Vandalizing Butterflies
Caleb’s presentation today on butterflies and the artist that alters the appearance of their wings based on her personal aesthetic appeal got me thinking about the ethics of such experiments. In fact, I should not even be referring to this work as an experiment, as the artist does not set the altered butterfly into the wild and see how the changes in the wings affect the butterfly’s life. The work of this artist is actually vandalism, or even pollution.
From a quick online search on butterfly wings, there are several articles on the biological purpose of butterflies’ wings and how they have evolved to better suit their environment. Clearly, any scientist, or ‘artist’ who manipulates the cells of butterflies, should know about the importance of the patterns on butterfly wings. One important use depends on the environment, where butterflies that emerge earlier in the season have darker colors to absorb as much sunlight as possible and stay warm. Butterflies also use their wings to avoid predators by blending in with the environment or scaring predators away with large, conspicuous marks. Some species of butterflies have been found to use ultraviolet scales on their wings to communicate with others across long distances.
So this “artist” who manipulates the wings says that she the butterflies she alters live normal lives as if they had not been altered. Marta de Menezes, the artist, specially says, “They have the same life span and behavior, including mating behavior.” How would you all feel if some woman poked you while you were a fetus in your mother’s womb, and then when you were born, your body had random, asymmetrical spots and markings on it? I would imagine that such alterations would affect my life a great deal. Looking at the altered butterfly below, it seems like the large spots would look like eyes so the butterfly could seem like a large, frightening organism to scare away predators. However, now that there is a third random spot, the whole effect is entirely ruined and I would imagine the butterfly could not scare away predators as well.
Is this art? Personally, I think this is animal cruelty. De Menezes is vandalizing animals based on what she thinks is attractive to her human eye, not what best suits the butterfly’s life or what attracts other butterflies. In theory, the only thing that should change the appearance of a butterfly’s wings is evolution, due to natural selection. This “art” is “unnatural selection.” De Menezes is not an experimenter, a scientist, or even an artist.
From a quick online search on butterfly wings, there are several articles on the biological purpose of butterflies’ wings and how they have evolved to better suit their environment. Clearly, any scientist, or ‘artist’ who manipulates the cells of butterflies, should know about the importance of the patterns on butterfly wings. One important use depends on the environment, where butterflies that emerge earlier in the season have darker colors to absorb as much sunlight as possible and stay warm. Butterflies also use their wings to avoid predators by blending in with the environment or scaring predators away with large, conspicuous marks. Some species of butterflies have been found to use ultraviolet scales on their wings to communicate with others across long distances.
So this “artist” who manipulates the wings says that she the butterflies she alters live normal lives as if they had not been altered. Marta de Menezes, the artist, specially says, “They have the same life span and behavior, including mating behavior.” How would you all feel if some woman poked you while you were a fetus in your mother’s womb, and then when you were born, your body had random, asymmetrical spots and markings on it? I would imagine that such alterations would affect my life a great deal. Looking at the altered butterfly below, it seems like the large spots would look like eyes so the butterfly could seem like a large, frightening organism to scare away predators. However, now that there is a third random spot, the whole effect is entirely ruined and I would imagine the butterfly could not scare away predators as well.
Is this art? Personally, I think this is animal cruelty. De Menezes is vandalizing animals based on what she thinks is attractive to her human eye, not what best suits the butterfly’s life or what attracts other butterflies. In theory, the only thing that should change the appearance of a butterfly’s wings is evolution, due to natural selection. This “art” is “unnatural selection.” De Menezes is not an experimenter, a scientist, or even an artist.
posted by Anonymous at 5:36 PM
2 Comments:
I share a lot of thoughts with your post. I didn't see the justification in changing the aesthetics of butterflies' wings, especially when they serve a functional purpose (they are not there just so humans can admire them). However, you bring up an interesting question. Why is she not an artist? Is she not creating pieces of artwork that may be aesthetically appealing to some people? Does one need to be ethical to be considered an artist?
The points you made throughout your post resonate with my own beliefs, and so to avoid preaching to the choir, I'll take up Amits's question: does one need to be ethical to be considered an artist? Art theory isn't one of my strong points, but I'll propose morals aren't a necessary trait for a virtuoso. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have them. de Menezes' butterflies can then be called art, for they exhibit an act of creation powered by a being's imagination, but they're not art made with compassion or thought. Perhaps there should be some superior term to 'art' for those pieces made in earnest, or 'art' itself should carry a more stringent definition.
Post a Comment
<< Home