TA 13 (1+2) pp.

115–123 Intellect Limited 2015

Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research

Volume 13 Numbers 1 & 2
© 2015 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/tear.13.1-2.115_1

Marta de Menezes

Biology as a new media

for art: An art research
endeavour

Abstract Keywords
Throughout art history, numerous artists have explored connections to science. In bioart
the society of today, the relationship between art and biology has been acquiring biotechnology
special visibility. Moreover, the current importance given to science and technology genetics
by today’s public opinion directly drives an increased awareness about the relation- experimental art
ship between art and science. The public has been eagerly following breakthroughs
in scientific research, albeit with mixed feelings: simultaneously awe, hope and fear
for its potential misuse. Such awareness about biological sciences and biotechnology
has been having an increasing influence over artists, where the artist is no longer a
mere observer of the scientific research and not quite a science researcher, but rather
an art researcher. This particular position has led to the development of strategies
to promote the exploration of possibilities deriving from a cross-talk between artists
and scientists. This is a new art practice, based on a ‘risk-based’ situation; a timeless
research strategy to develop new methods of practice, new media and new ways to
manipulate materials for artistic expression. This is art research.
  During the twentieth century, the key scientific advances – such as the discovery of
the DNA structure, in vitro fertilization, transgenesis or the sequencing of the human
genome (in the twenty-first century) – were perceived by society in diverse ways.
The progressive incorporation of those concepts by society itself led to a point where
biology and the medical sciences became the most promising areas of science. It is
therefore not surprising that those same scientific disciplines have marked the devel-

115
Marta de Menezes

opment of the artistic discourse in a tremendous fashion, as well as also influencing

all other areas of the contemporary society. Furthermore, these artworks explore new
media, described as ‘moist’ in that they integrate dry in silico computer components
with wet living biological systems.

Throughout art history, numerous artists have explored connections to

science. In the society of today, the relationship between art and biology has
been acquiring special visibility. Moreover, the current importance given to
science and technology by current public opinion directly drives an increased
awareness about the relationship between art and science. The public has
been eagerly following breakthroughs in scientific research with mixed feel-
ings: simultaneously awe, hope and fear for its potential misuse (Shapiro
2011). Such awareness about biological sciences and biotechnology has been
having an increasing influence over artists, where the artist is no longer a mere
observer of scientific research and not quite a science researcher, but rather an
art researcher. This particular position has led to the development of strategies
to promote the exploration of possibilities deriving from a cross-talk between
artists and scientists (Bulatov 2004). This is a new art practice, based on a ‘risk-
based’ situation; a timeless research strategy to develop new methods of prac-
tice, new media and new ways to manipulate materials for artistic expression.
This is art research.
In today’s society, it can be argued that biology has replaced the physi-
cal sciences (particularly physics) in becoming the scientific discipline with
the greatest impact on public opinion. In the first two-thirds of the twenti-
eth century, advances in nuclear physics and quantum mechanics represented
for society the most visible science, both in respect of fear of misuse (nuclear
catastrophe) and the promise of great benefits (such as clean and cheap
nuclear energy, or space exploration). However, the molecular revolution in
the biological sciences – made to a great extent by physicists like Delbruck or
Pauling – led to landmark discoveries that placed biology and biotechnology
at the centre stage of public visibility (Judson & Madox, 1979).
During the twentieth century, the key scientific advances – such as the
discovery of the DNA structure, in vitro fertilization, transgenesis, or the
sequencing of the human genome (in the twenty-first century) – were perceived
by society in diverse ways. The progressive incorporation of those concepts by
society itself led to the point where biology and the medical sciences became
the most promising areas of science. It is therefore not surprising those same
scientific disciplines have marked the development of the artistic discourse in
a tremendous fashion, as well as also influencing all other areas of contem-
porary society. Furthermore, these artworks explore new media, described as
‘moist’ in that they integrate dry in silico computer components and wet living
biological systems (Ascott 2004: 111–16).
Within the framework of this context of biology and art can be found
several works, developed in recent years and representative of this paradigm
(Bulatov 2004). An analysis of these works will necessarily lead to the conclu-
sion that what is usually described as ‘art and biology’ or ‘bio-art’ is a very
heterogeneous group of very different approaches. As a consequence, this arti-
cle discusses my own method and explains my position in this vast field of
research.
As a practitioner, I am aware that the process I use in my research and art
practice (i.e. in the field of art and biology) is influenced by the way in which

116
 Biology as a new media for art

scientists conduct their own research. My research, and its similarities to and
differences from scientific research (although often occurring in a shared labo-
ratory), is a crucial point in the outcome of my projects and their formalization.
I believe it is also an important issue in the engagement of my fellow scientific
collaborators and in our personal relationship when creating the artwork.
In my research and practice, I not only try to make some sense of the
concepts I use and develop for my artworks, but I also aim to experiment
with new materials: alive, pulsating, changing materials that are adequate to
express these concepts. This is fundamental to what I do.
In ‘Nature?’ (1999), I created live butterflies whose wing patterns were
modified for artistic purposes. Such changes were achieved by interfer-
ing with the normal development of the wing, inducing the development
of a new pattern never seen before in nature. The butterfly wings remain
exclusively made of normal cells, without artificial pigments or scars, but
designed by an artist. These wings are an example of something simultane-
ously natural and resulting from human intervention. However, the artis-
tic intervention leaves the butterfly genes unchanged, so the new patterns
are not transmitted to the offspring of the modified butterflies. The new
patterns are something that never existed before in nature, and that rapidly
disappear from nature, never to be seen again. These artworks literally
live and die. They are an example of art with a lifespan – the lifespan of a
butterfly. They are also an example of something that is simultaneously art
and life.
But those butterfly wings are also the representation of the question I use
as the title for the work. The concept I question with ‘Nature?’ is our idea of
what we consider natural or not. I have not yet been able to get a satisfactory
answer for the initial question, and I do not expect to get it any time soon.
Yet the tension emerging from the reasoning to try to understand why we
consider something natural or not is an important concept in our society.
For art, there is of course another question that is raised by my state-
ment that the work is a representation. Is it really a representation or rather

Figure 1: ‘Nature?’ (1999). Live Bicyclus butterfly with modified wing patterns.

117
Marta de Menezes

a presentation? Can life ever be a representation? I believe so. The butterflies

are part of the artwork, manipulated and presented as a vehicle for question-
ing a concept. They are not there to present life; they are there to represent the
question of what we may or may not consider natural , and this is why they
are manipulated and changed (De Menezes 2003: 29–32).
That is my usual answer to the common question scientists asked when
I was developing this work at Paul Brakefield’s laboratory in Leiden: ‘Why do
you claim to do art and not science, when you do the same things in the lab
that we do?’ In fact, although apparently we perform the same procedures in
the laboratory, our work is quite different; we simply happen to use the same
technique and knowledge to approach a very different question.
It appears to me that when most people consider art practice, they never
think of it as the result of research. Frequently this vision is correct, as perhaps
the most visible side of art does not require significant research. However,
several examples can be found where art is a direct result of research in new
methodologies, new media and new practices. In many cases, those advances
do not just emerge from the work and research of only one artist, but rather
from many artists working around the world on similar concepts (Kac 2008).
However, it should be noted that not only is this art research mainly invis-
ible to most people, but it is also frequently conducted without the support of
an infrastructure (namely academic) by several individuals, who pursue their
own projects and have a variable impact on the field of art.
Art research and practice have always moved forward through the refusal
to submit to control and ‘domestication’. And art has always been proud
to break the canon. As I am an artist who has researched art and science, I
believe science – and biology in particular – offers good examples from where
artists can learn to establish a new field of art research independent from, and
at the same time complementary to, art theory.
It is my understanding that science-as-art has developed from an indi-
vidual viewpoint. In other words, it progressed from a series of individu-
als dedicating themselves to their experiments and hypotheses without the
organized support of institutions, and therefore with difficulties in sharing
their ideas in the way we can nowadays (i.e. almost instantly). These early
scientists shared their discoveries by letter, personal publications or meet-
ings, but nothing like today (even though some contemporary scientists still
get frustrated with the slow review of their papers prior to publication). The
way science is conducted today has come a long way from the conditions one
or two centuries ago, when research was being conducted in small personal
laboratories with only one or two assistants, often in the basement of scien-
tists’ own houses. Although science is no longer conducted as an individ-
ual endeavour, this is how it started out. However, it could not continue to
progress at an individual scale, and so changed its process to function more
as a global system of collaborative efforts rather than individual discoveries.
We find today’s science being produced in buildings and institutions where
many researchers work together in the most varied fields, sharing not only
the infrastructure, equipment and services, but most importantly the company
of fellow researchers. If we think about people like Madame Curie, Albert
Einstein or Charles Darwin, we are considering individuals that conducted
their research alone (or nearly alone) before presenting their ideas publically.
At some point in its history, it was concluded that science could not continue
to progress efficiently at an individual scale, and thus changed its processes to
function more like an organization, with a system of collaborations and team

118
 Biology as a new media for art

efforts that combine several areas of science. It no longer makes much sense
to say that one country is more developed scientifically than any other, when
so many publications are the result of international collaborations. Science
has no nationality any more.
Likewise, there has been a tendency in the art of today to move towards a
more collaborative endeavour. In many cases, it is necessary to bring together a
team of people with different expertise for the completion of an artwork being
presented at festivals or exhibitions of new media. However, unlike research
institutions in science, it is still infrequent to find in the arts a clear system
providing collaborative support to the process of contemporary art research.
In science, it has been increasingly difficult to identify the individual genius
behind a discovery (as demonstrated in recent years by the large number of
authors per scientific communication, or the rarity of Nobel prizes that are not
shared). In the same way, the idea of a single artistic genius is a myth that has
been artificially preserved by artists, gallery managers, collectors and buyers
for a very long time.
As in science, advances in art are supported by the shoulders of giants
who preceded more recent creators. In spite of this, there are a few research-
ers in both science and art who push the general knowledge of the field more
intensively, and thereby acquire a more prominent notoriety.
My point is that art-as-research is now conducted by collectives of art
researchers contributing towards general and global knowledge, rather than
by individual geniuses isolated from their peers. As such, given that it gener-
ates a form of knowledge, the aspect of research in art could and should be
incorporated into universities as research groups, with clearly defined research
projects and objectives subjected to evaluation, just as with the sciences. One
may think this is already the case, but current projects dealing with this field
are frequently associated with knowledge in art theory or history, and not
to knowledge connected specifically to art practice. For me, the existence of
many examples of art research in new artistic practices at universities’ infra-
structural levels is not clearly evident. And where such research programmes
do exist, they are often centred in the theory of the researched practices, or in
the production of more artworks by the artist themselves. As a result, we are
missing out on several consequences of research in new media and its artistic
expression, including new processes, new fields of artistic practices, new strat-
egies of production and exhibition, new methodologies, new policies of fund-
ing, new technologies and new aesthetics.
I have the strong conviction that, like art itself, artistic research should be
mainly a practical research field, without it being reduced to a mere simple
exercise in art production. This does not imply that the artwork cannot be
included in criteria for evaluation in art research. The artwork is the real proof
or demonstration of a complex process marked by investigative components.
However, an artwork is not a thesis in itself (in principle) or even a hypothesis.
If anything, it can be compared with an experiment that contributes to the
demonstration of a hypothesis. As such, the argumentation about the process
of conception, research, production and even the result of its exhibition can
be fundamental to the clarification of an idea and its contribution to the field
of art. The way by which all this process adds to an already existing body of
knowledge should be the major criterion for the possible evaluation of artistic
research. In other words, the relevance of a research project should not be
determined by the quality of the artwork itself, but rather by the novel contri-
bution brought to the artistic field: what new media, new technology or new

119
Marta de Menezes

Figure 2: The development of experimental artworks.

paradigm is provided by the artist/researcher that can benefit other artists,

and how they will then use this knowledge for their own research and/or art
practice.
The following diagram (Figure 2) represents a schematic view of the proc-
ess/method in the development of an art project. This process/method is not
exclusive to the art world, nor is it universal. If we take a typical art project and
divide it by stages of development we can distinguish:
Tracing the arrows, one can observe that, with very little or no investi-
gation, an idea can soon produce or construct an artwork that is publically
exhibited. Furthermore, the research developed can subsequently originate a
set of ideas leading to new directions of research, and even to the alteration of
the final artwork that is produced.
In a similar way, the exhibition of a project while it is still in the research
stage (i.e. a work in progress), or while the final shape/form is still just a
prototype of the possible final product, can be subsequently reformulated in
response to the public response.
I will illustrate this process with an example from my own work. ‘Proteic
Portrait’ (2007) is an art project where I portray myself through several media.
This self-portrait uses technology and scientific knowledge borrowed from
biology on its way to materialization. It is a research process that, like many
of my projects, crosses not only art history conventions and artistic creation,
but also the technical process, jargon and graphic conventions of science
and technology. All of these processes are visible in an artwork presented for
exhibition.
‘MARTAISAVELSWVRALRIVEIRDEMENESESDASILVAGRACA’ is the
translation of my full name to a sequence of amino-acids that form the new
mArta protein. My name includes my Christian names, my parents’ names,
and ends with my marriage name (the one taken by choice). To some extent,
this long name can already be considered my own portrait; a personal gene-
alogy from my birth that also incorporates the options I have made during
my lifetime. I was already exploring the idea of a history and identity situ-
ated in biology, as well as human and affective relations, in projects such as
‘extended family’ and ‘nuclear family’ (both 2004), In ‘Proteic Portrait’, it is
the name – a cultural convention – which establishes an interface with the
biological microscopic scale. The design of a new protein with my name,

120
 Biology as a new media for art

Figure 3: Proteic Portrait: New Protein (2007). Copyright: Marta de Menezes.

using the most common scientific convention for the representation of

amino acids (the protein components), is the membrane that enfolds the
structure of the mArta protein, and sets the various frames that make up
this portrait.
Through the mArta protein, I portray myself as a complex network of
personal connections with people, entities and institutions which identify me
intimately. The project follows a clear scientific protocol, albeit with personal
overtones of accepting a challenge: namely, the search for the molecular struc-
ture of a new protein, artificially created but in its own way natural (produced
by bacteria), which portrays me through my long Portuguese name: ‘the proteic
portrait will only be finished when the true structure of mArta will be uncov-
ered’ (De Menezes 2006).
In ‘Proteic Portrait’, all of the above-mentioned phases of an artistic project
are continuously re-evaluated. The progress is not unidirectional or even
unique, and thus not necessarily leading to a single artwork. The most impor-
tant conclusion is to understand that art research happens at any of those
steps and processes. This research can refer solely to the artist making the
artwork, but should always contribute to the common knowledge of the field
of art in general, and must always be relevant to the art community. In time,
this research process may even refute the scheme I have proposed.
The proposed diagram (Figure 2) and conclusions I have presented
contribute to clarifying my own process of art creation, marked by its strong
link to the scientific approach. This model will undoubtedly be opposed –
maybe even by myself in the future, when I reformulate my own way of
making and thinking art … All of these processes should be dynamic and
subjected to scrutiny.

121
Marta de Menezes

In any of the possible outcomes, I make the case that it does not matter
how personal the project may be. The key issue is that it must create prec-
edence, experience and perspectives that will be useful for both the author
(of course), but also potentially other artists looking for different strategies to
develop their work, think about their research and proceed with their practice.
In fact, I am extremely grateful to the many artists who contributed their own
art research to the development of my art practice.

References
Ascott, Roy (2004), ‘Planetary technoetics: Art, technology and consciousness’,
Leonardo, 37: 2, pp. 111–16.
Bulatov, Dmitry (ed.) (2004), Biomediale: Contemporary Society and Genomic
Culture, Kaliningrad: The National Centre for Contemporary Art.
De Menezes, Marta (2003), ‘The artificial-natural: Manipulating butterfly wing
patterns for artistic purposes’, Leonardo, 36: 1, 29–32.
––––– (2006), Retrato Proteico – Proteic Portrait, Spain: MEIAC.
Judson, Horace F. and Maddox, John (1979), The Eight Day of Creation: Makers
of the Revolution in Biology, London: Jonathan Cape.
Kac, Eduardo (ed.), Signs of Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shapiro, Alan (2011), ‘Of art, biotech and the body in the world, by Claudio
Cravero’, 24 March, http://www.alan-shapiro.com/. Accessed 20 July
2015.

Suggested Citation
de Menezes, M. (2015), ‘Biology as a new media for art: An art research
endeavour’, Technoetic Arts: A  Journal of Speculative Research, 13: 1+2,
pp. 115–123, doi: 10.1386/tear.13.1-2.115_1

Contributor details
Marta de Menezes is a Portuguese artist with a degree in fine arts from the
University of Lisbon; she also holds an MA in History of Art and Visual Culture
from the University of Oxford, and is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of
Leiden. She has been exploring the intersection between art and biology,
working in research laboratories to demonstrate that new biological technolo-
gies can be used as new art medium.
De Menezes created her first biological artwork, Nature? (1999), by modi-
fying the wing patterns of live butterflies. Since then, she has used several
diverse biological techniques, including functional MRI of the brain to create
portraits where the mind can be visualized (‘Functional Portraits’ [2002]); fluo-
rescent DNA probes to create micro-sculptures in human cell nuclei (‘nucle-
Art’ [2002]); and sculptures made of proteins (‘Proteic Portrait’ [2002–07]),
DNA (‘Innercloud’ [2003]; ‘The Family’ [2004]) or incorporating live neurons
(‘Tree of Knowledge’ [2005]) or bacteria (‘Decon’ [2007]). Her work has been
presented internationally at exhibitions, in articles and during lectures.
She is currently the artistic director of Ectopia, an experimental art labora-
tory in Lisbon, and is director of Cultivamos Cultura in southern Portugal.
www.martademenezes.com
www.cultivamoscultura.org

122
 Biology as a new media for art

Contact: Av Frei Miguel Contreiras 40 – 2D, 1700-212 Lisbon, Portugal.

E-mail: marta@martademenezes.com

Marta de Menezes has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

123
Copyright of Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research is the property of Intellect
Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.