Creating art with genes and bacteria

Bioartists use scientific methods and technology to explore living systems

Joe Davis is a pioneer in the field of bioart. This photo was taken at a lecture he gave in Eindhoven, Netherlands, as a guest of Baltan Laboratories. (Photo by Boudewijn Bollmann)

His palette includes genes and bacteria alongside paints and pastels.

Joe Davis designed the cover of this issue, which features a review of the field of bioart.Joe Davis is a pioneer in the field of bioart, where artists use scientific methods – and living organisms – to create art, often working closely with scientists.

In 1986, Davis collaborated with geneticist Dan Boyd to encode a symbol for life and femininity into an E. coli bacterium. The piece, called Microvenus, was the first artwork to use the tools and techniques of molecular biology. Since then, bioart has become one of several contemporary art forms (including reclamation art and nanoart) that apply scientific methods and technology to explore living systems as artistic subjects. The field has been growing along with the rise of biotechnology and the possibilities of genetic manipulation.

A review of the field was published in Trends in Biotechnology in November, with cover art by Davis.

Bioart ranges from bacterial manipulation to glowing rabbits, cellular sculptures, and — in the case of Australian-British artist Nina Sellars — documentation of an ear prosthetic that was implanted onto fellow artist Stelarc’s arm. In the pursuit of creating art, practitioners have generated tools and techniques that have aided researchers, while sometimes crossing into controversy, such as by releasing invasive species into the environment, blurring the lines between art and modern biology, raising philosophical, societal and environmental issues that challenge scientific thinking.

A blood-filled contemporary mosquito Joe Davis and colleagues inserted into fossilized amber (2013)“Most people don’t know that bioart exists, but it can enable scientists to produce new ideas and give us opportunities to look differently at problems,” says Dr. Ali K. Yetisen, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, who is a lead author for the review along with Davis. “At the same time there’s been a lot of ethical and safety concerns happening around bioart, and artists who wanted to get involved in the past have made mistakes.”

The evolution of bioart

Joe Davis' <em>Bacterial Radio</em> (2011) This was his attempt to create inductors and capacitors from biomineralized E coli embedded in PDMS and subsequently integrated into a “crystal” radio circuit.In between experiments, Alexander Fleming would paint stick figures and landscapes on paper and in petri dishes using bacteria. In 1928, after taking a brief hiatus from the lab, he noticed that portions of his “germ paintings,” had been killed. The culprit was a fungus, penicillin — a discovery that would revolutionize medicine for decades to come.

In 1938, photographer Edward Steichen used a chemical to genetically alter and produce interesting variations in flowering delphiniums. This chemical, colchicine, would later be used by horticulturalists to produce desirable mutations in crops and ornamental plants.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the arts and sciences moved away from traditionally shared interests and formed secular divisions that persisted well into the 20th century. “Appearance of environmental art in the 1970s brought about renewed awareness of special relationships between art and the natural world,” Dr. Yetisen says.

To demonstrate how we change landscapes, American sculptor Robert Smithson paved a hillside with asphalt, while Bulgarian artist Christo Javacheffa (of Christo and Jeanne-Claude) surrounded resurfaced barrier islands with bright pink plastic.

"Audiomicroscope" apparatus built by Davis to record audio frequency signatures of microorganisms (ca.2000). This instrument allowed him to capture movies and sound files of various microorganisms for both science and art.These pieces could sometimes be destructive, however, as in Ten Turtles Set Free by German-born Hans Haacke. To draw attention to the excesses of the pet trade, he released what he thought were endangered tortoises back to their natural habitat in France, but he inadvertently released the wrong subspecies, thus compromising the genetic lineages of the endangered tortoises as the two varieties began to mate.

By the late 1900s, technological advances began to draw artists’ attention to biology, and by the 2000s, it began to take shape as an artistic identity. Following Joe Davis’s transgenic Microvenus came a miniaturized leather jacket made of skin cells, part of the Tissue Culture & Art Project (initiated in 1996) by duo Oran Catts and Ionat Zurr. Other examples of bioart include the use of mutant cacti to simulate appearance of human hair in the place of cactus spines by Laura Cinti of University College London’s C-Lab; modification of butterfly wings for artistic purposes by Marta de Menezes of Portugal; and photographs of amphibian deformation by American Brandon Ballengée.

For <em>DNA Prayer Flags</em> (2009) with genetic markers for currently incurable diseases.“Bioart encourages discussions about societal, philosophical, and environmental issues and can help enhance public understanding of advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering,” says co-author Dr. Ahmet F. Coskun, a postdoctoral research scholar in the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

Life as a bioartist: “It’s Oz, pure and simple”

Today, Joe Davis is a research affiliate at MIT Biology and “Artist-Scientist” at the George Church Laboratory at Harvard — a place that fosters creativity and technological development around genetic engineering and synthetic biology. “It’s Oz, pure and simple,” Davis says. “The total amount of resources in this environment and the minds that are accessible, it’s like I come to the city of Oz every day.”

But it’s not a one-way street. “My particular lab depends on thinking outside the box and not dismissing things because they sound like science fiction,” says Dr. George Church, Professor of Genetics and a Founding Core Faculty Member the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard. “Joe is terrific at keeping us flexible and nimble in that regard.”

For example, Davis is working with several members of the Church lab to perform metagenomics analyses of the dust that accumulates at the bottom of money-counting machines. Another project involves genetically engineering silk worms to spin metallic gold — an homage to the fairy tale of Rumpelstiltskin.

“I collaborate with many colleagues on projects that don’t necessarily have direct scientific results, but they’re excited to pursue these avenues of inquiry that they might not or would not look into ordinarily. They might try to hide it, but a lot of scientists have poetic souls,” Davis says. “Art, like science, has to describe the whole world, and you can’t describe something you’re basically clueless about. The most exciting part of these activities is satiating overwhelming curiosity about everything around you.”

Turning silk into gold: Transgenic silks biomineralized with metallic gold created by Joe Davis, Tara Gianoulis, Hideki Sezutsu, and Mariko Kasuya.The number of bioartists is still small, Davis says, partly because of a lack of federal funding of the arts in general. Accessibility to the types of equipment bioartists want to experiment with can also be an issue. While Davis has partnered with labs over the past few decades, other artists affiliate themselves with community access laboratories that are run by do-it-yourself biologists. One way that universities can help is to create departmental-wide positions for bioartists to collaborate with scientists.

“In the past, there have been artists affiliated with departments in a very utilitarian way to produce figures or illustrations,” Church says. “Having someone like Joe stimulates our lab to come together in new ways and if we had more bioartists, I think thinking out of the box would be a more common thing.”

“In the era of genetic engineering, bioart will gain new meanings and annotations in social and scientific contexts,” says Dr. Yetisen. “Bioartists will surely take up new roles in science laboratories, but this will be subject to ethical criticism and controversy as a matter of course.”

Read the article

Elsevier’s Cell Press has made this article freely available until April 19, 2016: Ali K. Yetisen and Joe Davis et al: “Bioart,” Trends in Biotechnology, Yetisen et al: “Bioart”

Trends in Biotechnology (@TrendsinBiotech), published by Elsevier’s Cell Press, is a monthly review journal of applied biosciences. It addresses what is new, significant and practicable in the integrated use of many biological technologies — from molecular genetics to biochemical engineering. Read more.

To receive media alerts for this or other Cell Press journals, contact

Elsevier Connect Contributor

Joseph CaputoJoseph Caputo (@sciencemetro) is Media Relations Manager for Cell Press (@CellPressNews), based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He previously served as a science communicator for the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, the Marine Biological Laboratory and Smithsonian Magazine. As Media Relations Manager, he works closely with the media and public information officers to share the scientific breakthroughs published in Cell Press's 33 journals. He is a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College in New York and received his MS in Science and Medical Journalism from Boston University.

comments powered by Disqus

Related Stories