Ethics of Bioart
I think that many people have ethical issues with bioart because; people do not see the same amount of value in art as they would in an invention that saves people’s lives. I think that when considering whether or not an experiment is ethical the main criteria are: how the subject is affected and the usefulness or benefit gained from the experiment. “Does the subject suffer or become hindered by the experiment?” is the main question that arises. If the subject suffers, feels pain, discomfort, or becomes maimed or negatively affected by the experiment, then the experiment is usually considered to be unethical, and gets questioned. The next issue is, “How do we benefit from the experiment, is it worth the subject’s loss?”
In scientific experiments there is information to be learned, new knowledge gained, maybe even a cure for a disease or a revolutionary break through that saves millions of lives and benefits all of humanity. The latter is idealistic, however, there is usually some benefit gained from scientific experimentation. In bioart, however, the benefit is not as grand, there is no utility or usefulness to it. It’s art, it just sits there and you look at it. People are much more outraged at experiments such as the glowing rabbit or manipulated butterfly wings because there is no gain from such achievements. Therefore, people are much less tolerable of negative consequences of such mutations.
De Menezes was ridiculed during a presentation she gave in a conference. The speaker before her described his work that involved the manipulation of a cockroach nervous system in ways that allowed it to be used as a living surveillance robot under the control of a human agent. According to De Menezes the audience reacted strongly against her work but seemed to accept the other speaker’s work with no objection. This story illustrates a major point. The cockroach experiment is justified because of its utilitarian ends, while those on the butterfly are not because its ends were purely aesthetic. The other speaker was a scientist working for a military research laboratory.
In scientific experiments there is information to be learned, new knowledge gained, maybe even a cure for a disease or a revolutionary break through that saves millions of lives and benefits all of humanity. The latter is idealistic, however, there is usually some benefit gained from scientific experimentation. In bioart, however, the benefit is not as grand, there is no utility or usefulness to it. It’s art, it just sits there and you look at it. People are much more outraged at experiments such as the glowing rabbit or manipulated butterfly wings because there is no gain from such achievements. Therefore, people are much less tolerable of negative consequences of such mutations.
De Menezes was ridiculed during a presentation she gave in a conference. The speaker before her described his work that involved the manipulation of a cockroach nervous system in ways that allowed it to be used as a living surveillance robot under the control of a human agent. According to De Menezes the audience reacted strongly against her work but seemed to accept the other speaker’s work with no objection. This story illustrates a major point. The cockroach experiment is justified because of its utilitarian ends, while those on the butterfly are not because its ends were purely aesthetic. The other speaker was a scientist working for a military research laboratory.
posted by Chris Rowland at 3:46 PM
2 Comments:
Chris, that is really interesting. I personally would love to hear De Menezes talk about her work in person and try to defend its artistic and/or scientific backing. As I wrote about in my post, I do not think of her work as art or science, but actually more of a disservice to the butterfly population. In order for something to be scientific, it must intend to benefit society. In order for something to be artistic….well, the boundaries are not clearly defined. I could see how someone could view her work as art, but even if it is art, she is still harming the lives of living butterflies.
Here’s another controversial artist, Damien Hirst, who puts cut up dead animals in formaldehyde tanks and calls it art. Here are a few of his works: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/hirst/
Is THIS art?
I was thinking back to that guy that took all of those sequences of pictures of human motion. I know he originally thought of the pictures as for a strictly scientific purposes but today they are considered primarily artistic. The pictures where they had induced seizures in epileptic patients seemed wholly unethical. I guess I take this position becuase the subject felt pain/discofort and not to mention the pictures didn't actually advance medical investigations into the disease.
Post a Comment
<< Home