Mixing Genetic Art & Research

Through wanting to inform society about genetic research, artists like Steve Kurtz and Eduardo Kac have helped create a controversial issue between art and science. In the exhibit Paradise Now, critics felt that it crossed the line for what is usually considered to be art. Artists displayed several pieces of genetic art for viewers to see. The particular pieces of art varied between a glowing bunny and two DNA strands. By doing so, critics tore the exhibit apart by saying it was more of a science project and too time consuming (Lynch 188). Lisa Lynch describes, "... reviewers claimed that the show was a noble idea, but a failure as an art exhibit" (188).

How is genetic art suppose to inform a viewer about genetic research? In the essay "Culturing the Pleebland", Lynch states, "Kismaric and Heiferman explained that they believed presenting diverse visions of the genetic future would allow visitors to make informed decisions about what kind of future they themselves wanted biotechnology to create" (186). I do not understand how the artists intend to educate viewers about genetic research through art. A viewer sees a piece of art and interprets it through their own understandings. Is this what the artist is trying to achieve or is there more to the piece of artwork? Are artist just trying to make genetic research known to the public or do they expect the viewer to pull away a full understanding of a scientific definition? The audience is also composed of a variety of viewers. Not all who enter the gallery are a scientist, and if they were, it would defeat the purpose of the exhibit. It is difficult to determine whether genetic art really informs the viewer about genetic research or not.

Lynch, Lisa. "Culturing the Pleebland: The Idea of the "Public" In Genetic Art." Project Muse: Scholarly journals online 26.1 (2008): 186-188. Web. 23 Mar 2010.