Abstract
Turning animals into art through genetic manipulation poses many questions for how we think about our relationship with other species. Here, I explore three rather disparate sets of issues. First, I ask to what extent the production of such living “artforms” really is as transgressive as advocates claim. Whether or not it counts as radical in terms of art I cannot say: but it is not at all radical, I argue, in terms of how we think about our human place in the world. On the contrary, producing these animals only reinforces our own sense of our importance. The second theme I explore is the extent to which making transgenic organisms for any purposes is radical in terms of complexity. Here, I focus on the idea of complexity as a concept in developmental biology; genetic manipulation may be successful to commercial companies, but it is deeply troubling to many biologists who consider that its deeply entrenched reductionism is enormously problematic. What risks do we run by ignoring nature’s own complexity—and creativity? And—in particular—what risks do we run of damaging or compromising animal welfare? The third theme turns to public perceptions of these new technologies (whether in science or art), and notes the extent of public unease. This unease is not simply a question of public ignorance about the technology, but reflects the enormously rich ways in which we make meanings about animals, and relate to them. These are, I suggest, a far more potent source of creativity than simply moving genes around to make photogenic animals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some forms of bioart involve tissue engineering, using cells derived from (dead) animals to grow into artificial media. Here, I focus more on the production of live animals through genetic manipulation, although all forms of bioart raise a number of troubling questions.
“Euthanasia and assisted suicide”, Sciart project developed by Tracy Mackenna and Edwin Janssen, from Wellcome Trust website, Jan 2005: www.wellcome.ac.uk/node2530.html.
See Kac’s website: www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.
See, for example, papers contributed to the journal Society and Animals.
Although Alba is a performer only in a limited sense. Birke et al. (2004) have used the idea of performativity (developed in feminist theory for example) to apply it to the human/animal relationship, asking how we might understand the animal’s part in terms of its own agency and engagement. Given Alba’s creation by very explicit human intervention and the role she plays on a human stage, the potential for her own engagement is limited indeed.
Indeed, the production of artificial ears from human tissue, a production by Zurr and Catts, has been developed as an artwork for potential transplantation onto the head of another performance artist, Stelarc.
See for example various critical articles published on the webpages of ISIS—the Institute for Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/). Many of these point to evidence that manipulated genes can have multiple and unpredictable effects, and can cause problems if organisms escape into other environments. They also suggest that genetically manipulated genomes are not as stable as advocates claim.
Arguably, there is more of nature’s creativity at work in the use of tissue engineering to create artworks, such as that by Zurr and Catts. They use tissue from dead animals (pigs, for example) and allow the cells to grow along artificial structures. The “art” is thus partly created by whatever forms the cells take as they move along these structures.
There are, furthermore, regulatory frameworks that help to control the scientific production of transgenic organisms. These may be partial, even inadequate (and are criticised by many), but they can help to set limits. There may be no such limits if transgenic organisms are made for art.
Survey conducted by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. See http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update/4.php.
The trope of the animal as dying for our sins—our saviour—is a recurrent motif in science, as Haraway (1997) has argued.
Jasper and Nelkin (1992) point out how the rhetoric of animal rights and environmental campaigners draws on an explicitly anti-instrumentalist stance, opposed to what they see as the excessive instrumentalism of modern science and technology.
I am grateful to Mike Michael for drawing my attention to this point. In noting public concern about the outcome, I mean to include both concern over animal integrities and public concerns over potential medical outcomes. These are far more important to lay observers, I would argue, than the techniques.
References
Atwood M (2004) Oryx and crake. Virago, London
Birke L, Michael M (1992) Views from behind the barricade. New Scientist 4:29–32
Birke L, Michael M (1998) The heart of the matter: animal bodies, ethics, and species boundaries. Soc Anim 6:245–262
Birke L, Parisi L (1999) Animals, becoming. In: Steeves HP (ed) Animal others: on ethics, ontology and animal life. Suny Press, New York
Birke L, Bryld M, Lykke N (2004) Animal performances: an exploration of intersections between feminist science studies and studies of human/animal relationships. Feminist Theory 5:167–183
Birke L (1999) Feminism and the biological body. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Catts O, Zurr I (2003) The art of the semi-living and partial life: extra ear. tissue culture and art project <http://www.tca.uwa.edu.au>
Game A (2001) Riding: embodying the centaur. Body Soc 7:1–12
Gigliotti C (2006) Leonardo’s choice: the ethics of artists working with genetic technologies. AI Soc 20.1
Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_Oncomouse™: feminism and technoscience. Routledge, London
Irwin A, Michael M (2003) Science, social theory and public knowledge. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Jasper J, Nelkin D (1992) The animal rights crusade. The Free Press, New York
Kauffman S (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Latour B (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In: Knorr-Cetina KD, Mulkay M (eds) Science observed: perspectives on the social studies of science. Sage, London
Machado A (2000) Towards a transgenic art. In: Britton S, Collins D (eds) The eighth day: the transgenic art of Eduardo Kac. Institute for Study in the Arts, Tempe Arizona
Michael M (2001) Technoscientific bespoking: animals, publics and the new genetics. New Genet Soc 20:205–224
Michael M, Brown N (2004) The meat of the matter: grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Understanding Sci 13:379–397
Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (eds) (2001) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Pollack A (2003) Gene-altering revolution nears the pet store: glow-in-the-dark fish. Report from New York Times 22 November <http://www.mindfully.org>
Sanders C (1999) Understanding dogs: living and working with canine companions. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Schroten E (1997) Animal biotechnology, public perception and public policy from a moral point of view. In: Proceedings from an international workshop on transgenic animals and food production, Stockholm, May 1997 <http://www.kslab.ksla.se/tranpdt.html>
Solé R, Goodwin B (2000) Signs of life: how complexity invades biology. Basic Books, New York
Turney J (1998) Frankenstein’s footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. Yale University Press, New Haven
Zurr I, Catts O (2003) The ethical claims of bio art: killing the other or self-cannibalism? Aust N Z J Art: Art Ethics 4:167–188
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Birke, L. Meddling with Medusa: on genetic manipulation, art and animals. AI & Soc 20, 103–117 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0004-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0004-7