Future Ben

I went to one of Rhizome’s New Silent panel discussions at the New Museum. (Damn what a sexy marquee they have in the front!) Some of the presentations were pretty good. I liked the work of Caitlin Berrigan and Brandon Ballengee. What I appreciated the most from these two artists was that they were understated in an already controversial field. It takes a tremendous amount of integrity to let your art speak for itself.

Generally I have to roll my eyes at high concept bioart especially purely conceptual art like photoshopping a scrotum purple and calling it the future of humanity. That stopped being shocking a long time ago. None of this stuff is new, it’s just new to you. Any artist who thinks they can skate by on the wow factor of posthumanism is a sad relic of the 90’s

Bioartists need to realize that their art isn’t new. Gardening, bansai, body modification and even selective breeding are valid and often inspired art forms. As bioartists we must accept that we are simply painters with a new pallet to make art. If the art is good, it will speak for itself.

Why is it then that bioart is plagued by sensationalism? Obviously the many many demons that biotech plague biotech are present, but at least in that world there is an avoidance of sensationalism. It’s bad for business. In basic science if you were to even attempt the kind of grandstanding and egotism that permeates the art world you would be laughed out of your institution.

Granted artists are not scientists. It is their job to draw attention and to sometimes be outrageous. I applaud that when done properly but when I see artists taking everyday science and holding it up as if it were the greatest artistic achievement since perspective. Or using science to shock and awe the audience I can’t help but seethe.

I guess this harkens back to the early days of computer animation. Pretty much all of it sucked, but you saw it everywhere because it was new. It is going to take artists of true skill to take genetic based arts out of its Pong phase.