Art in the Mix and the Making

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?

Posted by Broc Blegen at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Questions:
1. What is it that makes something art and not just a science project? Could art be mixed with other topics like politics or economics and still be considered art?
2. What measures are people (government) taking to ensure that animals are not being abused through this project? If they are allowing medical experiments on animals for purposes of developing cures for diseases, what types of privileges (if any) will artists or other people be given in this area?
3. When creating this florescent bunny, would it be easy to mistake one gene for another? How would this affect the outcome of the bunny? And what precautions are taken to ensure that the bunny is not injured?

Posted by Michelle Stein at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What else could be considered art alongside the GFP bunny, Chemistry, plant experiments, etc.?
2. If you are modifying the animal before it is technically "alive", how can you determine wether the animal is being harmed or not?
3.What was the main thought process involved in deciding to turn a normal rabbit or any creature for that matter into a glowing animal?

Posted by Christopher Tuominen at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What other contemporary, biological concepts are artists working on in the world today?

2. How did Kac know that the procedure was going to be safe for the rabbit? (This has never been done before)

3. What is the next step now that this experiment was successful? Glowing humans?

Posted by Ethan Weber at 5:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. How did you deem the project "safe" to continue in development and know there would be no surprises. How/why is the green fluorescent protein harmless to the rabbit.
2. Why would you create an animal unable to support their own survival in the wild - inability to camoflauge? Should all animals be able to survive without human interference?
3. The process of the GFP Bunny required ongoing dialogue between professionals in art, science, philosophy, law, communication, literature, social sciences, etc - who took part in what major components of the design process and through what/who did you communicate?

Posted by Julia Fillingame at 4:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Questions:
1. Will the alteration of animal genome evenually lead to the alteration of human genome? Also, will altering the human genome benefit the human race, or cause more problems?
2. Can altering the pigment of rabbit be considered unethical in the sense that it could considered equivalent to altering the skin of a human?
3. When was the bunny officially deemed art? Altering a rabbit zygot sounds more like a biology science experiment.

Posted by Danielle Brau at 1:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1. What is the intended reaction transgenic art is supposed to give?
2. Is there any rules regarding what artists can and cannot do to animals when using them in their art?
3. What kind of preparation must an artist do when introducing an animal as a transgenic art piece?

Posted by Sarah O'Connor at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

1- Is transgenic art the future for art?
2- Is there any proof that some animals have been harmed while making transgenic art?
3- How much research is needed before you begin a project like this?

Posted by Jessica Zwiener at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In preparation for the class:

Read and Post :
(select Transgenic Art as the Primary Category and add you name as the Title of your Post)

1) Read Eduardo Kac’s article about GFP Bunny

2) Read 2 reviews of your choice from those listed here.

3) Post 3 questions on the blog:

- 1 related to contemporary art and the biological issues that artists are investigating.

- 1 related to ethical issues that are raised by transgenic art works such as GFP bunny.

- 1 related to the process of creating these artworks, a process that is a departure from the traditional notion of the sole artist creating work in a studio context.

You may be interested in visiting the online networked version of Genesis that is active for a few more weeks.

Interact with the Genesis project here.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Posted by Diane Willow at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)