From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Sep 19 2000 - 23:28:36 MDT
On Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:46 PM Emlyn emlyn@one.net.au wrote:
>
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.
>
> I think the bunny is a very good idea, and counts as art.
Good ideas are not equivalent to fine art. Double entry bookkeeping was a
good idea when it first arose, yet it is not a fine art. Important
distinctions are being blurred here, again.
> 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.
The person is attempting to do that, but that does not make it art. If I
storm into a town council and make the people there deal with me, this is
not art. It might raise consciousness, get me in the newspaper, and change
peoples' minds, but it is not art.
If you define art as stuff that makes people change their minds or forces
them to deal with issues, then there is no way to distinguish art from
non-art and the term becomes meaningless. A death in the family forces
people to deal with issues. Is it art too? Being mugged will change lots
of people. Is mugging an art form?
> 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.
My ethical point was to question whether such experiments should be done on
conscious beings. I've not against genetic engineering per se. This does
not mean, however, anything goes. I'm not for, and I doubt many on this
list are for, kidnapping people and using them genetic experiments.
> 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...
The two issues are separate. Something can be art or not and something can
be ethical or not. That something is not art does not mean it is not
ethical and vice versa. And also that something is art does not mean it is
ethical and vice versa.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:04 MST