GENETIC ENGINEERING AND CONTEMPORARY ART: STRUCTURAL ASPECTS AND THE PROBLEMS; 443-456
Kaliningrad Branch of the National Centre for Contemporary Art, Russia
Abstract. Today innovation is the result of complex interactions
between individuals, organizations and external factors. Turning to the
metaphor of evolution one can say that the rule “the more adapted to the
environment survives” is substituted by the rule “anything that conveys the
environment more precisely survives”. In the process of continuous complication
of systems new correlations emerge between cognitive knowledge and effective
model, logic and image, reality and representation. The development of new
interdisciplinary relations in the sphere of contemporary knowledge, from
science to contemporary art, from the methods of data processing to the
methods of metaphor presentation, is particularly influenced by the progress
of techno-biological research.
Hence new domains appear that combine various methods of scientific and
artistic representation based on techno-biological modeling. In the new reality, which becomes more
and more artificial and media-conditioned, a new sign regime is established,
which cancels the historically shaped boundaries between nature and culture,
natural science and humanitarian technologies. In these conditions it ’s quite natural when
a researcher after having analyzed the characteristics of the contemporary
wants to comprehend the way they impact the development of new artistic
strategies and the essence of their novelty.
Keywords: contemporary art, genetic engineering, ars chimaera, techno-biological artworks, chimerical design, wet technologies
Catts, Oron (2004) “Fragments of designed life – the wet paletter of tissue engineering”. In BioMediale. Contemporary society and genomic culture, 412–421. Dmitry Bulatov, ed., Kaliningrad: NCCA, Jantarnij Skaz.
Chalfie, M., Y. Tu, G. Euskirchen, W. Ward, and D.
Prasher (1994) “Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression”. Science 263, 802–805.
Davis, Joe (1996) “Microvenus”. Art Journal 55:1, 70–74.
Kac, Eduardo (1999) “Transgenic Art”. In Ars electronica ‘99 – life science, 289–296. Gerfried Stocker and Christine Schopf, eds. Vienna and New York: Springer.
Kac, Eduardo (2004) “GFP bunny”. In BioMediale. Contemporary society and genomic culture, 360–373. Dmitry Bulatov, ed. Kaliningrad: NCCA, Jantarnij Skaz.
Lukyanov, K. A., A. F. Fradkov, N. G. Gurskaja, M. V. Matz, Y. A. Labas, A. P. Savitsky, X. Zhao, Y. Fang, W. Tan, and S. A. Lukyanov (2000) “Natural animal coloring can by determined by a non-fluorescent GFP homolog”. In Procceedings of the 11 International Symposium on Bioluminescence and Chemoluminescence, 107–110. S.H.D. L .J. Kricka, and P. E. Stanley, eds. Singapore: World Scientific.
Matz, M. V., A. F. Fradkov, Y. A. Labas, A. P.
Savitsky, A. Z. Zaraisky, M. L. Markelov, S. A. Lukyanov (1999) “Fluorescent
proteins from nonbioluminescent Anthozoa species”. Nature Biotechnology 17, 10, 969–973.
Matz, M. V., A. F. Fradkov, Y. A Labas, K. A. Lukyanov, and S. A. Lukyanov (2000) “Diversity and evolution of GFP-like fluorescent proteins”. In Abstacts of the 11th International Symposium on Bioluminescence and Chemoluminescence, 63–64. P. E. Stanley, ed., Monterej, California: Assilomar.
Maturana, Humberto (1996) “Biologija poznanija” (1970). In Jazyk i intellekt. Vladimir Petrov, ed. Moscow: Progress.
Zurr, Ionat (2004) “Complicating notions of life – semiliving entities”. In BioMediale. Contemporary society and genomic culture, 402–411. Dmitry Bulatov, ed. Kaliningrad: NCCA, Jantarnij Skaz.