Week 4, BioTech + Art

George Gessert's Hybridized Iris

In today's environment of the rapidly evolving capacity of technology, questions and concerns have been evoked alongside the methods used to produce forms of sci-art, where both science and art prominently collaborate. These compositions and practices often times are seen as different and weird, but the questions many people ask when confronted with such obscure practices of genetic modification, mutation, and breeding primarily address the humane and safety elements of the procedures. With such discoveries and experiments, scientists have produced a variety of contributions to sci-art, some beautiful and some harmful in nature.

One of the more beautiful examples of genetic modification is the hybridized "works" of George Gessert. Gessert has strategically bred plants since the 1970s and has been exhibiting his hybridized creations and documented the breeding projects over the last 14 years. Because of the constructive nature of these plants' beauty, Gessert faces little complaint against his artwork. He explains his surprise at this, saying, "When I first exhibited plant hybrids as art I expected to have to defend my work against criticism that plants were not art, but no one, then or now, has raised that question..." [1].

On the other hand, most of the genetic modification that happens today is highly disputed. We see this especially in the use of GMO (genetically modified organism) integration in commercial foods. The videos below explain how GMO's are being used today and the detrimental effect they can have on those who consume such foods. 

 People have an issue with genetically modified foods often times because the process is simply unnatural, making way for serious damage toward the nutritional elements of plant genomes. With that said, it makes sense that people would be uncomfortable eating foods infused with herbicide-resilient bacteria and viruses. Yes, these plants are cost-effective, as they can resist adverse weather conditions and growing environments, yet they introduce reason to be cautious of ingesting unnatural foods into our bodies.

The topic of purpose is discussed in a blog that addresses the emotion behind the two areas of study. In the post, design scientist consultant, Lizzie Crouch, is referenced. Art, the blog contends, is used to "tap into the emotional core" [2] of its audience that provokes action and thought. Thus, we should continually regard the purpose behind art work, especially when abnormal practices are used in scientific discoveries. One such controversial area of study is seen with mutational experiments on animals, as seen with the rat pictured here.

Personally, I see these topics as interesting, since they have the potential to provide medical discoveries and aid those born or imposed with severe physical disabilities. The main problem I see with the genetic modification is when it transforms the natural elements of living beings to the point that it harms them. Using rats solely for "science" while impeding their immune systems and longevity is an example of where I question the necessity of such methods. 

Works Cited

"Bio-Artist Tests Music on Bacteria." CBS News. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

"Ear on Rat." Google Images. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

Effects of GMO. YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

[2] "Emotion in Science and Art." Sci Art Sci. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

[1] Gessert, George. "Trondheim Regrets." Trondheim Matchmaking. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

 Viewing Space. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .

What is Genetically Modified Food? YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2014. .