Post on 29-Jan-2023
Woo 1
Genesis: Stages of Dilemma, Complicity, and Assimilation
Yunjin La-mei Woo
In 2010, Daniel Gibson, John Glass, Carole Lartigue and others succeeded to
transplant a full, computer-designed bacterial chromosome into a living bacterium
completely replacing its natural DNA.1 Although this does not mean that they truly
“created” life since the synthetic genome was put into an already living cell,2 it still
means that now we can imagine and design a life form that can be built upon and by a
living organism. In this process, computer and information technology played a large part
in designing the genome as Gibson and his colleges announced, “DNA sequencing of a
cellular genome allows storage of the genetic instructions for life as a digital file.”3 Here,
the genome is understood and realized as ‘instructions’ that define and put life into effect.
Subsequently, organisms are seen as ‘instruction’ storage or processors that maintain and
reproduce the instructions.
Despite many possible benefits of this research, the understanding of life as
information and living beings as information processors is fundamentally reductive. It
prioritizes quantifiable and readable aspects of the phenomena of life and reduces it into a
set of written data. Converting instructions of life as ‘code’ that can be digitized
subsequently means that living organisms can be selected, copied, inserted, deleted,
manipulated, programmed, and “invented.” In this vein, it is telling that the synthetic
genome contains four DNA sequences that can be translated into “watermarks” in code,
including the names of the people involved in the project and an email address in case
one succeed to decode the watermarks.4 The human makers, Gibson and his colleges,
1 Daniel G. Gibson, John I. Glass, Carole Lartigue, at el. “Creation of Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. Science, May 20, 2010. Vol. 329 no. 5987 p. 52-56. 2 Elizabeth Pennisi, “Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium.” Science, May 21, 2010. Vol. 328 no. 5981 p. 958-959. 3 Daniel G. Gibson at el. p. 55. 4 The watermarks include the following phrase: “PROVE YOU’VE DECODED THIS WATERMARK BY EMAILING US <A HREF=“MAILTO:MROQZTIZ@JCVI.ORG”>HERE!” Ken Shirriff, “Using Arc to
Woo
2
2
marked the ‘invented’ life in attempt to distinguish synthetic cells from naturally
occurring DNA.5 It reminds us of how the first PC virus, Brain A (1986), was marked by
its programmers with their contact information as both the inventors’ proud label and a
preemptive act for possible problems.6 The scientists end the paper with a call for a
continued discourse on philosophical issues their work may raise and its broad social and
ethical implications.7
Going back to 1999, when the anxiety of the century’s end was at its peak, Eduardo
Kac participated Ars Electronica 99 in Linz, Austria. In this futurist exhibition, Kac
introduced a transgenic work, Genesis, in which he translated a sentence from the biblical
book of Genesis to Morse code, and then to DNA code. The DNA code was inserted into
plasmid, the extrachromosomal ring of DNA, and incorporated into E. coli bacteria with
cyan fluorescence sequence that would make it glow in blue.8 This colony of bacteria
with Genesis gene, or the “artist’s gene,” shared a Petri dish with another colony of E.
coli bacteria with yellow fluorescence sequence but without Genesis gene. During the
exhibition period, local and remote participants could choose whether or not to accelerate
the mutation rate of these two colonies of bacteria by turning the UV light through
clicking a button on Kac’s website. Two networked computers, a video projector, a
micro-video camera, a UV light box, and a microscope illuminator were installed in the
exhibition site, streaming the live video and audio of the mutation process onto the
exhibition room’s wall and to the website. After two weeks, the sentence was altered as
following:
Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth
decode Venter’s secret DNA watermark” 10 June 2010. http://www.righto.com/2010/06/using-arc-to-decode-venters-secret-dna.html 5 Ibid. p. 56. 6 The code of Brain A, released in 1986, included the following watermark, which both celebrates and warns the spread of this virus: “WELCOME TO THE DUNGEON 1986 BASIT * AMJAD <PVT> LTD. The virus, Brain A, code includes following information in its code: “BRAIN COMPUTER SERVICES 730 NIZAM BLOCK ALLAMA IQBAL TOWN LAHORE-PAKISTAN PHONE: 430791, 443248, 280530. BEWARE OF THIS VIRUS. . . . CONTACT US FOR VACCINATION.” Mikko Hypponen, “Fighting viruses, defending the net.” July 2011. http://www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_fighting_viruses_defending_the_net.html (accessed on 3 November 2013). 7 Ibid. p. 56. 8 Eduardo Kac’s official website. www.ekac.org (accessed on 25 April 2013).
Woo
3
3
Let aan have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that ioves ua eon the earth.
This process and result of the change was then converted into various forms of
visual presentations and representations including crystallized Genesis DNA in a
glass jar, granite panels, and gold-casted Genesis protein sculpture.
On this change of the biblical sentence through bacterial mutation, Kac states,
“the ability to change the sentence is a symbolic gesture: it means that we do not
accept its meaning in the form we inherited it and that new meanings emerge as we
seek to change it.”9 As an author of several publications, Kac extensively explains
his intention of how and why the change is conceptualized, accelerated, and
presented in his work by outlining its philosophical, social, and cultural
implications. However, the discrepancies between his argued intention and the
ways in which his work is conducted and presented raise various issues of
“designing” and using living beings as artworks. Mainly, two problems arise from
its dilemmatic ‘invitation’ offered to the participants in Genesis, which I will
elaborate in my following discussion throughout this paper: the unwitting or
unwilling complicity of the visitors and bacteria, and the assimilation to the
fetishization of technological innovation coupled with a double standard.
Unwitting or Unwilling Complicity
Kac states that an ethical dilemma is what he wishes to create through this work:
“It’s a Catch-22 situation, which is of course the ethical dilemma I wish to create here . . . If you don’t click, you are basically choosing not to participate in the process of rewriting that passage of the Bible. If you choose to click, again, you are then quite easily changing the genetic structure of a living organism with the same ease you send an email to a loved one or buy a book on Amazon.”10
As Kac notes, the manipulation of bacteria through the Internet in order to alter the
sentence would only manifest the dominion of humans over other living beings,
which is arguably approved by the biblical sentence. In that sense, visitors are
9 Eduardo Kac, Telepresence & Bio Art: Networking Humans, Rabbits, & Robots. p. 253. 10 Ulli Allmendinger, “One small hop for Alba, one large hop for mankind.” Originally published in NY Arts Magazine, Vol. 6, N. 6, June 2001. Reproduced from Eduardo Kac’s official website, http://www.ekac.org/ulli.html (accessed on 25 April 2013).
Woo
4
4
invited to become “accomplices” in this trap-like dilemma through a frictionless
means of communication. Without having the presence of living bacteria in front of
their own living bodies possibly perceptible to the bacteria, it becomes less tangible,
less visceral, and less vexing. It would be simplifying and demeaning, however, to
say that observers and participants might not have been aware of the intended irony
although there is a possibility. In either case, Kac seems to argue that such easy
ways to assert our will over other living beings in Genesis would evoke
uncomfortable awareness of manipulating ‘life’ as ‘art.’ Yet, the immersive gallery
exhibition environment still suggests a more subtle but seamless complicity.
Figure 1 Eduardo Kac, Genesis. Transgenic work on the Internet, 1999. Reproduced from Kac’s official website, http://www.ekac.org/geninfo.html (accessed on 25 April 2013).
In the gallery space and on the website, there were “[synthesized] DNA music
via a [program] which transcribed the physiology of the Genesis DNA into musical
parameters by responding directly to the growth rate of the bacteria on display.”11
Peter Gena, who composed a number of musical syntheses of DNA sequences in
collaboration with a geneticist Charles Strom, explains the mechanism of this sound
as the product of reading and converting the DNA sequences to digital sound by
programmed algorithms:
11 John Byrne. Life Science: A Review of Ars Electronica '99, Third Text, N. 49, Winter 1999, p. 93-97.
Woo
5
5
This mixer, created in the MAX object-oriented language, is designed to read multiple DNA sequences as ribosomes do inside cells . . . timbral changes will be made when the website user switches on the UV light over the plasmid. In addition, as participants control the light from the website, the tempo of the sequence gradually speeds up to a maximum, then works its way down again . . . Ideally, as in the case of "Genesis," performances of the digitally synthesized pieces should be done in real-time from the computer, where the ribosome simulations can be set spontaneously before each performance.12
The result is surprisingly similar to some of experimental electronic music directly
composed by a human author with electronic equipment. In that sense, one may
even say that it is actually closer to ‘music’ made by digital sound equipment rather
than ‘noise.’ Because of the ominous overtone of the music, this musical
component might have created an alienating effect for visitors. Considering that
digital synthesis and programming for algorithmic music composition with MIDI
and MAX was introduced in the 1980s, however, it is also possible that visitors
might have found the music for Genesis rather familiar by 1999 when the work was
first exhibited. Moreover, the very means and process of producing sound from the
bacterial mutation is directly based on those of genetic sequence research that the
artist intends to critique, which I will discuss later in this paper.
In the gallery space, the combination of the music with the Petri dish on a
lighted podium and the video projection in a dark room creates an environment
very similar to that of a natural history museum or an up-scale zoo “enhanced” with
multimedia display. What is common in natural history museums and zoos is that
organisms are exhibited in a manner that is not ‘natural’ for the living. They are
separated from their usual habitat, limited in space, and often stuffed or “treated”
for the spectators’ convenience. For some cases, some subjects are simulated or
mediated by technology for more immersive and immediate (in a sense that it ‘feels’
immediate) experience—text, painting, sculptures, sound, video, computer
simulated models or hologram, moving architecture, microscopic and macroscopic
devices, or some combinations of these.
12 Peter Gena. “Genesis Music,” http://www.ekac.org/dnamusic.html (accessed 21 April 2013).
Woo
6
6
Figure 2 The American Museum of Natural History, Creatures of Light exhibition. Reproduced from Dvice, “Celebrating ‘Creature of Light’ that naturally glow in the dark” by Kevin Hall, 2 April 2012. http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/04/celebrating-‐cre.php (accessed on 25 April 2013).
In Genesis, the subject of such treatment is the DNA mutation of E. coli
bacteria that are usually imperceptible to the human sensorium. This is why the two
colonies of bacteria had to be “treated” to glow in blue and yellow so that visitors
would be able to tell the mutation process by their naked eyes. Since they are still
so small (although grown colonies of bacteria are visible to human eyes), “live”
video was taken and projected onto the wall. The music is also devised to change
supposedly in “real time” and inform the visitors about the mutation and online
participants’ intervention. Together, these elements “enhance” the immersive and
immediate experience of such unnoticeable changes of bacteria. The rhetoric of
“live” transfer from the bacteria to the screen and speakers emphasizes how
technology made it possible for the participants to witness the micro-spectacle,
while disguising the transformation and the temporal gap that the process inevitably
Woo
7
7
creates. With such devices and settings, what is presented is not the reality of the
living but the displayed spectacle itself.
Visitors in such situation are not free from the ethical responsibility of
witnessing such spectacle without taking action. They become part of the scene
unless they actively choose to intervene and stop the spectacle. The scheme of this
experiment as a ‘show,’ however, does not acknowledge such intervention within
its plan. The provided means of act, or “participation,” merely aggravates the
implications of the human dominion over other living beings. One may argue that
the visitors to the gallery and the website may simply choose not to participate and
thus refuse to contribute to such manipulation. One may also say that people can
explicitly protest against such practices if they do not agree, just as how animal
activists responded to Kac’s work. However, what is at stake here is not having the
choice of whether participate or not; instead, it is whether such choice and
contribution is respected and accredited. How Genesis has been framed and
discussed is highly artist-oriented: as much as the creation of the bacteria is
invisible and subsumed by the artist’s creation of the whole scheme, the labor and
decisions of participants and non-participants remain untraced and absorbed by the
technological means of communication. In other words, the artist is accredited for
the project while the bacteria is not accredited for the creation of the altered
sentence; at the same time, the web-based, ‘real-time’ system of participation (and
how it is ironically designed) is highlighted more than the judgments and choices of
participants and non-participants make.
Joe Scanlan points out that the free labor of “participants” is appropriated by
Internet corporations because of the seemingly friendly or acknowledging structure
of the web interface: people feel “the excitement of feeling responsible for the
construct by simply participating,” with which he connects to the excitement of
participating in Félix Gonzales-Torres’s work.13 Scanlan critiques how Gonzales-
Torres’s “Untitled” (Arena), 1933, is subsumed by the institutional ideology noting
that, “in a crude sense,” it “was a kind of trap that offered refuge only after we had
13 Joe Scanlan. “The Uses of Disorder: Joe Sclana on the art of Félix Gonzalez-Torres,” Artforum International, 1 Feb 2010. p. 165.
Woo
8
8
surrendered to the idea of being contained.”14 Similarly, the choices, judgments,
and actions that participants and non-participants contribute to the online
“interaction” between the users and bacteria in Genesis is a kind of trap that offers
recognition only after they surrender to be the idea of being “accomplices” of the
artist’s scheme. In Umberto Eco’s words, “means of an intentionally suggestive
construct”15 does not acknowledge participations, including E. coli, and
interpretations that do not fit into the artist’s intended construct of meaning.
Because of this paradox, Steve Baker points out that Eduardo Kac’s another project
GFP Bunny is his most compelling work precisely because of its “failure” to bring
the transgenic rabbit from the research lab: “It’s to say that had everything gone to
plan, there would have been less to learn from the work, and from how it slipped
from the artist’s control.”16 In fact, in any work of art, the artist cannot possibly
‘control’ every aspect of production, circulation, and consumption of the work.
However, the question is whether the “failure” of control is acknowledged as a
constructive and productive element of work as in GFP Bunny or unacknowledged
as in Genesis. This problem should be seriously considered since it involves living
beings, even if they are “insignificantly” small or lack voices.
In this discussion about complicity, we need a closer examination of another
group of entities, which practically have no choice to opt out in this “plot” unlike
the human ‘participants’: the two colonies of living E. coli bacteria. They may well
multiply and mutate in the Petri dish, but they did not ‘choose’ to be ‘written’ over
for the show nor to be crystallized for further manipulation after the show. In the
same vein, if they shared the ‘creation’ of this work by ‘recreating’ the biblical
phrase, it seems inevitable to ask the following question: Should not they be the
‘author’ of this work at least partially? To some readers, it might sound ridiculous
to consider microorganisms as authors of an artwork; however, I argue that it is not
a simple matter of an individual artwork and that we need to carefully examine the
implications of embedding both unwitting and (possibly) unwilling complicity in
14 Ibid. p. 163. 15 Umberto Eco. The Open Work, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. p. 100 16 Steve Baker, “Philosophy in the Wild?,” The Eighth Day: The Transgenic Art of Eduardo Kac, Arizona State University: Tempe, 2003. p. 37.
Woo
9
9
the “plot” of an artwork. What is the relationship between our judgment of the
artist’s intention and our interpretations of the artwork?
It might sound silly to think about the welfare of bacteria, but the implications
of this work is not only about bacteria but also ‘life’ in artistic creation, if not ‘life’
in general, as its title suggests. The Genesis bacteria do not have a place in the
ecology, at least until they are released from the Petri dish. They are the subject of
sound processing through data mining and various forms of visual presentations
and representations but they have no habitat to “return” after their “service” or
“participation,” if they are not kept in the Petri dish until they perish due to
overpopulation. Releasing the bacteria outside the Petri dish does not solve the
problem. The bacteria may simply not survive outside the Petri dish. Moreover, it
could also be the other way around. The bacteria may survive, breed, mutate further,
and infect other organisms, such as humans. Genetically modified bacteria, already
produced before the exhibition, complicate even the simplest act of intervention:
“rescuing” them might bring unpredicted consequences to the ecology and the
“rescuers.” Depending on how the bacteria are treated after exhibitions, no one can
guarantee that the living beings will not ‘truly’ escape the will of the “creator.” This
may cause serious consequences even if the probability is low, to which I shall
come back and discuss more in detail in the later part of this paper.
What is interesting about our ethical alertness is that it seems to get tired or
desensitized when certain stimuli are repeatedly and gradually provided. In a pair
with this, technology can be adopted for any reasons, good or bad, once it is
developed and becomes available, which provides motivation for further
development of the technology. In 2000, a year after Genesis, Kac introduced a
rabbit to the public in Avignon, France, as a “transgenic artwork” titled GFP Bunny.
The rabbit, Alba, was genetically modified to have green florescent protein (GFP),
which is a technique stems from a scientific research. Kac “commissioned” Alba
for an exhibition to the Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) in
France, “where scientists had been injecting green fluorescent protein into the eggs
of albino rabbits since 1998 to trace the action of particular chemicals, the growth
Woo
10
10
of tumors or the workings of genetic diseases.”17 When it comes to a rabbit, which
clearly has emotions and free will, it becomes more troubling to think about it as an
artwork. Niether E. coli nor Alba “agreed” to be genetically modified before being
altered, produced, and exhibited; or more precisely, it is practically impossible for
such entities to take a preemptive action in order to prevent such appropriation, for
both scientific and artistic purposes. Then one may ask why it would not be
acceptable for artists to “work with” life while scientists are experimenting with
living organisms in research labs of universities, corporations, and governments. It
is even argued by some artists and critics that it is ultimately beneficial, especially
if the artist intends to critique such manipulation of life and to evoke discussions
that may heighten social awareness. In order to address this seemingly ‘publically
good’ practices and their implications, we should consider under what conditions
those practices are conducted and critiqued.
Assimilation and Double Standard
What makes it difficult to answer the question is that Eduardo Kac critiques the
biotechnological manipulation of living organisms using the very modes of
understanding, manipulating, and representing ‘life’ in biotechnology. In fact, this
is not only a challenge for Eduardo Kac but for many other artists who call
themselves as bioartists, and more broadly, for all who are trying to critique
something by using the same means of what is being critiqued. Adam Zaretsky,
another bioartist, experiences the same dilemma. While he believes that even if his
“experiments with E. coli or other bacteria cause harm or suffering, they are also
‘introducing important questions into the public consciousness,’” also admitting
that he is practically doing the same thing of which he wants people to be critically
aware.18 It is also commonly found in discussions favorable to bioart that having
concerns about or fear of using non-human living entities as an art medium is based
on “old” moral values or habits. Kac himself also argues for a shift from the “old”
moral judgment towards “performative ethics”:
17 Allmendinger. 18 “The Art of Life: ‘The Art is Alive’ by Emily Voigt,” Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Summer 2010), pp. 84-85.
Woo
11
11
I call the creation of the artwork that produces ethical tension and stimulates reflection and debate “performative ethics.” In other words, what is at stake is not the old moral judgment of art but the choreographing of the expressive gesturality of ethics at the service of plastic imagination.19
Indeed, provoking controversy could evoke open discussions on issues that are not much
debated but emergent in a society. Even among some scientists, Kac’s work and its
surrounding debate seems to provide an opportunity for self-reflection. Stuart Newman,
professor of cell biology and anatomy at the New York Medical College, expresses
ambivalent feelings toward GFP bunny that it shows "how easily ostensibly radical anti-
capitalist ideas can be recruited to the enterprise of turning nature into a product,” while
also asking himself, "But how did I and my fellow scientists become anointed to do
things that should be prohibited to artists? Because we are contributing to the
understanding of things? So are artists."20 If so, why are artists not regulated by the same
rules that regulate scientists? What is the basis of the “expressive gesturality of ethics”
that Kac argues for? In an interview where he discusses Natural History of the Enigma
(2008) and Genesis (1999), Kac states, “Creating life is a moral imperative of an artist
whose aesthetics is that creation of life.”21 He goes on to argue:
“I’m literally increasing biodiversity I brought into the world a life form that did not exist. And, it exists in the exact same sense that you exist. So, from the point of view of art, you are not dealing with the logic of representation. You are not creating a metaphor. You are not alluding to imagination alone. It is the opposite. You are creating something real to stimulate your imagination.”22
It now seems that his “expressive gesturality of ethics” is based on the value of
“stimulating imagination,” to which direction it leads is arguably problematic. Kac
places a high value on him “literally increasing biodiversity,” implying that
bringing “into the world a life form that did not exist” should always be considered
valuable. What is created or how it is treated does not appear to be an important
question in his account. Kac goes on to further imply that the logic of
representation, creating metaphors, and alluding to imagination are not “real” and
19 Ibid, 254. 20 Allmendinger. 21 Eduardo Kac, “Eduardo Kac interview,” fhSPACEtv, Youtube, 3 Sep. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le1SOD6v2kA (accessed on 22 Apr. 2013) 22 Ibid.
Woo
12
12
thus inferior to creating something that presents itself. His modernistic claim for
sheer presentation, however, contradicts his repetitive production of various
representations of Genesis DNA and E. coli mutation.
In his speeches and writings, there is a noticeable tension between his
explicit social critique of ideology in science and his positioning himself as an
‘innovative’ artist through the rhetoric of novelty and ingenious experimentation,
which is, ironically, commonly found in science and technology. However,
scientists are not solely concerned about novelty of their research. They are not free
from the pressure or allure of worldly concerns and interests such as fame or funds
either, as much as artists are not immune to them. Richard C. Lewontin asks why so
many successful and intelligent scientists are attracted to human genome sequence
research such as the Human Genome Project, and answers that it is not only
because scientists are not asked to see complex social implications but also because
participating such multibillion-dollar projects promises “straightforward economic
and status rewards.”23 The monetary rewards often come not only from academic
positions but also from direct involvement in the biotechnology industry while
keeping their academic positions.24 Reversely, this also means that if their research
projects lack ‘innovation’ that would bring enough attention and funding, their
careers and research will be threatened because running research labs and obtaining
latest equipment often requires substantial funds. That is why grant proposal
writing and fund-raising play a large part of sustaining scientific research.
Artists whose work relies on ‘exploring new possibility’ or ‘innovative
experiments’ are in a similar position, which, in a broad sense, would include more
artists than just those who make art with living entities. Art projects based on
collaborations with scientists and engineers usually take a fairly long time, often
more than the art world’s attention span. Since many of such projects are temporary,
the need to document and make various presentations of the ephemeral work
becomes a realistic concern. Eduardo Kac also produces different forms of
presentations and representations of his projects, which often take years of research
23 Richard C. Lewontin. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. House of Anansi Press: Ontario, 1991. p. 46. 24 Ibid. p. 47.
Woo
13
13
and collaboration. For Genesis, he created The Genesis Series in 2001 as a
following-up project, which includes: two laser-etched granites showing the
alteration of Genesis DNA, “Encryption Stones”; twelve laser-etched granites
depicting Genesis DNA protein, “Fossil Fold”; a glass bottle with purified Genesis
DNA with a gold-casted Genesis DNA protein 3D model, “Transcription Jewels”;
digital prints of bacterial mutation, “The Book of Mutations”; multimedia
installation incorporating three photographs of the mutation, “In our own Image I”
and “In our own Image II.”25 All of them are sellable and are successfully collected
by various institutions and private collectors. For instance, “Encryption Stones” was
sold for 13,000 dollars at Kac’s solo show at the Julia Friedman Gallery in Chicago
in 2001.26 By delineating this, I do not intend to argue that artists should be
somehow exempt from realistic concerns such as their careers and financial
stability; instead, I argue that the very means and modes of producing such artwork
resemble those of scientific research largely because of the same motivations. The
more controversial and ‘innovative,’ the more public attention and artistic and
economic capital the artist gains. In such reward system, regardless of being
notorious or famous, the sheer amount of attention and maintaining it through
providing various byproducts become crucial. What happens in the process is then,
again, that the constant promotion of byproducts reproduces exactly what the artist
claims to critique: the fetishization of DNA and DNA protein as the essence of
‘life.’
25 Eduardo Kac’s official website, “Works from the Genesis Series.” http://www.ekac.org/genseries.html 26 ARTnews, December 2001, (Volume 100/Number 11), in the special section The Next Wave: Ten Trendsetters to Watch, pp. 118-119.
Woo
14
14
Figure 3 Eduardo Kac, “Encryption Stones,” The Genesis Series, 2001. Laser-‐etched granite (diptych), 20” x 30” (50 x 70cm) each, 2001. Collection Richard Langdale (Comlumbus, OH). Reproduced from Eduardo Kac’s official website, http://www.ekac.org/genseries.html (accssed on 25 April 2013).
This paradoxical assimilation to what the artist intends (or claims) to critique
is at the very heart of his argument. The Genesis DNA is created through multiple
translations from the original Hebrew text to the King James English version, the
Morse code, and then DNA code, which was done by found information on the
Internet for the most part.27 This double-translation of the biblical sentence through
the Morse code is a deliberately chosen act in order to critique the common
metaphor of genes as “code.” The metaphor reflects the text-centered idea of life
prevalent in genetics and molecular biology that DNA is the secret “code” or
“essence” of life similar to instructions for building architecture or operating a
machine. Erwin Schrödinger made this analogy explicitly in his lectures and
publication, “What is Life?” (1943-1944), suggesting a cross-pollination of biology
and physics. In the booklet, Schrödinger likens genes as “code-script” in that they
bear instructions of life, which became an epistemological instrument in molecular
27 Ibid, 261.
Woo
15
15
biology.28 When life becomes understood as “code,” living organisms become mere
vehicles of carrying, spreading, and improving the code by reproduction and
evolution. It also means life becomes something can be decoded, scanned, digitized,
cut, pasted, assembled, rewritten, and encoded again into its “vehicles.” With the
current information technology available to us, the metaphor has been utilized in its
most literal sense. However, some scientific studies suggest the otherwise. Patrick
Forterre, an evolutionary biologist who has studied the replication of DNA for
decades, found in the 1970s that E. coli “use special enzymes to make new copies
of their genes without letting the double helix of DNA become tangled,” which
dismantles the notion that the “essence” of life resides in DNA as a form of
“code.”29 Kac notes:
I am interested in creating artworks that reflect on the multiple social implications of genetics, from unacceptable abuse to its hopeful promises, from the notion of “code” to the question of genes and proteins, from simple reductive narratives to complex views that account for environmental influences. The urgent task is to unpack the implicit meanings of the biotech revolution and, through art making, contribute to the creation of alternative views.30
In order to critique the notion of “code,” Kac exhibits and facilitates, with the help
of online visitors to the website, the mutation living bacteria, which alters the
injected Genesis DNA. This mutation process is meant to, and does, show the
autonomy of living beings that alters the human domination. Ironically, we only
become to know that the living bacteria changed the biblical sentence by “encoding”
the DNA back to an English sentence. In order to see how living bacteria ‘escape’
from the dogma of DNA as “code,” we need precisely the same dogmatic practice.
If one’s critique on an idea is only accessible through using the very same idea, his
critique not only becomes ineffective but also reinforces the idea that is seemingly
being critiqued. A common argument for Kac’s paradoxical critique use of what he
claims to critique is that it serves the ‘public good’ by provoking discussions and
critical awareness.
28 Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. p. 61. 29 Carl Zimmer. “Did DNA Come From Viruses?” Science, New Series, Vol. 312. No. 5775 (12 May 2006), p. 870. 30 Ibid, 255.
Woo
16
16
Betsy Stirratt, the Director of the Grunwald Gallery of Art who directed
“Human Nature II: Future Worlds” (2007) exhibition that featured Genesis as its
center piece, recalls the visitors’ discussions about their uncomfortable feelings of
“playing God” or about the artist’s motives.31 In that sense, being provocative was a
good way of raising consciousness, Stirratt notes. Marvin Heiferman, who also
included Genesis in an exhibition, “Paradise Now: Picturing the Genetic Revolution”
(2000), agrees with this view stating that Kac raises questions that were not
discussed enough at the time stating, “Eduardo is raising some of the really big
questions . . . The same way people didn't want to think about terrorism until
recently, people don't want to think about cloning. You know cloning is going on in
some private lab somewhere.”32 In that sense, Heiferman sees the value of the
artistic freedom in using living organisms as an artwork: "He doesn't have the
constraints a research scientist might. It's precisely because he's an artist that he has
the freedom of expression to raise ideas that others won't.”33 The argument that
“living pieces”34 serves a positive function in society is similar to the logic that
animal testing or manipulation of bacteria at a molecular level are accepted in
science given that such practices will eventually serve the ‘public good.’ However,
it still does not mean that serving a good purpose makes a practice necessarily good.
Serving the ‘public good’ may also mean the sacrifice of certain individuals or
entities. Furthermore, this argued parallelism between the legitimacy of using living
beings for art and science is based on a strange double standard. Artistic practices
involving living beings are still not required to be conducted and evaluated under
the same rigorous ethical considerations in scientific research. Not to mention that
there is practically no widely accepted guidelines or regulations for such art
production and circulation, serious debate and research endeavor to examine the
problematic of using living entities as ‘materials’ severely lack in the field of art
compared to science. I will delineate my point by discussing the regulations and
31 Interview with Betsy Stirratt, 23 April 2013. 32 “The Next Wave: Ten Trendsetters to Watch,” ARTnews, December 2001, (Volume 100/Number 11) pp. 118-119. 33 Ibid. 118. 34 In his official website’s bio art category, Kac described his bio art works as “transgenic works and other living pieces.” http://www.ekac.org/transgenicindex.html
Woo
17
17
common treatments of E. coli in medical science in contrast to Eduardo Kac’s
treatment of E. coli in his production and circulation of Genesis.
E. coli is bacteria normally found in
intestines in all animals including
humans and “serves a useful
function in the body by suppressing
the growth of harmful bacteria and
by synthesizing vitamins.”35 A
subgroup, E. coli O157:H7 is known
to cause enteric diseases transmitted
through the gastrointestinal tract of
cattle, bovine feces, or water
contaminated by such media.36 In
many cases, E. coli O157:H7 infection last only for a short period time (3-5 days)
and the symptoms range from “abdominal cramps to vomiting, often bloody
diarrhea, and sometimes fever”; however, in some acute cases, especially for young
children, infants, and elderly, it might develop into hemolytic uremic syndrome
(HUS) causing the “destruction of red blood cells, kidney failure, and potentially
seizures, stroke, and death.”37
There is no indication that Kac used E. coli O157:H7 instead of a rather
harmless subgroup of E. coli. The potential aerosolization of the bacteria enclosed
in a Petri dish and a glass box also seems relatively low considering that E. coli
infection occurs usually through consuming contaminated food and drinks without
fully cooking or pasteurizing. One may even say that viewing them in a gallery
space can make one more aware of the bacteria and possible infection than eating a
half-cooked steak at a restaurant—until the bacteria are released from the Petri dish.
If the infectious materials are not properly handled after the exhibition, it may bring 35 Holton Conard. “E. coli Exposed!” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 10 (October) p. A588. 36 Ibid. p. A588. 37 Ibid. p. A588.
Figure 4 Escherichia coli O157:H7, Reproduced from Holton Conard, “E. coli Exposed,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 10 (October).
Woo
18
18
unwanted results in ecology.
As an artist whose career is well established, Kac does not travel to visit each
exhibiting venue to install and check the bacteria. This is now a common practice
for successful artists to hire assistants to go to exhibition sites and install their work.
Depending on situations or intentions, some artists even send institutions only a set
of instructions or materials. When the artwork involves living beings, nevertheless,
it becomes more complicated. The responsibility of using living beings in art or
research should be examined in terms of a full circle of life: “creation, nurturing,
and termination” as Stirrat argues.38 Stirratt clearly remembers that there were no
instructions or guidelines from Kac for taking care of the bacteria before, during, or
after the exhibition of Genesis.
“It [bacteria] just goes to the garbage can, basically. It doesn’t get shipped back [to him]. What we did was [to] order bacteria from one of the medical places and store it, in here [the gallery office] actually, and at the end of the show, when it was dismantled, its just goes away, instead of keeping alive or reusing it, for instance.”39
In addition to the bacteria changinga the biblical verse not being accredited, it
seems evident that they are not treated with proper care or handling, especially
considering that E. coli are infectious. This is problematic because the contingency
of the living organisms is not taken seriously. The absence of institutional
guidelines and regulations aggravates the maltreatment of organisms used in
artworks. The infectious material after its usage is considered as a subset of
hazardous waste in the medical field and sterilized before sanitary landfill or other
types of disposal, if not incinerated as its disposal. According to Subtitle of C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, hazardous waste is defined as
“solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may a) cause or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or b) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
38 Betsy Stirratt. “Nature, Bioart, and Creative Autonomy,” Human Nature exhibition catalogue, School of Fine Arts Gallery: Bloomington, 2007. p. 92. 39 Interview with Betsy Stirratt, 23 April 2013.
Woo
19
19
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.”40 In a comprehensive
study of North Carolina hospitals in 1980 already has shown that almost all (95%)
hospitals considered microbiological waste as infectious, most (65%) considered
contaminated lab wastes as infectious.41 “Nearly all hospitals (95%) used a Class A
landfill to dispose of the non-infectious waste” while various recommendations and
guidelines made by institutions are complied in most of them.42 More recent studies
further examine the possibility of aerosolizations and water contamination even
after using disposal equipment, which calls for an extra care of a preliminary
decontamination of highly infectious materials before disposal.43
E. coli of Genesis is potentially hazardous to human health and the
environment not only because of its natural virulence in some cases but also
because of the modified DNA and its untested contingency. If the artist does not
choose to collect the bacteria back after exhibiting them, it should at least
terminated under proper instructions. The double standard, claiming the artistic
“right” to use living beings as working materials avoiding the accountability
applied to scientists, only further extends the idea that artists are not included in
society and thus somehow exempt to social responsibilities. It is oxymoron to have
such double standard especially when the artist asserts that his work is a critical
commentary on the human manipulation of living beings, notably in the field of
science. However, my argument should not be read only as criticizing an individual
artist’s claim; instead, this should be read as a problematic for various entities
involved in the artistic production and circulation involving living beings. Art
institutions—schools, museums, and galleries—are also responsible to promote
discussions and create guidelines with art students and artists for a better
understanding and treatment of living beings, including microorganisms in art.
Kac asks us, “Are we masters of the bacteria that line our stomach, with
whom we share our lives controlling the Genesis bacteria, or am I, through an
40 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580), 42 USC 6901 et seq. 41 William A. Rutala and Felix A. Sarubbi Jr. “Management of Infectious Waste from Hospitals,” Infection Control, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jul. – Aug., 1983), p. 198-204. 42 Ibid. p. 198. 43 L. P. Jetté and S. Lapierre. “Evaluation of a Mechanical/Chemical Infectious Waste Disposal System, Infection and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 13, No. 7 (Jul. 1992) p. 387-393.
Woo
20
20
evolutionary process, a vehicle for their will to survive, contributing to the
proliferation of bacteria by creating new ones?”44 But maybe it does not have to be
one way or the other. Dominion cannot be resisted by another form of dominion
over other human beings, animals, or microorganisms. It merely replaces it. Instead
of hierarchical one’s dominion over another, we need to acknowledge and strive for
coexistence and co-evolution. In any reciprocal and symbiotic relationships, there
are borderlines of appropriation that should be respected; otherwise, it would only
become exploitation of one on others. In the same vein, critiquing something by its
very ideas and practices would neither be effective nor ethical, if an artist seeks her
or his ‘artistic’ right only, not the responsibility and accountability that come
together.
44 Kac, p. 254.
Woo
21
21
Bibliography
Allmendinger, Ulli. “One small hop for Alba, one large hope for mankind,” Originally published in NY Arts Magazine, Vol. 6, N. 6, June 2001. Reproduced from Eduardo Kac’s official website, http://www.ekac.org/ulli.html (accessed on 25 April 2013).
Baker, Steve. “Philosophy in the Wild?” The Eighth Day: The Transgenic Art of Eduardo
Kac, Arizona State University: Tempe, 2003. p. 37. Byrne, John. Life Science: A Review of Ars Electronica '99, Third Text, N. 49, Winter
1999, p. 93-97. Conard, Holton. “E. collie Exposed!” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, No.
10 (October) Eco, Umberto. The Open Work, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 1989. Gena, Peter. “Genesis Music,” http://www.ekac.org/dnamusic.html (accessed 21 April
2013). Gibson, Daniel G. and John I. Glass, Carole Lartigue, at el. “Creation of Bacterial Cell
Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. Science, May 20, 2010. Vol. 329 no. 5987 pp. 52-56.
Hall, Kevin. “Celebrating ‘Creature of Light’ that naturally glow in the dark,” Dvice, 2
April 2012. http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/04/celebrating-cre.php (accessed on 25 April 2013).
Hypponen, Mikko. “Fighting viruses, defending the net.” July 2011. http://www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_fighting_viruses_defending_the_net.html
(accessed on 3 November 2013). Jetté, L. P. and S. Lapierre. “Evaluation of a Mechanical/Chemical Infectious Waste
Disposal System, Infection and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 13, No. 7 (July 1992) p. 387-393.
Kac, Eduardo. “Eduardo Kac interview,” fhSPACEtv, Youtube, 3 September 2009.
(accessed on 22 Apr. 2013). Kac, Eduardo. Telepresence & Bio Art: Networking Humans, Rabbits, & Robots. The
University of Michigan Press, 2005. Print. Kac, Eduardo. www.ekac.org
Woo
22
22
Lewontin, Richard C. Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. House of Anansi Press: Ontario, 1991.
Pennisi, Elizabeth. “Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium.” Science, 21 May
2010. Vol. 328 no. 5981 p. 958-959. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976(P.L. 94-580), 42 USC 6901 et seq. Rutala, William A. and Felix A. Sarubbi Jr. “Management of Infectious Waste from
Hospitals,” Infection Control, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jul. – Aug., 1983), p. 198-204. Scanlan, Joe. “The Uses of Disorder: Joe Scalan on the art of Felix Gonzalez-Torres,”
Artforum International, 1 Feb 2010. p. 162-170. Schrödinger, Erwin. What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell with Mind and
Matter and Autobiographical Sketches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. p. 61.
Shirriff, Ken. “Using Arc to decode Venter’s secret DNA watermark,” 10 June 2010.
http://www.righto.com/2010/06/using-arc-to-decode-venters-secret-dna.html (accessed on 3 November 2013).
Stirratt, Betsy. “Nature, Bioart, and Creative Autonomy,” Human Nature exhibition
catalogue, School of Fine Arts Gallery: Bloomington, 2007. p. 79-96. Stirratt, Betsy. Interview. 23 April 2013. “The Art of Life: ‘The Art is Alive’ by Emily Voigt,” Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3
(Summer 2010), p. 84-85. “The Next Wave: Ten Trendsetters to Watch,” ARTnews, December 2001, (Volume
100/Number 11) pp. 118-119. Zimmer, Carl. “Did DNA Come From Viruses?” Science, New Series, Vol. 312. No.
5775 (12 May 2006), p. 870-872.