Skip to main content

Week 6


The topic this week was Art and Biology. I don’t think I have ever learned much about this cross-section of fields, so I was really intrigued in a lot of different topics presented. However, I really wanted to focus on and learn more about Marta De Menezes work, specifically her project “Nature?” Marta is originally from Portugal and her work Nature? Was done in 1999 (Nature? 2012). I found this work to be extremely interesting, because I have never heard of artwork that literally lives and dies. Although this was her most well received project, it did have some controversy, which Marta is quick to dismiss. She explains that just because the butterfly is manipulated there is no reason to call it man-made or artificial (Silva, 2008).



The way in which Marta does the modification is with an extremely thin needle paired with heat to redesign the wing when they are still in their cocoons (Reinert, 2004). Since the genes remain unchanged the new design of the wings is not passed down to later offspring, leading the artwork to die with the butterfly (Criado, 2016).




This is another reason why Marta’s provocative project is considered by her to be natural, as she is just using normal cells to make different patterns that haven’t been seen before in nature. In my own opinion, I don’t completely understand the purpose of doing this, but I agree that is doesn’t make the butterfly artificial since it isn’t genetically modified. However, I don’t exactly see this as a type of art either, but it is a very interesting concept to be able to show how an organism can look very different, while still remaining so similar. I want to end with a quote I found from Marta that relates very well to this class, she says, “I believe science and art are not two separate cultures, and both artists and scientists can profit from collaborative work” (De Menezes, 2003).


Criado, Lula. “Creating Artworks That Literally Live and Die.” CLOT Magazine, 5 Apr. 2016, www.clotmag.com/marta-de-menezes.
De Menezes, Marta. “The Artificial Natural: Manipulating Butterfly Wing Patterns for Artistic Purposes.” Leonardo, vol. 36, no. 1, 2003, pp. 29–32.
Fernandez, Clara. “The Future of Portugal As Explained by Microorganisms.” Labiotech, 24 Sept. 2016, labiotech.eu/portugal-microorganisms-marta-menezes/?nabe=6526793858416640%3A1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F.
 “Nature?” Marta De Menezes, Mosi Mosi, 2012, martademenezes.com/portfolio/projects/.
 Reinert, Birgit. “Asymmetrical Butterfly Wings.” GNN - Genome News Network, 28 May 2004, www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/05/28/butterflywings.php.
Silva, Luis. “Interview with Marta De Menezes.” Rhizome, 20 Aug. 2008, rhizome.org/editorial/2008/aug/20/interview-with-marta-de-menezes/.
Viskontas, Indre. “Designer Butterflies, See-through Frogs, Giant Neural Networks...and Other Works of Modern Art.” Mother Jones, 12 July 2014, www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/inquiring-minds-arthur-miller-art-meets-science/.
Wernick, Adam. “The Collision of Art and Science Will Produce an Entirely New Art Form.” Public Radio International, 5 Dec. 2014, www.pri.org/stories/2014-12-05/collision-art-and-science-will-produce-entirely-new-art-form-new-book-says.



Comments

  1. UnknownMay 8, 2018 at 10:19 AM

    I agree with your stance of uncertainty about the genetic manipulation of animals. I see how there can be a gray area between the advancement of biology and the extent to which interfering with nature can be ethically sound, however personally I believe that risks don't outweigh the potential benefits of redesigning nature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownMay 13, 2018 at 4:15 PM

    I think a lot of what you wrote about is quite interesting. I agree that there is some uncertainty concerning genetic manipulation. I personally think that the ethical standards need to be clear cut for both scientists and artists. I found it a unique argument that Marta makes, that a manipulated butterfly is not necessarily artificial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lia FosterMay 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM

    I like both how this topic is a great example of the intersection between biotechnology and art but also how it is controversial in the fact that it treads the line between violating animal rights and just innocent art, like most biotechnology art projects. I thought her method of "painting" the butterfly wings was interesting and would like to see more of her creations.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 4

Reflecting upon the video lectures from this week, I found it very interesting to recognize how true it is that most scientific and medical advances are made as a result of war. Usually when we think of prosthetic limbs we think of people who lost an arm or leg. However, with the Third Hand Project that was talked about in lecture, they weren’t replacing any limbs but instead adding addition help. Upon researching this further, the researcher was disappointment with the lack of accuracy that this robotic arm had and its lack of precision when receiving the muscle contractions from the hand. This is how I feel that prosthetic limbs vary whether they are supplementing or replacing a body part. My uncle had a prosthetic hand, because of medical complications when he was born. However, he always was so grateful for everything the mechanical hand could do and appreciated it even if it wasn’t perfect. The expectation that comes with the mechanical hand depends on the...
2 comments
Read more

Week 8

This week in particular, I had a hard time picking a topic that I wanted to focus on. Even after watching all of the video lectures I still had a hard time connecting the idea of nanotechnology to art, as I felt many of the topics covered didn’t completely relate to the art sector. Then after I read more about art and nanotechnology I found Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau’s work of creating an invisible sculpture. The way they were able to achieve this was with a wireless magnetic force-feedback, which let viewers interact with invisible nanoparticles in order to create a malleable sculpture that changes as people interact with it. They must wear a magnetic ring that allows them to physically feel the repulsions, attractions, and sometimes even shock to help them discover the foundation of the sculpture. The shape of this invisible sculpture changes based how people interact with the magnetic rings and how many people are viewing it (John Curtain Gallery). ...
2 comments
Read more