On 9/19/00, at 10:28 PM, Technotranscendence wrote:
>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?
Although I've seen it cited as such, I regard changing people's minds,
forcing them to deal with something, or evoking an emotional response as
frequent consequences of art, not central to the definition of art.
Natasha and Nadia should really weigh in on this one. The definition of art
keeps moving, and it often takes generations for the borders to move. I know
that my own opinions don't keep up. The art world says that Jackson Pollack,
Christo, and Karen Finley are artists; I'm not convinced.
Eduardo Kac is a self-described performance artist. His intent was not just
to produce the bunny but to interact with it on stage. So this is probably
art by current definitions.
I don't think *this* bunny is art by itself but I think that genemods per se
can be an art form as much as any other. Perhaps in the same category as
bodybuilding, topiary, perfume, cooking, architecture, and clothing design.
Being useful doesn't make an endeavor any less art. (Or does it? Must art
serve no functional purpose to qualify as art? I say no.)
What new art forms will arise as consequences of anticipated technological
developments? Besides genemods, I think that personalities could become an
art form. We already consider acting to be an art form; if you could precisely
sculpt a personality, wouldn't that qualify?
Don't forget Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag": SI as
artist, universe as art. What about creating a religion?
My own guess is that any deliberately constructed object or action can be
assessed from an artistic point of view. Art requires an artist. So a
sunset is aesthetic, but it is not art (unless you bring in the God thing).
I'm not sure if art requires that the creator(s) have had the intent to create
art per se. One could certainly make an aesthetic assessment of lying, sex, or
car engines; is an artistic intent required to label it as art?
>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.
Your question about conscious beings is legitimate. A key point though is
that we've been genetically modifying conscious beings -- humans, pets, working
animals, and farm animals -- for our purposes already, without consent, for
millenia. Direct genemod is just a more efficient mechanism than selective
breeding.
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:36 MDT