Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
artículo general
Splicing Boundaries
The Experiences of Bioart Exhibition Visitors
W o l f g A n g K e R B e a n d M A R K u S S C h M i d T
t
C
A
R
t
S
B
A
Bioart can cross the line between the scientific domain and
that of arts and may touch the boundary between the living
and the nonliving. This study addresses how visitors to a bioart
exhibition experienced the hybrid aspects of this form of art.
Semi-structured interviews were held with 119 visitors to the
synth-ethic exhibition in Vienna, Austria, in May and June 2011.
Analysis shows that for a majority of visitors the use of bacteria
and lower organisms does not pose an ethical problem, mientras
integration of higher animals or even humans into the artwork
is not readily accepted.
AiM of The STudy
The aim of this study was to investigate visitors’ responses to
a bioart exhibition. We tried to answer the following research
preguntas:
1. How do gallery visitors judge the use of living
organisms in these art exhibits?
2. What role does the issue of boundaries play in
the reception of the ethical aspects of this bioart
exhibition?
3. How do people experience disciplinary
boundaries concerning the art/science interface
in these artworks as well as the scientific disciplines
involved?
Wolfgang Kerbe (researcher), Biofaction KG, Grundsteingasse 36/41 1160,
Viena, Austria. Correo electrónico:
Markus Schmidt (administrador), Biofaction KG, Grundsteingasse 36/41 1160,
Viena, Austria. Correo electrónico:
Ver
associated with this issue.
Article frontispiece. Adam Brown and Robert Root-Bernstein, Origins
of Life: Experimento #1.4, installation, 2011 [3]. (© Adam Brown) El
artist re-enacted the famous Urey/Miller Experiment in an aesthetic
gallery installation. Instead of an early-Earth atmosphere, Brown and
Root-Bernstein attempt the synthesis of organic molecules in contemporary
air in the presence of seawater and induced by electric sparks.
The BioART exhiBiTion synth-ethic
We hope to provoke our visitors to reflection
with this intriguing exhibit, whose meaning may not
be apparent at first but perhaps at second glance [1].
The bioart exhibition synth-ethic [2] was hosted by the
Museum of Natural History in Vienna from 13 May to 26
Junio 2011.
synth-ethic assembled 10 contemporary artists who in
recent years had begun to employ laboratory methods and
biotechnology for their own purposes in new contexts and
to modify living systems. The artworks were curated under
the broad theme of synthetic biology (SB), the aim of which
is not only to modify existing organisms but also to design or
even create life anew. The aim of SB is to make biology easier
to engineer by applying engineering principles to biology.
Although these are still the early days of SB, the potential
consequences of this scientific and engineering field call for
an ethical engagement. The exhibition synth-ethic offered
perspectives on human intervention in biotechnology and
the responsibilities that arise with it. Artists appropriated
these technologies for their own purposes, seeing through
the mania of novelty, behind the engineering mantra and
beyond the constraints of economic return on investment.
The artwork presented in the exhibition examined a num-
ber of boundaries at the intersection of molecular biology
and ecology, architecture and biochemistry, technology and
naturaleza, as well as cybernetics and alchemy.
The exhibition featured 10 artists (Article Frontispiece,
Color Plate B and Figs 1–8) [3–12]. Además, Sonja Bäu-
mel provided an exhibit for the entrance hall that was not
included in the exhibition itself (Cartography of the Human
Body [13]).
BioART And BoundARieS
As of 2005, bioart did not have a widely accepted definition.
Hauser stated that year, writing for Ars Electronica:
As a medium, Bio Art does not permit itself to be nailed
down with a hard and fast definition of the procedures or
©2015 ISAST
doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00701
LEONARDO, volumen. 48, No. 2, páginas. 128–136, 2015 129
Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
materials that it must employ; the “manipulation of the
mechanisms of life” assumes a very wide variety of forms
both with respect to discourse and technique [14].
Mientras tanto, the defi nition by Capucci and Torrani as well
as Gessert [15] that bioart is art composed partly or entirely
of living, nonhuman organisms, and/or art created in as-
sociation with nonhuman organisms, remains in common
usar. Capucci and Torriani have classifi ed a subset of bioart
as biotech art. By this defi nition, it includes art that contains
technologically manipulated biological elements. Th is ma-
nipulation would include genetic engineering, tissue culture
and other interventions such as synthetic biology.
One aspect of bioart is its transcendence of boundaries.
It can cross the line between the scientifi c domain and the
domain of art [16] and it may touch the border between the
living and the nonliving. Although several of the pieces in
the exhibition fell within Capucci and Torriani’s defi nition,
this is not so clear for those, such as Origins of Life and Pro-
tocells, that explore the boundary between the living and the
nonliving, thus challenging the boundaries of bioart itself.
Boundaries of Life
Are there categories of life? Biologists would answer read-
ily, presenting the whole discipline of taxonomy. Sin embargo,
as regards ethical issues such as the moral status of natural
or artifi cial life, the boundaries must be drawn somewhere
other than simply between species.
Th is leads away from mere biological defi nitions of life
to a broader philosophical discussion. Christian Martin [17]
points out that “life” is not a merely descriptive phenom-
enon but also includes a normative component. He suggests
a diff erentiation of the term life into three steps: (1) “mere
vida," (2) “prerefl exively self-conscious life” and (3) “refl ex-
ively self-conscious life.” Th e prototype for mere life is that
of single-cell organisms, whereas self-conscious life encom-
passes the experience of a “self ” in the form of pain. Refl exive
self-conscious life entails understanding, judgment and the
ability to conclude.
Even in biology, there is no satisfactory defi nition of life.
Most attempts to describe what life is are limited to a list of
functional features of life [18]. Molecular biologist Steve Ben-
ner describes this approach as a “laundry list” of criteria that
must be met for something to be described as life, but any
such list necessarily rests on the biases of the person creat-
ing it [19]. Th erefore it is hard to defi ne a boundary between
the living and the nonliving, even from a scientifi c point of
vista [20].
Disciplinary Boundaries
Bioart today is a contemporary of synthetic biology. Th e
synth-ethic exhibition catalogue made explicit that the new
technoscience called synthetic biology challenges our ethi-
cal approach toward biotechnology by applying engineering
principles in biology. Synthetic biologists intend not only to
understand life better but also to utilize it in applications
to minimize and optimize, to variegate and transcend life, a
design and to standardize it [21].
fig. 1. Paul Va nouse, Latent Figure Protocol, installation, 2007–2009 [4].
(© Paul Vanouse) Latent Figure Protocol represents manipulations of so-called
genetic fi ngerprints. By using analytic laboratory methods, Vanouse synthesizes
signifi cant motifs such as the copyright symbol or the skull and crossbones.
fig. 2. Roman Kirschner, Roots, installation, 2011 [5]. (© Roman Kirschner)
An analogy to the ideas of the French scientist Stéphane Leduc, who coined
the term “synthetic biology,” this installation exhibits a resemblance to inorganic
crystal growth with properties similar to organic life forms. With the help of electric
current, Kirschner creates a four-dimensional crystal object in liquid solution.
fig. 3. Art Orienté objet (AOo: Marion Laval-Jeantet and Benoît Mangin),
Que le cheval vive en moi!, installation, 2011 [7]. (© Art Orienté objet.
Photo: Miha Fras.) synth-ethic featured the outcome of a performance in February
2011 by AOo’s Marion Laval-Jeantet, whose immune system had been prepared for
the injection of a cocktail of horse immunoglobulines without inducement of anaphy-
lactic shock. The performance represents a continuation of the centaur myth in which
the anthropocentric attitude inherent in our technological understanding is questioned.
130 Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries
Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
A fundamental trait of synthetic biology is its interdis-
ciplinary character. To be able to deal with the complexity
of biological systems, synthetic biology crosses disciplinary
boundaries. So, in a way, does bioart, which crosses not only
disciplinary borders within science but also the line between
science and art.
In the context of boundaries and biotech art, este estudio
attempted to address the questions mentioned above.
MeThod
Research Design
We carried out 109 semistructured interviews (70 in Ger-
man and 39 en Inglés) con 119 interviewees who visited
the synth-ethic exhibition between May and June of 2011.
The duration of the interviews, excluding the demographic
component, varied between 1 y 12 minutos, with an aver-
age time of 3 mín. 14 segundo (DE = 1 mín. 42 segundo). The questions
concerned the visitors’ general impression of the exhibition,
the exhibits that lingered in their minds, general associations
and the artistic and scientific aspects, as well as the ethical
issues addressed. Interviewees were asked what they thought
about the use of living organisms in the art exhibits and
finally they were interviewed about their motivation to come
to the exhibition. Además, we solicited demographic
details concerning gender, edad, education, profession and
levels of interest in art and in science.
Participantes
Un total de 54.6% of interviewees were male. Age ranged from
13 a 67 with an average age of 36.1 años (DE = 14.0); solo 4
interviewees were younger than 18.
The interviewees were selected based on the time that they
spent in the exhibition. The interviewers (graduate students)
chose visitors who had spent at least 5 minutes at the exhibi-
ción. Of the people who were invited to an interview, 33%
declined the request.
Participants were also asked to rate their interest in art and
in science on a scale from 0 a 7. To obtain an impression
of whether people favored art or science, the difference was
calculated between the two items. The distribution is shown
in Fig. 9, which shows a likeness to a normal distribution,
with the mean slightly below zero (−0.54).
This difference between the means of the groups can also
be shown with a t-test (T = −3.802; df = 118; pag < 0.05): thus the
interviewed visitors were slightly more interested in science
than in art. However, the graph shows also that most par-
ticipants had similar levels of interest in art and in science.
Figure 10 shows that the interviewees had on average
a high formal education and included many students and
academics.
Data Analysis
We analyzed the semistructured interviews using quantita-
tive and qualitative content analysis. For the identification of
disciplines, we applied a simple word-count statistic. The art
exhibits were counted only once per interview in which they
were mentioned (compare Table 1). We mainly analyzed the
data using structuring content analysis techniques. Then the
quotations were paraphrased, summarized and then coded
again using inductive open coding strategies [22]. We used
ATLAS.ti software for qualitative data analyses.
ReSulTS
Boundaries between Disciplines:
Synthetic Biology or Chemistry?
Although synthetic biology was mentioned explicitly in the
exhibition guide, and in spite of the title synth-ethic, the
term synthetic biology was mentioned only six times over
TABle 1. number of total quotes containing a particular exhibit (Total), compared with
the number of quotes about an exhibit in connection to ethics/morals (Ethics).
Artist
exhibit
organisms included
Total
ethics
Art Orienté objet
Que le cheval vive en moi!
Human and horse
Cohen & Van Balen
Pigeon d’Or
Pigeon and bacteria
Tissue Culture and Art Project
Semi-Living Worry Dolls
McCoy cells (Mouse cell line)
Andy Gracie
Autoinducer_Ph-1
Rice plant, azolla plant, cyanobacteria
Tour & Chanteau
NanoPutians
None: organic chemistry
Roman Kirschner
Roots
None: organic chemistry
Rachel Armstrong
Living Chemistry and
A “Natural History” of Protocells
None: organic chemistry
Paul Vanouse
Adam Brown
Joe Davis
Sonja Bäumel
Latent Figure Protocol
Only indirectly, DNA sample from artist’s cells
Origins of Life
Bacterial Radio
None: organic chemistry
Transgenic bacteria
Cartography of the Human Body
Bacteria
34
18
31
29
23
16
15
12
12
3
3
10
8
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries 131
the course of all 109 interviews. In
comparison, words relating to genetic
engineering, such as genes, cloning
or genetic manipulation, were men-
tioned 30 times, and the term biol-
ogy 33 times. Surprisingly, the term
chemistry was coded 53 times. This
is possibly due partly to the chemi-
cal symbols on the exhibition poster
and the association of synthesis with
chemistry. Furthermore, according to
recent survey data, only 17% of Euro-
peans have heard of the term synthetic
biology [23].
BoundARieS: The ACCepTAnCe
of living oRgAniSMS in
ART exhiBiTS
Analysis of the interviews shows that
for a majority of the visitors, the use
of bacteria and simple organisms does
not pose an ethical problem, whereas
the integration of higher animals (e.g.
pigeons/horses), let alone humans, into the artwork is much
less well accepted. For 91 interviewees, it was OK or even
positive to use living organisms. Only 15 visitors judged it
entirely negative. Three interviewees had a clearly ambivalent
attitude toward the use of living organisms in the exhibits.
However, there were 16 statements on limiting the use of liv-
ing organisms or cells for arts projects. These interviewees
argued that using microorganisms is acceptable but did not
readily tolerate the use of vertebrates—for instance, pigeons,
horses or human beings.
Furthermore, when comparing how often the exhibits
were mentioned in total with respect to ethics, the ones that
featured vertebrates came out much higher, indicating that
there are clearly ethical issues involved (Table 1).
eThiCS in geneRAl:
A need foR BoundARieS?
As mentioned above, when questioned about the ethical as-
pects of the exhibition, many respondents alluded to two
of the art exhibits, in which birds (8), a horse and a human
being (10) were involved. For two respondents the ethical
issue of the exhibition was the involvement of animal ex-
perimentation.
For some respondents the exhibition concerned interfaces
between nature and the artificial (2), between technology and
nature (2), between science and art (1) or between technol-
ogy and life (1). They clearly articulated the transcendence
of these boundaries in the exhibition.
Many respondents (12) claimed a need for boundaries as
regards the development of the technologies in the exhibition.
Some were afraid of science or technology pushing or
crossing these boundaries (2). With respect to ethics, the in-
terviewees were reminded of the discussion about genetically
fig. 4. Revital Cohen and Tuur Van Balen, Pigeon d’Or, installation, 2011 [8].
(© Revital Cohen and Tuur Van Balen) By using “biobricks,” Cohen and Van Balen
try to manipulate bacteria in the intestines of pigeons to make the pigeons defecate
a soap-like substance. synth-ethic featured installations for feeding these pigeons
and for using them to clean the windshields of a car, freeing them from the stigma
of being “flying rats” and turning them into flying cleaners.
engineered food (4), genetically modified organisms (1) and
genetic engineering in general (2), but also of stem cell re-
search (2). Many thought about ethical implications of these
applications in a positive (9) as well as in a negative sense
(2) and about future possibilities (3). Some spoke about the
mechanization of life (2). In a negative light, potential misuse
for economic interests was discussed (2). One respondent
was reminded of a chemical computer. Some stated that the
ethical aspects of the exhibition imply that we have to take
care of the environment, nature and limited resources (8).
This results in a great responsibility (5) that we have.
Others found ethical challenges in the manipulation of
organisms and in the interference with life or nature (12) or
even the creation of new life (3). God as creator was men-
tioned three times. The interviewees also talked about human
enhancement or eugenics (6).
Several respondents discussed the question of the use of
organisms for art exhibits in the context of general ethical
questions (10). One respondent was afraid of the incalcula-
ble results of these developments. Interviewees also thought
this development to be unstoppable (3). Some others under-
scored the importance of estimating consequences and of
technology assessment (4). Two interviewees said that there
should be more information for the public and more science
communication about these issues.
The ART-SCienCe inTeRfACe/BoundARy
The Art Aspect
While 32 people did not respond to the question about eth-
ics, only 9 did not want to say anything about the artistic
aspect of the exhibition. The predominant response, when
viewers were asked about the exhibition, was a positive one.
The art was characterized as creative, interesting or aesthetic
132 Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
(28). It was also frequently seen as something new, novel and
unknown (18).
Some saw the exhibition as very artistic (7), others did not
find the exhibition very artistic (10) or were ambivalent (4).
Some interviewees stated the exhibition did not suit their
taste (3). Eleven respondents stated that the exhibition was
not an art but a science exhibition. The art was believed to be
inspiring for science and art projects (2), critical or provoca-
tive (3) but on the other hand also as hard to classify (3) and
hard to understand (9). Some respondents described the art
aspect as strange, awkward or disturbing (9), some as offbeat
(2). The exhibits were classified as abstract (3), sometimes too
abstract (1). One person said that this was chemistry seen
through the lens of the artist; one called it conceptual art
and another high-tech. One respondent said that this kind
of artwork is connected with great effort on the part of the
artists. Three persons said they had expected something else.
The Aspect of Science
While 30 statements about science were entirely positive (e.g.
“interesting”), 23 respondents claimed that they did not have
enough knowledge to understand the scientific aspects of
synth-ethic. Another 10 complained about a lack of good
description or explanation of these aspects, and 4 persons
complained about a lack of time for understanding the sci-
entific aspect. Two respondents made ambivalent remarks
about the science in the exhibition.
Some interviewees regarded the exhibition as a good way
of teaching science and as science communication (5); some
found it inspiring for future arts or science projects (4). The
exhibition was described as very scientific (5), mysterious (2)
and high-tech (2).
Three people identified the scientific aspects of the exhibi-
tion as chemistry.
Two respondents claimed that the
scientific aspects of the exhibition
must be judged exhibit by exhibit.
Several visitors had expected more
as regards the aspect of science (6);
four people said that it was an arts
exhibition and not a science exhibi-
tion; others said that the science in
the exhibition was nothing special
(5). One visitor classified the science
in the exhibition as useless, while
others asked about the relevance of
the scientific aspect (3).
diSCuSSion
How do gallery visitors judge the
use of living organisms in art ex-
hibits? In accordance with Martin’s
[24] normative approach toward
life, gallery-goers made a distinc-
tion between different “categories
of life.” As was shown above, the use
of “mere” life, such as bacteria, does
fig. 5. Joe Davis, Bacterial Radio, installation, 2011. (© Joe Davis)
Joe Davis reverses the main goal of synthetic biology by applying biological
principles to electronic engineering. His bacterial crystal radio consists of
a conductive circuit secreted by genetically modified bacteria using genes
from orange marine puffball sponges.
fig. 6. Andy Gracie, Autoinducer_Ph-1, installation, 2011. (© Andy Gracie)
Autoinducer_Ph-1 is a semisynthetic ecosystem. It combines three living organisms—
rice, Azolla fern and the cyanobacteria Anabena—together with computing
processes and an electro-robotic component, into an interacting and evolving
system. It explores the co-adaptation of living and nonliving entities.
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries 133
fig. 8. Tissue Culture and Art Project, The Semi-Living Worry Dolls,
installation, 2003 [12]. (© Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr. Photo: Arman
Rastegar.) These dolls are modern tissue-engineered versions of Guatemalan
worry dolls. They are here to listen to our worries about biotechnology.
ties with respect to their use as art objects. This was also
discussed in the context of ethics.
In addition, people expressed the need for boundaries
as regards the regulation of biotechnology in general. The
“natural” boundaries between nature and technology should
be respected, as well as the limits of what science can pro-
vide. What exactly constitutes such a boundary between na-
ture and technology, and where it is (or should be) drawn,
seems to be more or less clear to visitors. It has been shown
in previous studies that humans do have an intuitive ontol-
ogy in scientific understanding. Already at around the age
of 4, humans develop what is called an “intuitive” or “naïve”
biology that helps to distinguish artifacts, plants, animals and
humans as all having distinct essences [25]. Apart from those
who develop either a personal or professional interest in biol-
ogy or medicine, this intuitive biology remains as a kind of
internal compass for laypeople to navigate in a world inhab-
ited by living and non-living objects. We believe that scien-
tific developments or artistic explorations that may trigger a
disillusion of this intuitive understanding may cause uneasi-
ness. To a certain extent, these cross-border activities shake
up laypeople’s basic understanding of the world, something
that could be compared to learning about the strange world
of quantum physics. Few if any visitors whom we interviewed
seemed to take advantage of the disillusion of their intuitive
biology, e.g. by starting to explore their own understand-
ing of what life is (at least not directly after they visited the
exhibition, which is when the interviews were carried out).
Instead, a number of gallery-goers seemed to find lacking
a clear statement by the exhibition producers and curators
about what is right and wrong and how an ethical boundary
should be defined.
hoW do people expeRienCe
diSCiplinARy BoundARieS?
Although many visitors mentioned the hybrid art-science
character of the exhibition, visitors still had the urge to assign
it either to the realm of science or the realm of art. Of those
fig. 7. James Tour and Stephanie Chanteau, NanoPutians,
installation, 2003 [11]. (© Biofaction KG, Photo: Arman Rastegar)
NanoPutians are organic molecules with anthropomorphic structures.
The NanoPutians illustrate the human desire to ascribe lifelike features
to even our tiniest technical creations.
not pose any problems to the interviewees. Critical reactions
were mainly produced by exhibits that used “prereflexively
self-conscious” levels of organisms such as pigeons, and espe-
cially with “reflexively self-conscious” entities such as human
beings (as in Que le cheval vive en moi).
Surprisingly to us, many visitors tolerate the use of living
organisms in art exhibits. With a few exceptions, only the
use of higher organisms such as higher animals or human
beings triggers questioning or disapproval. Not unimpor -
tant for artistic biofacts, it seems that using “higher organ-
isms” increases gallery-goers’ awareness and inspires art
critiques. Que le cheval vive en moi and Pigeon d’Or, which
were identified as the most ethically irritating artworks in
the synth-ethic exhibition, went on to win major awards at
the Ars Electronica festival a couple of months later. While
use of higher organisms alone will not guarantee success and
recognition in the art world, it seems to elicit an additional
level of complexity and depth that can—when appropriately
explored and reflected upon by the artist—help the artwork
stand out. Obviously, on the other hand, crossing ethical
boundaries just for the sake of it or for its “shock value” is
no guarantee of artistic quality.
What role did the issue of boundaries play in the reception
of the ethical aspects of this bioart exhibition? One aspect of
boundaries is the abovementioned hierarchy of living enti-
134 Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
der to establish categories and cognitive boundaries. Th ose
who saw the exhibition predominantly as an art exhibition
had less diffi culty with the limited scientifi c information
off ered.
Synthetic biology, the scientifi c gravitational center of the
exhibition, clearly has not arrived in the minds of contem-
porary gallery-goers (and other laypeople) yet. Most gallery-
goers approached the exhibition within the frames of either
(synthetic) chemistry or genetic engineering. Given the lack
of previous knowledge of the fi eld, the exhibition’s mascot
and title poster (Tour and Chanteau’s NanoPutians) alluded
to synthetic biology in a rather subtle way. Many gallery-
goers did not pick up this lead and linked the exhibition
to the better-known (synthetic) chemistry, keeping in mind
that 2011 was also the International Year of Chemistry and
included a number of chemistry-related events. Without a
massive science communication eff ort, the reference from
an art exhibition to an inter- or trans-disciplinary scientifi c
fi eld such as synthetic biology was as ephemeral as the art-
work in the exhibition itself (without constant care, feeding,
watering and cleaning, most of these artworks would quickly
disintegrate, collapse or die).
ConCluSionS
Gallery-goers expressed a need for boundaries regarding
the advancement of technology and its ethical implications.
Th is wish for boundaries implies the hope of being able to
understand and control the new and unfamiliar by restricting
it and by defi ning its clear limits. A lack of boundaries, on
the other hand, contributes to uneasiness in the perception
of the visitors.
Synthetic biology, as an interdisciplinary discipline, could
provide a scheme for understanding the complex allusions
of bioart. Bioart generates multiple associations. Th is diver-
sity shows the success of the unconventional, out-of-the-box
character of modern bioart in generating new ideas and in-
spiring unusual thoughts.
Th e use of living organisms did not pose any conceptual
problems for the visitors as long as it could be restricted to
“mere life.” As soon as feeling or even refl ecting entities enter
the stage, moral concerns appear.
fig. 9. Difference between the respondents’ interest in art and interest
in science, both measured on a scale from 0 to 7. The value −5 means
that the respondent rated his or her interest in science 5 points higher
than that in art; on the other hand, a value of +2 means that the interest
in art was 2 points higher than the interest in science. A 0 means that
art and science were of equal interest. (© Wolfgang Kerbe)
fig. 10. Educational background of interviewees, n = 119.
(© Wolfgang Kerbe)
who saw it as a science exhibition, many complained about a
lack of information about scientifi c facts and scientifi c back-
ground information. In other words, they saw the exhibition
as a science communication activity that used artists to show
the science in an aesthetically pleasing way but felt it was
not satisfactory in terms of its “real” goal, namely informing
about a particular scientifi c fi eld.
In a way these visitors called for help, since they expected
the provision of more information and cognitive tools in or-
liMiTATionS of The STudy
Th e very specifi c exhibition and the specifi c audience (highly
educated) raise the question of validity in the wider context
of bioart exhibitions. However, the interaction between art
and science, two rather elite areas of interest, seems to be
inevitably restricted to an elite—highly educated and curi-
ous—audience. Furthermore, the study did not include most
scholastic groups who visited the exhibition nor other visi-
tors who only took a short glance at the exhibits.
Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 September 2023
Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries 135
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Museum of Natural History, Vienna;
to the exhibit curator Jens Hauser; to the exhibiting artists; and to our
colleagues at producer Biofaction. The authors gratefully acknowledge
the financial support provided by the FWF (Austrian Science Fund)
project “SYNMOD: Synthetic biology to obtain novel antibiotics and
optimized production systems,” project number I490-B12, through
the EUROSYNBIO Program of the European Science Foundation.
References and Notes
Unedited references as provided by the authors.
1
Jens Hauser and Markus Schmidt, Synth-ethic Gallery Guide 2011
2 synth-ethic exhibition website,
accedido 2011-12-13.
3 Adam Brown,
17 Christian Martin, Zur Logik des Lebensbegriffs in Peter Dabrock,
Michael Bölker, Matthias Braun, Jens Ried (editores.) Was ist Leben- im
Zeitalter seiner technischen Machbarkeit? Beiträge zur Ethik der Syn-
thetischen Biologie (Freiburg & Munich: Karl Alber, 2011).
18 Gyula Pályi, Claudia Zucchi and Luciano Caglioti, “Dimensions of
Life,” in Gyula Pályi, Claudia Zucchi and Luciano Caglioti (editores.),
Fundamentals of Life (París, Ámsterdam, Nueva York, Oxford, shan-
non, Tokio: Elsevier, 2002).
19 Laura M. delgado, The Search for Life Elsewhere Begins with Defin-
ing Life (2010):
downloaded 2012-04-13.
20 David Moreira and Purificación López-García, “Ten reasons to ex-
clude viruses from the tree of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology Vol.
7, 306–311 (2009).
21 Anna Deplazes-Zemp, “The Conception of Life in Synthetic Biol-
ogia,” Science and Engineering Ethics (2011) DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-
9269-z.
4 Paul Vanouse,
22 Philipp Mayring, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative Content
5 Roman Kirschner,
6 synth-ethic also featured Armstrong’s short film A “Natural History”
of Protocells, presenting these protocells in anthropomorphic “ac-
ción,” with imaginary subtitled dialogues between these entities.
7 Art Orienté Objet,
8 Revital Cohen and Tuur Van Balen,
accedido 2014-12-3.
9 Hauser and Schmidt [1].
10 Hauser and Schmidt [1].
11 Stephanie H. Chanteau and James M. Tour, “Synthesis of Anthropo-
morphic Molecules: The NanoPutians,” Journal of Organic Chemis-
try Vol. 68, No. 23, 8750–8766 (2003).
12 Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr,
13 Sonja Bäumel,
14 Jens Hauser, Bio Art—Taxonomy of an Etymological Monster in Ger-
fried Stocker and Christine Schöpf (editores.) Hybrid-Living in Paradox,
Ars Electronica 2005 (Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 2005) pag. 183.
15 Pier Luigi Capucci and Franco Torriani, Presentazione in Jens Hauser
(ed.) Art Biotech (Bologna: CLUEB, 2007); and George Gessert,
Green Light: Toward an Art of Evolution (Cambridge, Londres: CON
Prensa, 2010).
16 Andrew S. Cual, “Interdisciplinarity as Critical Inquiry: Visualizing
the Art/Bioscience Interface,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, volumen.
36, No. 3, 42–54 (2011).
Análisis) (Weinheim, Basel: Beltz, 2008).
23 Special Eurobarometer 341 informe.
24 Martín [17].
25 See e.g. Susan Carol Johnson, Building an intuitive biology: Two
case studies on the development of biological concepts, Doctor. tesis,
Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts, departamento. of Brain and Cognitive
Ciencias, 1994:
06-04; H.M. Wellman and S.A. Gelman, “Cognitive Development:
Foundational theories of core domains,” Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy Vol. 43, 337–375 (1992); and Helen De Cruz and Johan De Smedt,
“The role of intuitive ontologies in scientific understanding—The
case of human evolution,” Biology and Philosophy Vol. 22, No. 3,
351–368 (2007).
Manuscrito recibido 14 Agosto 2012.
Wolfgang Kerbe studied chemical engineering at the
Vienna University of Technology before starting an interdisci-
plinary career in sociology and social psychology. His focus of
interest is the analysis of communication processes regarding
new and emerging bio-technologies.
MarKus schMidt has an educational background in elec-
tronic engineering, biology and environmental risk assessment.
He has carried out environmental risk assessment, safety and
public perception studies in a number of science and technol-
ogy fields.
136 Kerbe and Schmidt, Splicing Boundaries
Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
B
mi
t
A
l
PAG
R
oh
l
oh
C
COlOR Pl ATe B: sPLiCing BOundARiEs
Rachel Armstrong, Living Chemistry, installation, 2011. (© Rachel Armstrong)
Living Chemistry explores the emergence of protocells or giant vesicles at the
interface of oil and water and their complex behaviors. (See article by
Wolfgang Kerbe and Markus Schmidt.)
124
Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
A N N O U N C E M E N T
leonardo Book Series
EdiTor in ChiEf: Sean Cubitt
EdiTorial advisory Board: Annick Bureaud, Laura U. Marks,
Anna Munster, Michael Punt, Sundar Sarukkai, Eugene Thacker
EdiTorial ConsulTanT: Joel Slayton
The arts, sciences and technology are experiencing a period of profound change.
Explosive challenges to the institutions and practices of engineering, art-making and
scientific research raise urgent questions of ethics, craft and care for the planet and its
inhabitants. Unforeseen forms of beauty and understanding are possible, but so too are
unexpected risks and threats. The Leonardo Book Series, published by The MIT Press,
aims to consider these opportunities, changes and challenges in books that are both
timely and of enduring value.
Proposals that address these challenges in terms of theory, research and practice,
education, historical scholarship, discipline summaries and experimental texts will be
consideró. Single-authored books are particularly encouraged.
Full book proposal submission guidelines:
Inquiries and proposals should be submitted to both:
Leonardo Book Series
c/o Leonardo
211 Sutter Street, Ste. 501
San Francisco, California 94108
U.S.A.
Correo electrónico:
Doug Sery
MIT Press Books
55 Hayward Street
Cambridge, MAMÁ 02142
U.S.A.
RECENT TITLES:
Gloria Sutton: The Experience Machine: Stan VanDerBeek’s Movie-Drome
and Expanded Cinema
Frances Dyson: The Tone of Our Times: Sound, Sense, Economy, and Ecology
Sean Cubitt: The Practice of Light: A Genealogy of Visual Technologies from Prints to Pixels
Pasi Väliaho: Biopolitical Screens: Image, Fuerza, and the Neoliberal Brain
Richard Rinehard and John Ippolito: Re-collection: Arte, New Media, and Social Memory
To order Leonardo Books, visit
Descargado de http://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-pdf/48/2/128/2017710/leon_a_00701.pdf by guest on 07 Septiembre 2023
