Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 71–85 | Cite as

Art and Bioethics: Shifts in Understanding Across Genres

Article

Abstract

This paper describes and discusses overlapping interests and concerns of art and bioethics and suggests that bioethics would benefit from opening to contributions from the arts. There is a description of recent events in bioethics that have included art, and trends in art that relate to bioethics. The paper outlines art exhibits and performances within two major international bioethics congress programs alongside a discussion of the work of leading hybrid and bio artists who experiment with material (including their own bodies) at the ambiguous intersections between art, bio art and bioethics. Their work seeks to engage audiences in challenging ethical precepts and assumptions about life and existence. We consider the response of art and social theorists and compare these with the responses of bioethicists to comparable cases in bioethics. We note divergent views within the arts and within bioethics in relation to some pivotal questions including questions about what limits, if any, can apply in particular cases and on what basis. This approach allows for a transfer of information and perspectives, challenges assumptions in both art and bioethics and opens up a space for future exchange and dialogue along the shifting borders between these genres.

Keywords

Humanities [K01] Art [K01.093] Medicine in Art [K01.093.530] Ethics [K01.316] Bioethics [K01.316.070] Hybrid art Bioart 

References

  1. Ahlzén, R. 2007. Medical humanities—Arts and humanistic science. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10(4): 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas, G.J. 2006. Bioterror and “Bio art”—A plague o’ both your houses. The New England Journal of Medicine 354(25): 2715–2721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ars Electronica. 2010. website: http://new.aec.at/prix/en/kategorien/?cat=Hybrid%2520Art. (last accessed November).
  4. Arts Science Encounters. 2009. Recording in collaboration with Cafe Scientifique website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/arts-science/recordings. (last accessed December 2010).
  5. Barash, Bailey. 2006. ‘203 Days’. University of Connecticut Health Center website: http://fitsweb.uchc.edu/Days/days.html. (last accessed November 2010).
  6. Bioethics Network. 2010. website: http://www.bioethics-international.org/iab-2.0/index.php?show=networks. (last accessed May).
  7. Brickwood, C., B. Ferran, D. Garcia, and T. Putnam (eds.). 2007. (Un)common ground: Creative encounters across sectors and disciplines. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Broadhurst Dixon, J., and E. J. Cassidy, eds. 1998. Virtual futures: Cyberotics, technology and posthuman pragmatism. London and New York: Routledge. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415133807/qid%3D980123857/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsc%5Fb%5F1/103-8486940-7546219/digitalartsource/104-9993805-5743152. (last accessed November 2010).Google Scholar
  9. Cassell, E.J. 1984. The place of the humanities in medicine. New York, Hastings-on-Hudson: The Hastings Center.Google Scholar
  10. Catts, O., and I. Zurr. 2002. Growing semi-living sculptures: The tissue culture and art project. Leonardo 35(4): 365–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catts, O., and I. Zurr. 2008. The ethics of experiential engagement with the manipulation of life. In Tactical biopolitics: Art, activism, and technoscience, eds B. da Costa and K. Philip, 125–142. Cambridge, Massachusetts; and London, UK: The MIT Press. Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25895911/8822-Tactical-Bio-Politics-Art-Activism#fullscreen:on. (last accessed November 2010).Google Scholar
  12. Clutterbuck, G. 2010. website: http://www.avicam.com/profile/clutterbuck.php. (last accessed November).
  13. Cohen, H. 2002. Bioscience moves into galleries as bio art. The Scientist 16(22): 57.Google Scholar
  14. CoNE. 2010. website: http://critical-art.net/Original/cone/coneWeb/welcome/bg1.html. (last accessed November).
  15. Diniz, D. 2007. Selective abortion in Brazil: The anencephaly case. Developing World Bioethics 7(2): 64–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diniz, D. and E. Brum. 2005. Severina’s Story (Uma História Severina). Brasília: ImagensLivres. http://hub.witness.org/fr/node/8605 (last accessed November 2010).Google Scholar
  17. Dotinga, R. 2000. Salon (29 August): 1–2. Available at http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/08/29/amputation/. (last accessed November 2010).
  18. Dragon Breath Theatre Company. 2010. website: http://www.dragonbreaththeatre.com/. (last accessed November).
  19. Duprat, S. 2009. Art and human embryonic stem cells: From the bench to the high street. Stem Cell Research 2: 97–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyer, C. 2000. Surgeon amputated healthy legs. BMJ 320(7231): 332.Google Scholar
  21. Elliott, C. 2003. Better than well: American medicine meets the American Dream. New York and London: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. ESTOOLS. 2010. website: http://www.estools.eu/estools/index. (last accessed November).
  23. Evans, H.M. 2008. Affirming the existential within medicine: Medical humanities, governance, and imaginative understanding. The Journal of Medical Humanities 29(1): 55–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferran, B. 2006. Creating a program of support for art and science collaborations. Leonardo 39(5): 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman, J. 2010. website: http://www.translatingnature.org/. (last accessed November).
  26. Gigliotti, C. 2006. Leonardo’s choice: The ethics of artists working with genetic technologies. AI & Society 20(1): 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gonick, L. and M. Wheelis. 1991. The cartoon guide to genetics: A soft approach to hard science. http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/Biotech/cartoon.html. (last accessed November 2010).
  28. Gordon, J. 2008. Humanising doctors: What can the medical humanities offer? The Medical Journal of Australia 189(8): 420–421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooker, C. 2008. The medical humanities—a brief introduction. Australian Family Physician 37(5): 369–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeffries, S. 2009. Guardian (1 July): http://www.orlan.net/download/guardian_july09.pdf. (last accessed November 2010).
  31. Johnston, J., and C. Elliott. 2002. Healthy limb amputation: Ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine 2(5): 431–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Koller, K. 2010. website: http://www.katherinekoller.ca/. (last accessed November).
  33. Kulunčić, A. 1999–2000. “Closed Reality—Embryo.” Created by A. Kulunčić (artist), T. Lane (designer), G. Sabol (sociologist), M. Puzar (programmer), I. Martinović (photographer): http://embryo.inet.hr/. (last accessed November 2010).
  34. Kulunčić, A. 2010. website: http://www.andreja.org/curric.html. (last accessed November).
  35. Leach, J. 2006. Extending contexts, making possibilities: An introduction to evaluating the projects. Leonardo 39(5): 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lestel, D. 2007. Liberating life from itself: Bioethics and aesthetics of animality. In Signs of life—bio art and beyond, ed. E. Kac, 151–160. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Little, J.M. 2010. Is there a real nexus between ethics and aesthetics? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7(1): 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orlan. 2010. website: www.orlan.net. (last accessed November).
  39. Patrone, D. 2009. Disfigured anatomies and imperfect analogies: Body integrity identity disorder and the supposed right to self-demanded amputation of health body parts. Journal of Medical Ethics 35(9): 541–545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan, C. 2009. Out on a limb: The ethical management of bodily identity disorder. Neuroethics 2: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Savulescu, J. 2006. Autonomy, the good life and controversial choices. In The Blackwell guide to medical ethics, ed. R. Rhodes, L. Francis, and A. Silvers. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Sen, A. 2009. The idea of justice. London and New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. Spaulding, E. 2008. Vision for bioaesthetics. http://bioethics.com/. Scroll to Author/Eric Spaulding/entry for 2 February 2008/A Living Art, Part 3 (last accessed November 2010).
  44. Stelarc. 2010. website: http://web.stelarc.org/.(last accessed November, 2010); and http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/projects/extra_ear/index.htm (last accessed November).
  45. Stracey, F. 2009. Bio-art: the ethics behind the aesthetics. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10: 496–500. Google Scholar
  46. SymbioticA. 2010. website: http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/. (last accessed November).
  47. Toffoletti, K. 2007. Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls—Feminism, popular culture and the posthuman body. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  48. Virilio, P. 1988. Interview with Paul Virilio. Block 14 Special Issue Edition 5—The Work of Art in the Electronic Age: 4–7.Google Scholar
  49. Webster, S. 2006. Art, science and the public. In. Engaging Science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, ed. J. Turney London, UK: Wellcome Trust: 74–79.Google Scholar
  50. Zylinska, J. 2009. Bioethics in the age of new media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of MedicineNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Innovation Design Engineering DepartmentRoyal College of ArtLondonUK

Personalised recommendations