Art, Science + Technology
DMA9 Fall 2007, Section BArchive for October 29, 2007
Artificial Intelligence and the GFP Bunny
Is artificial intelligence really intelligent?
Computer systems today are capable of incredible feats of computation that far exceed the abilities of humans. We depend on computers to do such complicated tasks as guiding the flight path of NASA rockets. But as impressive as these things are, the way all computers function makes their “intelligence” very limited. Jeff Hawkins, inventor of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, addresses this issue in his book On Intelligence. In the book, Hawkins asserts that real (human) intelligence is based on the ability to learn new things and adapt to changing information based on past knowledge stored as memories. Computers lack this ability completely; they are only able to perform the specific tasks they were programmed for and are unable to complete the task if it is altered in anyway, without being reprogrammed. In On Intelligence, Hawkins gives the following example to show the limits of computer “intelligence”: Whereas essentially any person would be able to figure it out almost instantly, even the most powerful computers in the world wouldn’t be able to predict what the last word will be in this ________ (sentence). Hawkins wants to one day create truly intelligent machines by wiring them not like modern computers but by mimicking the way human brains are wired. It’s a fascinating book that is surprisingly easy to read but has far reaching implications in neuroscience, computer technology and other areas.
Is the GFP Bunny art?
I was surprised by how Mr. Edward Shanken’s lecture on the GFP Bunny elicited very strong responses from members of the class, so I figured I would give my take on the subject. I actually feel that the bunny is art, albeit not in the most traditional sense of the word. As we progress farther and farther in our technological abilities, the reality is that society will have to face the moral and ethical questions of genetic engineering and transgenic practices. GFP Bunny, to me, forces us to think about these issues. The image of that neon green bunny rabbit is a striking one, and in a way puts a face on an issue that most have a hard time imagining. I personally have very little background in art, but for me art is something that challenges our thinking or that makes us see things in a different light. GFP Bunny accomplishes this quite well, as was made apparent by the emotional reactions it drew from our class. But I think that more important than the question of whether it is art or not are the questions that GFP Bunny itself raises about genetic engineering. These are the questions we should be focusing on.
Links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6CVj5IQkzk
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Art or Science?: The GFP Bunny
This week’s presentation on the “GFP Bunny” was a certainly a controversial topic in terms of the difference between art and science. Art: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance”-dictionary.com. Is “Alba”, the transgenic albino rabbit, a form of art? Or is this bunny just an example of science and experimentation with genetics? “GFP Bunny” is a transgenic “Art” project created by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac. This bunny was born in April of 2000 and contains a certain jellyfish gene that, when illuminated with the correct light, makes her glow green. This green fluorescent protein (GFP) from the Pacific Northwest jellyfish was injected into the fertilized egg of an albino rabbit. Sounds like more of an experiment than a form of art, right?
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Personally, I distinguish this bunny as more of a scientific experiment, rather than art. The only reason I might consider perceiving this scientific experiment as an art form is the fact that it looks appealing and is unique. The bunny, however, is a living creature, and is only different in the sense that it glows green. The word “art”, in today’s society has definitely been linked to many different things. But everything is not art. There should be a limit to what is defined as art. If this bunny is in fact considered a work of art, then dogs are an art form as well. Dogs are genetic experiments as well, so are they considered art as well? Or is the natural transgenic process that does not allow dogs to glow green, a barrier that does not categorize this as an art form? Genetic experimentation with living creatures, even with humans is not an art form, it is a science. This bunny perhaps will make an interesting pet, but not a work of art. It is merely controlled experiment by a scientist that calls himself an artist.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132199/
GFP Bunny is a Sham
Is GFP bunny art?
Absolutely not. The problem with GFP bunny being art is the fact that there is truly no artistic expression in it. The “artist” simply went to a genetic engineer and said “make me a green bunny.” How is that art? How is that different from me walking into Petco and saying “Hi, I’d like that black mouse over the white one.” The only difference is that science was used to engineer this bunny, rather than picking or choosing it. Kac had no choice in his colors. This would be the equivalent of me going to an art store, getting paint of all the same color because the store was out, and then just painting a canvas all one color. There is no choice in this creation. Art is dictated by conscious choice, which neither GFP bunny nor my monochrome painting have.
However, while I believe that it is not art, I believe that it could be the creation of a new genre of art. If science could progress to the point where one could consciously choose the colors they wanted to make an animal, then we might have a new breed of art. Even more so, if humans could discover a way to make patterns in animals, or create a new animal, then we could call this art. Unfortunately for Kac, GFP bunny, while scientifically impressive, is not art. If this were science class, he would get an A+, but an F in art. Besides, it was not even Kac who genetically modified Alba! The geneticist Louis-Marie Houdebine made Alba, and deserves full credit. Hats off to Houdebine for an amazing scientific feat, and shame on Kac for trying to pass off Alba as art.
If one wants to argue that Alba is a piece of art, then aren’t we all genetic pieces of art? Is “God” not an artist then? If Alba is art, and we are all art, we should all be proud of ourselves because we are superior forms of it. I have opposable thumbs, and I’m much smarter than a bunny rabbit (I hope). Alba is then an inferior to us, just with more fluorescent green fur.
The reason we are all superior to GFP bunny
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposable_thumbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Fluorescent_Protein
Art in Biology
Nature is rich in beauty
Earlier this year, Lisa Huyett, an art student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania used a scanning electron microscope (S.E.M.) to magnify the surface of a rose petal then created a large-scale representation of it with thousands of pipe cleaners. Her installation, called “S.E.M. Rose“, was based on her experience using scanning electron microscopy, which employs a beam of electrons to reveal a surface’s nanostructure up to one million times.
Working under the guidance of an electron microscopist at the Mellon College of Science, she magnified a rose petal surface 500 times. She held workshops for kids at the Pittsburgh Children’s Museum to build the installation which, when completed, was displayed at the Children’s Museum and at the FRAME Gallery in Pittsburgh. Huyett’s S.E.M. Rose perfectly demonstrates the connection between biology and art. Huyett said, “”All of my work is inspired by nature and plant material. Patterns in nature give me inspiration for abstraction . . . I’m very interested in relating art to science. In this case, I am taking small, familiar material to make something large-scale.”
Alba, the G.F.P. Bunny
Initially, I refused to accept the idea that the fluorescent bunny could be considered art. I could not understand how the GFP bunny could be anything other than a scientific experiment. The bunny was fertilized in a laboratory in France and injected with a fluorescent protein (GFP) from a Pacific Northwest jellyfish, to me that scientific procedure can not produce meaningful art. It seems the definition of art continues to be blurred and declining. I will agree that the bunny, shown in a new context, does evoke emotions and sparks controversy as certain artworks do but I still cannot see how Alba can be art.
http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2007/March/march6_rose.shtml
http://www.ekac.org/gfpbunny.html
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Week 4 – Bio Art
Is the GFP bunny art?
It is difficult to say if the GFP bunny is art, though the speaker did make convincing arguments that it is art. Looking back at Duchamp’s ready made art, Kac’s fluorescent GFP bunny can be considered art. Duchamp took mass produced items and made it into art. So there is precedent for what Kac is asserting that Alba, the florescent bunny, is art. The speaker also brings up that Kac went beyond Duchamp somewhat by noting that Kac did more then just presenting Alba, but he also brought out the whole issue about transgenic animals to the public. A whole debate came about because of Alba’s creation. But, nevertheless, Alba is just another one of a commonly produced transgenic animal, though for art rather then science, that can barely glow normally. As a class mate stated during the lecture, making a Pokemon would be way cooler and probably be consider art. It is also interesting to consider how it is okay to make transgenic animal for science purposes but not for art. Maybe a way to get around that is do use the transgenic animal scientifically but also with an underlying art intention.
How does eminent property lead to intelligence?
Eminent property is where the components comes together to make something wholly more advance. Like how atoms come together to make molecules to make cells. And cells come together to make tissue, that can come together to make organs, and then organ systems, and finally an organism. Opposite of eminent property is a reduction theory where everything can be boiled down to physic. After all, everything is made of atoms that can be described in physics terms. But, a counter argument to that is that physics can’t be used to explain the behavior of an organism or its habits and reactions. Some how after chains of eminent property intelligence emerge. The brain is composed of neuron cells that signal each other via transmission of electrical charges. With such signal transmissions intelligence is possible, to the extent of human kind. Intelligence itself is something that is rather hard to deeply examine, but it is certain that it comes about naturally because of eminent property.
http://www.ekac.org/albagreen.jpeg
http://www.artic.edu/aic/education/sciarttech/images/G19257.jpg
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/images/duchamp_in_advance.jpg
http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Cell_Biology/module_1/levels%20of%20organization.jpg
Swarm Intelligence and Transgenic Art
What are the applications of swarm intelligence?
In what way can an ant colony symbolize progress? Ant colonies are a natural example of swarm intelligence, an artificial intelligence technique based around the study of collective behavior in decentralized, self-organized systems. These intelligence systems usually consist of several smaller agents interacting on a local level between themselves and their environment. Just as in an ant colony, these intelligence systems lack a singular centralized control structure, almost forcing a universal behavior among the system. Other examples of swarm intelligence can be found in fish schooling, bird flocking, and bacterial growth. Swarm intelligence has also had an influence on robotics. Swarm robotics utilizes several small simple robots in conjunction with one another and their environment on tasks that require miniaturization or cheap designs. Its influence has been felt within microbotics and the human body, as well as common farming tactics. The GFP bunny…why?
I’m still not very wild about the creation of the GFP bunny, mainly because I don’t see the point. Yes, you engineered a bunny so it would turn green under certain lighting, but for what reason? Just for laughs, or was there a specific motive behind it? Yes, genetic engineering is very interesting and has far reaching possibilities, but aren’t there many better ways in which to display this captivating field and its potential? Furthermore, I do not see how the GFP bunny can be classified as art. Yes, the “creator” decided what the bunny would look like, but if that is art, any person who dyes their hair must also suddenly be considered an artist. I’m all in favor of thinking outside the box and applying the definition of art to fields it has not yet reached, but this is not what I had in mind. I think it diminishes the principle by making a mockery of it, and for that reason, I will keep the GFP bunny separate from Starry Night…for now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/netmanage/tony/swarm.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_59/ai_66238364
Transgenic art
The topic of Transgenic Art that Edward Shanken was very interesting. He discussed art created by the modification of the genes of an animal. The result of a project was the GFP bunny. This albino rabbit was injected with the jellyfish GFP gene that contained the sequence for a green glow. The GFP bunny is then able to glow green when exposed to blue light. During the question and answer section of his lecture, I remember most of the students asking him why GFP bunny was considered art. After all, its only a green rabbit. Does that mean if we make a blue dog, it’ll be considered art too? Shanken said that the way Eduardo Kac tried to integrate the rabbit into his family was the art, although the glow is also part of it. I did not understand what he meant, even though he did repeat that a few times. I found an interview with Kac explaining the same thing. He says, “My transgenic artwork “GFP Bunny” comprises the creation of a green fluorescent rabbit, the public dialogue generated by the project, and the social integration of the rabbit.” In this case, he is saying that art does not necessarily have to be visual. He believes that helping the rabbit interact normally with society is also art. But is it really? The debate still continues about if this is considered to be art. The formal definition of art is: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Kac would be inventing a new meaning for art. I don’t believe that the social integration of GFP bunny has any aesthetic quality to it. What Kac is doing, is simply and experiment.
Sources:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_59/ai_66238364
http://www.genomicart.org/genome-Kac.htm
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/03_02/bunny_art.shtml
Week 4: Bio + Art
thoughts on biology and art
Biology is a very interesting field to me, considering im majoring it, I should probably think as much. I’m also into photography and work a lot with computer graphics so the idea of combining biology and art is a very interesting topic to me. I don’t really think i’ll wind up combining art with biology so much as I would bring some biology into my artwork. My midterm project for this class has a bit to due with the idea that biology and art can be combined though its nothing as extreme as some of the examples introduced in class. I really like the idea of simulating life in terms of mathematics and aesthetics. The examples we examined in class were very interesting, especially the animations (which I had seen before, actually). I would love to bring some of those ideas, such as behavioral patterns of wild animals into my work.
Why I dont like the GFP bunny
I love science, I think it’s fantastic. Moreover, I think genetic engineering is the way of the future. However, I wouldn’t call it art to ask someone else to make a bunny phosphorus green. The artist didn’t challenge any public opinion as it’s already common knowledge that genetically modified organisms are everywhere. He simply wanted to be cutting edge and attempted to do so by sacrificing his own creativity, assuming he had any to begin with. Our guest speaker attempted to validate the artist by placing his artistic aims above the lowly aesthetic. Yet, in order to remove the aesthetic, there must be an underlying idea. Yet, wasn’t the underlying idea created by…scientists? It’s not as if the artist came up with the original idea of modifying an animal. It seems that this piece is just a bunny that barely glows green. All I would think of, while looking at this piece (if it were to exist) is that genetics is going to continually involve itself in our lives.
Artificial Life and the Game of Life
John Conway’s Game of Life, created complexity from the simple rules. The human life isn’t so simple, yet it draws interest regardless of its complexity. Just in the gaming industry, there have been numerous games that includes the human life in many different forms. The game named Age of Empires allows the player to control people to achieve the given goals to survive, and advance in the technology. Game can start from pre-stone age humans to advance up to modern, or post modern cultures. However, since it is focused on being a game, most times the goal is to eliminate the enemy tribe before the player’s tribe is wiped away. It limits the freedom just to have “right” amount of play time. Since playing a game for hours and hours just to see where humanity might head is somewhat ridiculous, giving the game proper ‘victory’ to end a round is quite successful choice for a game, but not the perfect choice for a life simulation.
In the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2006, a game named ‘Spore’ was introduced. Spore, designed by Will Wright, is categorized as a ‘Life Simulation’ genre. The player is allowed to control a Cellular organism, gather food to ensure survival, and to slowly evolve. The game then evolves up to creature phase where the player now controls a creature to gather food, ensure survival, and evolve. In this stage, player can drastically alter the creature’s shape by designing the creature’s offspring. Later stage, player’s designed creatures forms a tribe and evolve as a whole, than just evolving as a single creature. Sooner or later, player’s controlled tribe competes with other tribes developed on the same planet, then depending on the successfulness, takes control over the planet. Then the player can send space exploration, and can choose to start a life form in a completely new barren planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA
Spore lets the player control artificial life forms and evolve them through whatever phases that come. I thought that this connects very well to the artificial life (since the player can alter the creature at will) and John Conway’s Game of Life (since Spores is also a game and controlled by simple rule: survive and reproduce).
Links:
Official Spore website: http://www.spore.com/
Art, Science + Technology 
