 |
| Who’s
the lab rat? Zaretsky in his element. |
Frankenart
Politically
minded gene splicing, bioartists are erasing the lines between
aesthetics and science
By Jacqueline Keren
Photos by Alicia Solsman
Ike cells in a Petri dish, artists cluster. The modernists
colonized New York, impressionists gravitated toward Paris.
Bioartists are finding a home in Troy.
Bioartists make use of and explore the life sciences and biotechnologies.
From that simple definition, bioart can be expressed in many
different ways—from paintings that use living forms to performances
that question the ethics of animal experimentation. The “bio”
in art can be defined quite broadly as well—a bacteria, a
chicken, and a human being have all held starring roles in
works of bioart.
While bioartists are scattered around the world, there are
few centers where they congregate. A growing number are heading
to Troy thanks to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s iEAR
program (Integrated Electronic Arts at Rensselaer) and a combination
of cheap rents and few distractions. iEAR is headed by Kathy
High, a newcomer to bioart. She says the program, while small,
ranks high and attracts talented students. “We offer scholarships
so there is a high level of artists from different disciplines—musicians,
bioartists, activists—and an interesting collection of people
on the faculty.”
Take Adam Zaretsky, a former RPI professor who teaches VivoArts:
Art and Biology Studio. With Zaretsky as their guide, a mix
of artists, scientists and medical students explore the life
sciences through projects that question our relationships
to living systems. In assignments both intellectual and gooey,
students extract DNA from raw oysters, roses and cucumbers;
paint with transgenic bacteria (bacteria that have been genetically
modified with genes from another species); create stimulating
habitats for animals; and incorporate themselves into a work
of living art.
The exercises, Zaretsky says, help students think about the
effects of new technologies and express a “sense of innovation
and beauty through art.” But they also raise questions about
the ethics of genetic modification and our relationship to
the newly created organisms. “The projects break barriers
of cultural definitions of what it means to be alive,” Zaretsky
says. For one assignment, a student grafted human scar-tissue
cells onto the cut leaf of a plant and then watched as human
scabs filled in the wound. “I was dumbfounded,” Zaretsky says.
“No one has done this in the lab. It’s innovative and cutting-edge.
But is it OK? The students must decide for themselves.”
Zaretsky, who was raised by an experimental behaviorist and
a Jungian, has an MFA in Art and Technology from the School
of the Art Institute of Chicago, where he studied with Edgar
Kac. Kac, a pioneering figure in the field of bioart, is best
known for his GFP Bunny, an albino rabbit made fluorescent,
under the right light, with help from the gene of a jellyfish.
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Zaretsky worked
with Joe Davis, another bioart pioneer. Besides RPI, Zaretsky
has taught at SymbioticA, a research lab in Western Australia
and one of the few centers for bioart worldwide. He has exhibited
and performed from Macedonia to Salina, Kan., where, in his
Workhorse Zoo, Zaretsky sealed himself in a glass room
for a week with nothing to eat but lab animals—frogs, flies,
worms, mice—which he eventually devoured.
While Zaretsky says bioartists differ in their politics and
interpretations of science, they share a zest for getting
into the lab and practicing scientific techniques. He believes
that the lure of new media is one of the reasons for the growth
of bioart. Artist envy for the remarkable creations of science
is another. “Scientific reality is going faster than the artistic
imagination,” Zaretsky says. “Scientists are making better
art; they are making dreams come alive.” He sees his art as
an opportunity to showcase scientific knowledge, critique
and question its applications, and inform the public on recent
advances. But to “vamp science and infect science with artistry,”
he says, artists need to get their hands dirty, learning the
biotechnology trade. It’s a Faustian bargain he’s willing
to make to inform the public about research that might be
life-changing.
Zaretsky sees a future where the human genome is a commodity
that will be altered for more than just health reasons. “It’s
possible we won’t recognize our (future) selves.” His fear
rests not with technology but how it might be co-opted for
efficiency (designing humans to withstand radiation, for example,
so they can make the trip to Mars) and standards of beauty
dictated by what’s popular. “But who decides aesthetically
what’s better?” he asks. “It has more to do with art than
you think.”
Julia Reodica, a former iEAR student, agrees. She is concerned
with the rapid progress of biotech. “We need to make comments
along the way,” she says. “As individual artists, we need
to get things to the public. There is so much out there to
translate. People are curious about what’s going on in universities.”
Originally from California, Reodica was a pre-med major who
veered into commercial art before landing at the Exploratorium,
a hands-on science museum in San Francisco, as a life-sciences
exhibit technician. It was there that she discovered another
way of helping people. Artists, she says, can “explain what
they [scientists] are studying, like tissue culture, and explain
the purpose to the public for the greater good.”
While at RPI, Reodica worked closely with scientists on a
living sculpture that made use of tissue-engineering technology.
The result was an artificial hymen, or hymNexttm,
made from rat aortic tissue. Reodica says she wanted to “turn
the symbolism of the hymen on its ear and reposition it as
a novel piece of our body. You could bring seven on a honeymoon
and break it every night.”
As part of the project, she performed a prototype application
and “defloration” on a human volunteer—Zaretsky, a former
teacher and collaborator—who had the hymen attached to his
nose. A touring exhibit is in the works for next summer for
which Reodica is designing a bioreactor to keep the hymens
alive. “They are living art pieces, somewhat sentient, reacting
to environment, lights, jostling,” she says. With a fellowship
from the Rockefeller Foundation, Reodica, who is completing
a degree in nursing, hopes to continue working with RPI biologists
and incorporate cells from her vaginal wall into the rat cells.
“Each hymen will have my signature. They will become sacred
again.”
Boryana Rossa of Bulgaria came to RPI to work with artists
from different cultures in a nontraditional art program. The
mingling of art and science is not new, she points out. Before
the Enlightenment, interdisciplinary studies were common.
“To me, this is more normal and beneficial. Artists must be
interested in everything and comment on everything and be
free to shine a light to communicate ideas.”
Rossa’s parents worked in robotics in Bulgaria, and she grew
up believing that technology could have a positive effect
on society. Today, on her own and through the Ultrafuturo
Group, she comments on the way technology effects society.
Rossa uses robots as a symbol of the oppressed and marginalized
in society to provoke questions about equal rights and how
we define intelligence and life. With her partner, Oleg Mavromatti,
an interdisciplinary artist and Ultrafuturo member, she took
part in an exhibit exploring the ethics of robotic design
at the Schenectady Museum. The artists fit a dead fish with
electronic parts. The hybrid fish swam around in a pool. “We
gave it a second life,” she says. While she found that kids
enjoyed the exhibit, few adults did. One possible explanation,
Rossa believes, is that adults are divorced from their food
sources. “They think meat grows in the Price Chopper. In the
fish, they saw what they did.”
 |
| Creating
living art: Reodica in the lab. |
As
an international artist, Rossa prefers to participate in projects
that deal with universal themes. “Because we have similar
bodies and needs, biology becomes a cross point.” Her interest
in symbiogenesis, an alternative view of evolution that credits
the merger of different species with the production of new
organisms, has led to an interconnected view of the world
that encourages respect for all living things. In a public
performance in Bulgaria, Rossa declared her blood brotherhood
with E. coli bacteria through a mixture of poetry, music,
lighting, and blood letting (she cut the E. coli genome into
her arm).
While some people have been supportive of her work, others
say it’s too aggressive. “For a message to be delivered, it
needs to be loud enough to be heard,” Rossa counters.
Kathy High takes a gentler approach. A media artist who explores
issues of gender and technology, she exhibited Embracing
Animal at MASS MoCA last winter, featuring three transgenic
rats with genes for autoimmune conditions. Tara, Matilda and
Star were retired breeders who begot lab animals used to study
diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. High, who also suffers
from autoimmune diseases, felt a connection to them. “I could
see that they were mirrors of me in a way. They were being
developed to treat my kind of diseases. I wanted to get to
know them and to try and treat them more holistically.”
She gave them the retirement she felt they had earned rather
than the usual fate of lab animals, termination. While High
is not opposed to scientific research, she thinks other issues
should be explored as well. In the exhibit, the rats, who
still suffered from their conditions, were given a large and
complex environment to roam around in, a new diet and an animal
communicator who told High what they were saying. In the end,
the two surviving rats were adopted by the night watchman.
“It became,” High says, a “great love story.”
In another project, Julia Reodica is collaborating with Richard
Pell, another graduate of the RPI program, to create the first
Northern Hemisphere studio-lab-gallery for bioart. Located
in Troy on 3rd Street, the Institute for Public Transgenography
(the soft science looking at genetics and engineering) will
serve as a public interface between biotech innovation and
the community, with artists invited to research and develop
projects, and present workshops and lectures open to the community.
Pell, who is known for his award-winning documentaries and
his use of robots in public art, sees the Institute as the
interface between biotechnology and people on the street.
The center, he says, will be like “a natural history museum”
for bioart and biotechnology. Both feel Troy is the ideal
place. Reodica sees a “wonderful merging of minds” happening
there. Pell, who is returning to RPI as a professor in the
iEAR program after a visiting professorship at the University
of Michigan, sees Troy as a “hot spot, relatively speaking.”
As an art student at Carnegie Mellon University, Pell watched
engineers develop new technology without discussing the implications
and ethics of its use. Later, as engineers began moving into
biology, using living systems as tools for everything from
drug to picture development, he felt it was important for
artists to be involved. “People need to be caught up on this,”
he says. “Engineering life is significant and contentious
in people’s minds. Artists can help people think ideas through.”
But it’s not just laypeople who are welcoming artists, Pell
says. Scientists are enlisting artists to educate the public
as science comes under siege from the left, with its opposition
to genetically modified organisms in food; the right, with
its support of such anti-science theories as intelligent design;
and state-security entities, where resources diverted to bioterror
are taking away money for scientific research. New security
fears also have led to the arrest of bioartist Steve Kurtz,
a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo,
whom Pell studied under. Kurtz was preparing for a show at
MASS MoCA, a critique of “bioterrorism paranoia,” when the
police were called to his home the night his wife suffered
a fatal heart attack (“A Matter of Authority,” March 9). What
they found—bacteria in Petri dishes, a manuscript about the
inefficiencies of bioweaponry—led to his arrest and indictment.
Back in Troy, Pell hopes to explore his interest in transgenic
zoology with RPI’s new Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary
Studies, which combines engineering and the physical, information
and life sciences. iEAR’s Kathy High notes that Troy’s attraction
for bioartists comes in part from the nearness of academic
and industrial resources. “With the predominance of nanotech
and other related industries in the Capital Region, it’s a
natural place for artists to experiment and push boundaries,”
she says. At RPI, she is hoping to build ties between the
art and biology departments and establish a center on bioart,
modeled after SymbioticA. She sees a “living art center .
. . with collaboration between artists and scientists that
is real and profound.”
|