Melanitis Yiannis: The DNA decoding techniques seem to become predominant
factor for the definition of the body; is art entering this form as a
mediator or an interpretor of genetic information?

Marta Menezes: The DNA decoding techniques will provide important
information for the understanding of several aspects of human biology.
However, the decoding of the genome per se will not provide all the answers.
It will be critical to understand how the proteins encoded by the genome
interact, how they turn on and off different genes, how the cells carrying
these proteins interact with each other. The DNA is the central feature of
biological life, but not the only one. I want to stress my opposition to
the reduction of "biological art" to art using or inspired by DNA
technology. Biological art goes far beyond DNA technology. It is not
surprising that the media and art critics consider genetics and transgenics
as the only activity of biological artists: as nowadays the human genome,
transgenic foods, and gene therapy frequently hit the headlines. However,
transgenics and genetics are just a small (although important) field of
biological sciences and biotechnology. Artists wishing to embrace biological
art should be aware that besides DNA, also proteins, cells, microrganisms,
organ functions, even ecosystems and evolution offer artistic possibilities.
I am not saying that genetics is not artistically interesting: in fact, it
is a field of major relevance for biology, biotechnology and art in which I
am also involved. I am simply stating that other biological fields should
not and can not be neglected.
Answering to the second part of the question, I believe there is room for
artists wishing to be mediators or interpretors of biological science (and
not just genetics). It is as important the work of the artist that reveals
the research and results of scientific laboratories using traditional media,
as the work of the artist that attempts to develop new media using the
advances coming out of biological laboratories. My artistic activity
concerning biology and biotechnology has something of interpreter and
mediator. I started my involvement with science still as undergraduate when
I used to visit research laboratories to portrait their actvity, results,
and atmosphere. I still paint canvas about science and biology, as I enjoy
doing it. However, I realised that the biological technologies could also
offer interesting opportunities to create novel artworks. As a consequence I
started to immerse myself in laboratories, working alongside scientists,
creating biological art.
All my biological projects have a component of mediation and interpretation.
Not only I have been creating live butterflies or human cells with painted
nuclei, but also the exhibition of these artworks establish a bridge between
scientific research and the audience. I would even add, that these artworks
also establish a connection between contemporary art and scientists, not
always aware of the art of today.

M.Y: Is this procedure proposing a new potentiality for the
artist; one of producing new patterns for life by aestheticising evolution?

M.M : Everytime a new technology appears, artists can take advantage of its
new potentialities. Computers are a good example: they were not developed
with
the objective of being tools for the creation of art. Computers were created
as scientific tools. Today, however, many artists use them extensively. The
biotechnology revolution was started probably before the first computers.
But while the access to computers has been widely spread, molecular biology
tools are still confined to research laboratories. Consequently, there are
not as many "bio-artists" as there are "computer-artists".
"Aestheticising evolution" is not novel. In fact this concept is probably as
old as humankind. Ever since agriculture and animal farming was created,
humans have been attempting to artificially select aesthetically appealing
animals and plants. The variety of dogs, cats, horses, and flowers that can
be found anywhere are living proof of "aestheticising evolution". Today,
modern biology offers powerful technology to achieve new patterns for life,
and certainly offers the possibility to originate life-forms with
characteristics hard to obtain by traditional selective-breeding methods.
It is important not to forget that the modification of life organisms does
not represent what biological art has to offer! I have been using human
cells and DNA to create live sculptures (or paintings), that certainly are
not related to evolution, or modification of life-forms. I have also been
using the activity of human brains to create patterns and functional
portraits of individuals. Many more opportunities can be pursued by
biological artists without necessarily requiring genetic technology.

M.Y: In which manner does the artist react to the socio-political
implications that are possibly raised by an artwork?

M.M : Today, as ever before, artists trigger responses in the society that
influences them. One can understand the important issues of society by
analysing the artworks produced. Religious paintings during the middle-ages,
anatomically correct sculptures during the renaissance, consumer culture in
the pop art, media-art when silicon-based technology became mainstream, and
today's biological art as biotechnology takes the centre-stage becoming the
great hope and fear of contemporary society.
Artists are reacting to society when producing artworks. Likewise, people
react to artworks that represent what they hope or fear. And one of the
important aspects of art is to promote the discussion of issues with wide
socio-political implications. I hope that my biological artworks will make
the public more eager to learn about biotechnology, and consequently more
informed. The great danger of biotechnology, as with any new technology,
comes from people that are not informed: these are the ones more prone to
misuse technology or ban altogether some harmless and potentially beneficial
uses.



M.Y.: Could such a biological artwork, a renewed butterfly, enter the
natural selection process and possibly confront competitive exclusion?

M.M :Natural selection and evolution are dependent on reproduction and hereditary
transmission of characteristics. The butterfly modifications I performed
were deliberately done in somatic cells only. My idea was to create
something apart from evolutionary processes: I changed the phenotype (ie.
appearance) of the butterflies to a pattern that had never existed before in
Nature, and consequently was not subject to evolution. Furthermore, as genes
were left untouched, the characteristics could not be transmitted to the
offspring and could not enter natural selection and evolution. The changes
are restricted to each individual butterfly.
Modifications of germline cells at the genetic level are transmitted to the
progeny. In this case, natural selection and evolution has a role selecting
the individuals with or without the modification. Even in such cases,
frequently natural selection does not have a chance to operate as the
organisms are kept under very controlled and permissive laboratory
conditions where competition is not an issue. Artists, such as Joe Davis or
George Gessert, creating organisms genetically modified make use of
selection and competitive exclusion.

M.Y. What about your artistic plans for the future?

M.M : I am currently exploring different areas of biology, and how they can
be
used for artistic purposes. Currently I am working at the Imperial College
in London using DNA molecules to paint patterns in the nuclei of human
cells. The idea is to use DNA and chromosomes as new art media. The
resulting micro-sculptures can only be directly visualised using a confocal
laser microscope.
At a totally different scale I am collaborating with a laboratory at the
University of Oxford in order to create the first "functional portraits". I
want to explore the limits of the body by painting not only morphology but
function. The first two are a portrait of "Patricia" with her brain activity
while playing the piano; and a self-portrait while drawing. I want to
further explore this media by painting brain patterns of activity. In order
words, giving different stimuli to volunteers in order to induce a certain
brain activity I want to portrait.
Other projects I am trying to get funded include the use of proteins as
media for sculpture: I want to create a self-portrait by making a protein
never seen in Nature which amino-acid sequence will be the spelling of my
full name. And using DNA chips to paint genetic similarities among different
species.
I must add that there are two major constraints to biological artwork: time
and money. Any of these projects takes a long time to complete as they
require the learning of biological techniques and frequently slow laboratory
procedures. Funding has been also a problem as due to the unconventional
nature of the artworks they are not yet seen with commercial interest, and
agencies frequently feel this artworks to be too weird to fund. Although not
much can be done concerning the first constraint, I feel there are
encouraging perspectives towards the acceptance of biological art as a genre
worth funding.

copyright : M.Menezes-Melanitis Yiannis/ September 2001