Contemporary Art and the Genetic Code

edited Ellen K. Levy,

in Art Journal, Spring 1996, Vol. 55, No. 1.
Reviewed by George Gessert

Since World War II artists have mostly ignored genetics, but this appears to be changing under the impacts of the biological revolution, ecological disasters, and AIDS. One sign of change is that the College Art Association has devoted the spring 1996 issue of its publication, Art Journal, to the genetic code. To my knowledge no art magazine has given so much attention to any aspect of genetics before. The special issue contains a wealth of material on artists who have incorporated imagery of DNA or other genetic units into their work. Most of these artists grapple with the problem of endowing genetic elements with more than narrow scientific meanings. Approaches vary greatly. Suzanne Anker, for example, explores resemblances between chromosomes and hieroglyphics. Kevin Clarke paints what he calls portraits in which base sequences serve as key aspects of individual identity. Frank Moore uses images of DNA as symbols of fate. And several artists use genetics for social criticism.

"Contemporary Art and the Genetic Code" is an important contribution to discourse, but the issue has one major shortcoming: it focuses on representation, but its title promises a more general overview of the genetic code's uses in contemporary art. The editor favors DNA as a topic for art rather than as an art medium. Among the scores of artists mentioned, only three actually deal with living things. The three are Joe Davis and David Kremers, who work with genetically manipulated bacteria, beings so minuscule that in the context of art they tend to function more as concepts than as organisms; and Andrea Zittel, who in 1993 used live chickens in an installation that was less about breeding birds than about Social Darwinism. There is no mention of Helen and Newton Harrison, or of the numerous ecological artists whose works encompass genetic processes. Vilem Flusser's Art Forum columns on an art of genetic engineering do not receive even a footnote. There is only one brief reference to ornamental plants and pets -- the world's genetic folk art -- and no discussion of its creators including those like Luther Burbank who considered their work to be art. Nor does the journal mention Edward Steichen's 1936 exhibit of delphiniums at the Museum of Modern Art, an exhibit that would be more conceptually challenging today than it was when it was held, since the idea that organisms could be art was fairly widespread just before World War II. By excluding such work, the spring Art Journal misses the most important implication of DNA for artists: there are new genres of art waiting to be claimed, including an art of evolution.

I criticize with some reluctance. Art Journal has moved into territory that has been ignored for a long time. Entering it is not easy. The extreme trauma of Nazism left artists who would explore genetics cut off from the past, and with few resources to draw upon. Art Journal has helped open the subject again, and for this the editors deserve praise. Anyone curious about connections between art and genetics should read the issue. And anyone seriously interested would be wise to obtain a copy, because "Contemporary Art and the Genetic Code," in spite of its limitations, will be an important reference for some time to come.