Bio art meets the streets A reflection on new forms of art engagement

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published 2013-11-07
David Rodrigues dos Santos

Abstract

Public art, despite is extension to the urban landscapes, has been a limited artistic practice in terms of critical discussion. In this sense, is has been used as an urban form for remodelling or, instead, as an ordinary form of expansion of the artists audience. However, public art can be understood as a social awareness practice creating the need to set up a broader critical discourse contributing to a greater democratization to the artistic practice. In this sense, there has been a growing number of visual artists who believe that art and the role of public entities isn’t just the creation of permanent art objects, but rather a way to facilitate the creation of artworks that encourage actions, ideas and the intervention of the audience, making the public artwork an object that calls to social responsibility. Bio art has tried to demonstrate, through its aesthetic discourse, the need to establish a broader public discussion. Thus, in this paper we will highlight the importance of an odd art public project of Natalie Jeremijenko – One Tree(s) (2000). Through the questions raised by this artwork, we will reflect on how the intersection between art and technoscience can contribute to a greater extension of the idea of hard humanities and on how a larger critical reflection can be exercise through and beyond the art world toward a field that involves in the same discourse art, science, society and the urban network.

How to Cite

Rodrigues dos Santos, David. 2013. “Bio Art Meets the Streets: A Reflection on New Forms of Art Engagement”. AusArt 1 (1-2). https://doi.org/10.1387/ausart.10383.
Abstract 357 | PDF Downloads 1287

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

BIO ART, PUBLIC ART, SOCIAL ART ENGAGEMENT, HARD HUMANITIES, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

References
Brenson, Michael, Jane Jacob & Eva M. Olson. 1995. Culture in action: A public art program of sculpture Chicago. Curated by Mary Jane Jacob. Seattle WA: Bay

Catts, Oron et al. 2008. “Labs shut open: A biotech hands-on workshop for artists”. In Tactical biopolitics: Art, activism and technoscience, edited by Beatriz da Costa & Kavita Philip; with a foreword by Joseph Dumit, 143-15. Cambridge MA: MIT

Heiferman, Marvin & Carole Kismaric. 2002. Paradise now: Picturing the genetic revolution. Essays by Frank Moore, Ricki Lewis, and Bernard Possidente; edited by Ian Berry. Saratoga Springs, NY: Tang Teaching Museum

Jeremijenko, Natalie & Heath Bunting. 2007. Biotech Hobbyist Magazine. http://xdesign.ucsd.edu/biotechhobbyist

Kac, Eduardo, ed. 2007. Signs of life: Bio art and beyond. Cambridge MA: MIT

Kwon, Miwon. 2002. One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge MA: MIT

Malina, Roger. 2009. “Intimate science and hard humanities”. Leonardo 42(3): 184

Raven, Arlene, ed. 1989. Art in the public interest. New York: Da Capo

Santos, David. 2013. “A ética que nos protege: A responsabilidade social da bioarte”. In Ética: Arte, ciência e filosofia, editors, Cáscia Frade Cristina Pape & Rejane Manhães, 11-30. Rio de Janeiro: EdUERJ

Stevens, Jaqueline. 2008. “Biotech patronage and the making of homo DNA”. En Tactical biopolitics: Art, activism, and technoscience, Beatriz da Costa & Kavita Philip eds., 43-61. Cambridge MA: MIT

Thomson, Nato, ed. 2012. Living as form: Socially engaged art from 1991-2011. Cambridge MA: MIT
Section
Articles