Stupid Octave Cat recently posted an article on artist Eduardo Kac's
interest in creating a genetically modified dog:

URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/10/18/BU18170.DTL

TEXT:
"Artist Proposes Using Jellyfish Genes to Create Glow-in-the-Dark Dogs"
by TOM ABATE

Patrick Lichty responded:

In regards to Kac's work, it interests me, yet there's something to it
that evokes a certain cynicism. At Isea this year, everyone was speaking
about Biological/genetic art. "Digital art is dead, everybody, we've got
to find the next big thing, and that's biology!" Well, I realize that
Kac's been doing the biotech thing for a while, so I feel he's somewhat
exempt from the label of "tragically hip." I'll just be interested in
seeing the horde of biotech art hipsters that jump on the bandwagon in
the coming years. Being that I've been involved in generative art for
quite a few years, it's not that far of a step…

However, I think what disturbs most people about Kac's discourse on this
subject is his apparent aloofness to the implications of the work
vis-a-vis society. I am completely convinced that this is part of his
delivery, and am sure that he's aware of the possible outcomes. This is
what he's throwing in your face; making you confront. What would the
world be like with glowing tumourous dogs and fluorescent guinea pigs?
I'm sure we'd bore of it soon, and look for the next thing.

However, the problem is not that of biodiversity, but the converse. In
cases when humanity has worked to create new strains/species, usually
there tends to be a radical narrowing of biodiversity. Anyone remember
the Irish Potato Famine? From historical references, we are presented
with instances where human intervention eliminates diverstiy, an
inherently robust configuration, and then is almost invariably
reinstated by eliminating the monophylic (?) order through its own
weaknesses.

So, in short, I think Kac's work is largely confrontational, and he
knows exactly what buttons he's pushing, what chords he's playing.
However, many take his views as actual directions the biotech industry
should go, and this shallow reading of his work is what we need to watch
out for.

Newcode@aol.com wrote:

No one said it but the question will arise about
glow-in-the-dark-people. Now there's a debate for you. Does God
fluoresce ? If so, we who are made in his image should also glow. And
if a man marries a woman before she goes to the beauty parlor for a new
glow, does he have grounds for divorce ?

And if my children buy a glow drug from a pusher in a school-yard, do
the controlled substance laws allow me to press charges. Will the glow
be measured in milliwatts or lumens ? Can I get a temporary glow for
an important occasion ?

These and other exciting insanities should brighten (?) the millenium to
come.

138 infoslut added:

Thats it. Art has gone too far. The videotaping of 8 art students?
Elephant Dung? Okay, maybe. But glow in the dark dogs? What the hell is
wrong with everybody? Maybe its time we just all started painting again.
Thats it, no more "new media." This shit has gone too far!