experiment art instead of just another breeding experiment? Peopple have been testing genetics for a while now, so why does this one qualify as art? Is it just because the artist decides that it's art? Is artist's intention enough to make something a "work of art"-even if everyone else doesn't think so? (implications of this are quite large)
Interestingly, the GPF Bunny isn't exhibited like most art-it is not on a pedestal or in an installation, like most 3-D artworks. Instead, it's free to live like a normal bunny. It hasn't even ben exhibited in a museum or gallery. Does a work's presentation (or lack thereof) affect its status as a work of art?
Where do you draw the line between publicity stunt and art?
One ethical issue raised is, When do we stop genetically engineering plants/animals? Where do you draw the line? Also, it seems like we're "playing God"-like the world's our own little experimental playground, which I don't think is right.
Who do you label as the artist in such a collaborative work? Should the artist who had the idea/concept get the credit, or should the people (like scientists, technical people, computer people) who carried out the idea get equal credit/$/publicity.
Also, is it hard to persuade galleries or museums to feature such projects?