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.