Huang 1
Amanda Huang
MPM107-021
Professor Alex Bal
7 November 2012
New Media Research Methodology: Bio and Genetic Art
New Media blends the practice of art and technology while branching out into
specific artistic areas. Examples such as visual arts and music, along with digital
technology are used to create a variety of new media artworks. There are different types
of new media, such as Internet art, virtual reality, graphic design and more.
To explain the practice of a new media research methodology, this essay explores
bio and genetic art, and its involvement with the types of research, the projects created
and the benefits and disadvantages of this new media practice. This type of art is both a
historical and modern practice that manipulates animal, plant and human genes to create
works of art. Furthermore, this new media methodology research manipulates life genes
to create works of art using scientific resources and technology. It is an art that has
transformed from being a unique and rare type of research, to an art that is being
regularly practiced. Genetic art is also one of the most controversial practices of new
media, as it manipulates genes from its natural territory. However, genetic art remains as
a popular practice of new media, and could change genetics and appearance in a positive
light. Examples include cloning animals, plastic surgery and plant breeding.
The early beginnings of genetic art date back to Darwin’s time, according to
Tomasula’s article: “Darwin himself drew on the aesthetics of breeding to support his
Huang 2
theory of natural selection,” (Tomasula 138). Darwin concentrated heavily on the animal
aspect of genetic art, which leads to an influence in researching the genetic art of animals
among new media practitioners today, such as cloning Dolly the sheep. Furthermore, new
media artists and scientists have done numerous projects on animals, which have become
a target in the media and continues to be a very popular practice in the branch of genetic
art.
Another main type of research which focuses on genetic art in new media, is the
manipulation of human genes. For example, Joe Davis, a new media artist, creates a
human DNA art project in several universities. Projects relating to human genetics in new
media spark a lot of positive and negative feedback. It seems that genetic art in humans
are mostly based on changing appearance, such as plastic surgery, as stated, “The
aesthetics of genetic art are in extricably bound up with the genetic of humans, the
aesthetics of humans—and the motives to act on those aesthetics,” (Tomasula, 140). In
addition, disease and bacteria that have contact with humans also play a major role in this
category, such as the genetic art research of tumors and cancer cells.
Plant aesthetics is another type of research and practice of genetic. This may not be
as popular as the animal and human genetic art, but is still relevant and researched
nonetheless. This type of art has not only remastered the colours and size of flowers and
plants, but has also played a role in changing the environment. Plants are linked to fruits
and vegetables, and with the practice of genetic art, these foods could be genetically
modified. Along with this type of research in bio and genetic art, there are several ethical
Huang 3
issues. Since genetic art takes natural life genes for manipulation, it seems that these
genes cannot produce naturally, and there may be a few problems in the future. The issue
of religion comes into play as well. By scientifically manipulating God’s natural
creations to create genetic art could have an affect on people with religious backgrounds.
Exploring more deeply in the ethical issues and opinions of genetic art, the
practices involving animal gene manipulation has been very controversial. To specify a
project, Elizabeth K. Mix explains: “in the field of genetics, few artists have written as
prolifically as Eduardo Kac, who inspired heated controversy when he hired a French
laboratory to create a glowing green (that Kac named Alba) as an artwork.” (Mix).
Widely spread on the news, this act raises awareness to animal activists, and ultimately
serves as no social purpose, as Tomasula states, “What does it mean for a society to bring
into existence a rabbit that glows green?” (Tomasula 138). Furthermore, this project
creates an unethical and unsafe environment for the rabbit, and its genes are manipulated
from its natural state. Another type of research relating to animal genetic art is breeding
animals. Not only has this been a common type of research, but this is quite popular, as
stated, “…people have created some 66 breeds of domestic rabbits, 136 breeds of dogs,
40 breeds of cats—and of course, numerous other animals…” (Tomasula 139).
Genetic art involving plant research is connected to animal genetic art as they
both go under the category of “Genetic Folk Art”, and are both relevant to in history, as
stated, “Exotic orchids, hairless Chihuahuas and numerous other plants and animals
developed for aesthetic reasons “constitute a vast unacknowledged genetic folk
art…stretching back thousands of years”,”(Tomasula 138). To explain this type of
Huang 4
research of genetic art, plant aesthetics involve modifying plant genetics and breeding
plants. One of the most highly regarded projects of plant genetic art is from new media
artist, Edward Steichen. As a photographer and flower breeder, he created an incredible
exhibition in the Museum of Modern Art’s show, Machine Art: “…flowers that he had
experimented on for 26 years…The results were flowers of gigantic size and colours
never seen before, which were described by reviewers as “breathtaking,” (Tomasula 138).
In plant genetic art, the environment is also affected, as genetically modified plants and
their chemicals may create an unhealthy atmosphere. On the other hand, genetically
modified fruits and vegetables may add nutrition and vitamins that may be beneficial to
health.
Aside from the animal and plant perspective of this new media research, themes
revolving around human genetic art are extremely popular and regularly practiced.
Universities, for example, honour this type of research and hold shows and events: “A
rare collection between about a dozen artists and scientists has left to an exhibition or socalled ‘genetic art’ at Harvard University…” (Nadis 229). This show in particular
exhibits the genetic art of Escheichia Coli (E. Coli). The conclusion of the show brought
in both positive and negative feedback, as Sarah Zehrs, a biological anthropologist states,
“it brings artists and biology together, two groups which normally have little to do with
each other,” (Nadis 229). On the contrary, this type of genetic art also sparks some
controversy, as stated, “But although his efforts have been appreciated on artistic
grounds, their biological aspects have been controversial,” (Nadis 229). Relating to this
point is the genetic art of plastic surgery. It seems that genetic art plays a role in the way
Huang 5
appearances are shaped, rather than the biological aspect of it, and plastic surgery is an
example of manipulating human genes to enhance physical appearance. Another example
of human genetic art is fertilization, which is a versatile and common way of creating
new human life to those who cannot reproduce.
There are several benefits and disadvantages regarding genetic art research and
practice. Beginning with the benefits of this new media methodology, animal, plant and
human genetic art currently serves as a common practice, as Tomasula states, “Indeed, as
genetic engineering practices become more common, and as the language of gene
splicing and plant and animal modification takes its place in everyday parlance…”
(Tomasula 140). This proves that new media artists, scientists and technologists have
enough resources and knowledge to do their practices and research on a daily basis.
Moreover, the tools and resources are beginning to be common in this type of research, as
Tomasula states, “The techniques used to create genetic art are themselves well known,
even commonplace in the world of the labs where they were created.” (Tomasula 143).
Genetic art is without a doubt a visually eye appealing—since this new media
methodology is an art, the final product is eye-catching and has positive reviews in
regards to the look, such as the art of improving appearance in plastic surgery, or
successfully cloning a sheep. Furthermore, this art blends with biology and technology,
which allows more than one type of practice and research to unite and ultimately create
stunning masterpieces.
Another benefit of genetic art is the options to provide human satisfaction. With
fertility treatment to give life to the couples who cannot reproduce, or breeding animals
Huang 6
to provide owners with pets, or even injecting nutrients in plants for human consumption,
genetic art is a miracle worker to create possibilities and satisfy human needs.
Genetic art, however, has its share of disadvantages. One of the major problems
of producing genetic art is the harm it may cause on the genes of animals, plants and
humans, as stated, “But although his efforts have been appreciated on artistic grounds,
their biological aspects have been controversial,” (Nadis 229). Since genetic art heavily
focuses on appearance, the scientific and biological views of the project are often
considered as a secondary feature. Without the high level of biological attention,
examples of disadvantages include the side effects of plastic surgery and the chemicals
that have contact with fruits and vegetables such as pesticides. Another example is the
short life of Dolly the cloned sheep, who only lived for 6 years, which is an unnatural life
span for sheep. In addition, Tomasula also states, “And works such as GFP Bunny can
just as easily be read as assaults on the intrinsic value of any species,” (Tomasula, 144),
which enhances the unethical actions on animals in genetic art.
Not only has genetic art ignored some parts of biology, but also these works of art
often serve as no social purpose. To extend upon the project of the glowing green rabbit
stated earlier, Tomasula states, “Alba…like other works of art, will not be used to
research cancer or any other medical condition,” (Tomasula 142). Furthermore, genetic
art is rather a costly practice, as it blends the high price of scientific and artistic tools and
resources to create projects. Examples include the high price of plastic surgery and
tattoos. By combining the heavy costs and creating projects without social purpose, it
Huang 7
seems that genetic art could be a waste of time and energy, while harming the animals,
plants and humans.
Lastly, genetic art causes a lot of social awareness, which many of them are
negative responses. Animal activists, religious leaders, social activists and other people
who strongly believe genetic art is an ethical problem could be a disadvantage for new
media artists and scientists. This could lead to a bad reputation among the artists, as there
is a strong support system from those who don’t agree on the practice of genetic art.
New media consists of many types of practices relating to art and technology. One
specific new media research methodology is bio and genetic art. Genetic art covers the
research and projects relating to animal, plant and human, while also having an impact in
their benefits and disadvantages. This unique type of new media research combines art
and biology using scientific technology and artistic resources to produce some of the
most remarkable works of art.
Huang 8
Works Cited
Mix, Elizabeth K. “Art and New Media”.
Choice (2010): 47.8. Print.
Nadis, Steve. “ ‘Genetic art’ builds cryptic bridge between two cultures”.
ProQuest (1995): 378, 6554. Print.
Tomasula, Steve. “Genetic Art and the Aesthetics of Biology”.
The MIT Press (2002): 137-144. Print.