BioArt unraveled
| 30 July, 2010 | Adie Chan |
5
|
|
Artists who behave like scientists, or scientists dabbling in art seem to be increasingly common these days. Bacterial “paintings,” artistically rendered photographs of fluorescing cells, and even haute couture clothing made from microbially-produced cellulose are just some of the art forms blurring the line between science and art.
251 - by Ariel Ruiz i Altaba
But what exactly is BioArt?
A session at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies in Tokyo, Japan, aims to answer just that question. The conference takes place from August 25-29, and the discussion on BioArt promises to be very interesting.
I’d be curious to hear what different BioArtists think about this: Can any beautiful occurrence in the lab, regardless of intention, be considered BioArt? For example, would an interesting lab coat stain, properly highlighted and framed, be deserving of a place next to the most intricate artsy micrographs, commonly considered high BioArt?
What do you think? Do you suspect you have some pieces of BioArt lying around unappreciated in your own lab right now?
Related Stories:
[30th July 2010]
[23rd July 2010]
[15th July 2010]
|
|
previous post
Thomas Berger wrote, “What is art but a way of seeing?” I think this applies in this type of art making, where the making of art is a kind of recognition of aesthetic potential. Anything can be art if you frame it properly, meaning both in the sense of intellectual/cultural context as well as in the usual sense, with a matte and glass and a wire for hanging. Beats the pants off commercial art making (ex. Ikea “art”), that’s for sure!
It will be great if there is a platform for budding artists who behave like scientists, or scientists dabbling in art. I’m sure they are many out there waiting to be discovered or discovering both science-art.
I wonder if a follow-up blurb on this conference is planned? Another example of the possible confusion is that any picture that has a living thing in it could be construed as bioart. The use of a technical device might be added (microscope, polarizing filters) but then would a macro-lens also qualify. Actually I don’t even understand the drive to provide some sort of definition. What possible use could it have? The curators of any particular exhibition, or the publishers of any collection are going to define the contents of their production as they always have.
My view is “yes” – if it looks artistic, it’s art (or can be made into art I suppose, via photograph or whatever).
The institution I work at recently had an “Art In Science” show to raise money for the new Research and Education building. There were lots of good pieces – field photographs from villages in Africa visited by one of the docs, a very nice biological network diagram, and of course the imaging and microscopy folks went to town (they always have stunning images to work with).
I contributed a few things – a photo-collage representing convergence of laboratory and informatics, a triptych of different generations of DNA sequencing technology, and some “arty” photos of stuff in the lab. All “valid” I think. 😉
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricardipus/tags/artinscience/
Yeah, I agree with that. But I’m a fan of your photography anyway 🙂