GENETIC ENGINEERING AND CONTEMPORARY ART: STRUCTURAL ASPECTS AND THE PROBLEMS; 443-456

(Full text in pdf format)

 

Dmitry Bulatov

 

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 in thefiled  field of techno-biological research. Hence new domains appear that combine various methods of scientific and artistic representation based on techno-biological modelling. 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 i’s quite natural when a researcher after having analyzed the characteristics of the contemporary techno-biological domain, 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

 

References

 

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.
doi:10.1126/science.8303295

Davis, Joe (1996) “Microvenus”. Art Journal 55:1, 70–74.
doi:10.2307/777811

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.
doi:10.1038/13657

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.

Weibel, Peter (2000) “Znanie i videnie. Novye interfejsnyje tehnologiji vosprijatija”. In Media art fest, 6–10. Goethe Institute, ed. St. Petersburg: Novyj Mir Iskusstva.

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.