> On Monday, September 18, 2000 9:19 AM David Lubkin lubkin@unreasonable.com
> wrote:
> > Eduardo Kac is a Chicago artist who got French geneticists to make him a
> > phosphorescent rabbit for his performance art.
> >
> > See
>
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/261/nation/Cross_hare_hop_and_glow+.shtml
> >
> > Are animals as legitimate an artform as orchids and rainbow corn?
>
> I would question "orchids and rainbow corn" as forms of art. What seems
to
> be lost in this question is the distinction between [fine] art and
> decoration.
>
> > Where are the ethical boundaries? What are the ethical considerations?
> > What would you create?
>
> I have concerns about using any conscious life form -- which I believe
> rabbits are -- for such experiments, especially in this case where the
> benefit is pure entertainment.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
I think the bunny is a very good idea, and counts as art.
That artist is attempting to bring the issues of genetic modification to the
fore. He's saying This is really happening. Right now. Look, a glowing
bunny. Deal with it.
All sorts of extra concepts come with this. Like, for instance, one
immediately imagines GM pets in general. It can happen right now. Deal with
it.
And, for a frankenstein bunny, it's pretty cute. It's got a positive aspect;
the bunny isn't a malformed monster which will devour the world, it's a cute
little regular bunny which happens to be phosporescent (yowsa). So there is
some comment about genetic modification not being automatically evil. Just
because it can't occur "naturally", doesn't mean it is bad.
So yes, I think this has been entirely justifiable as a form of art. As
ever, the ethical boundaries are something like, yes, you can do this for
art, but it's got to be good art. There's the problem...
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:34 MDT