0 Halloween Bio-Art: The Centaur of Tymfi.

It's been a while since I did one of these. Vacations and a certain piece punched a ton of holes in my sense of time sense of duty, and I've actually all-but-landed a real job! My next post will probably talk about reptiles more; look forward to that. :)

Source.

Wait a sec....was that a real centaur skeleton?

No. It's a fake made for the International Wildlife Museum in Tuscon by sculptor and zoologist Bill Willers. The whole point of the exhibit is to make people question how we know what we know. That centaur looks pretty darn real, and, doubtless, some silly internet ad with "Real Or Fake?" will pop up. Don't even click that; it's a very well-made fake, but a fake nonetheless.

Everything about this centaur is a brilliiant piece of psuedo-science. "Tymfi" is not a real city in Greece, but it sounds Greek enough to make people buy it. The whole history of the centaur's excavation is fake, but adds more flesh on the bones, if you will. The exhibit tries its hardest to make you believe that centaurs once existed. It will be leaving in 2014, so if you happen to be around Tuscon (AZ?), check it out while you can.

The exhibit also features a few real skulls and bones. These are all tied into the whole "explaining myths" idea. For example, like the Field once did, they cite the Protoceratops as the likely inspiration for the gryphon, a mythical lion-eagle hybrid. They have also added a "cyclops" in the form of a Mastodon skull and a few other such specimens. Neat.

Museums do this sort of thing all the time. New York's Museum of Natural History had a "Mythic Creatures" exhibit that got extended by popular demand. The Field had something similar. Fantastic creatures are a huge draw, to the point where one wonders if such a thing is really OK for museums.

At some point, I likely mentioned the idea that it was not OK to put things like white tigers in zoos. The argument goes that white tigers are not natural, and thus do not belong in an exhibit detailing what tigers are really like. On some level, I agree with this; white tigers are indeed exceptionally bastardized, and are only found very rarely in the wild. Better there than in somebody's backyard regardless.

Unlike with, say, white tigers in zoos, mythological animals like centaurs and griffins are A-OK in museums. At one time, people thought chimaeras and dragons were real. It just goes to prove that science, and our perceptions of it, are constantly changing. I particularly like this quote emphasizing Willers's intent behind the centaur:

"I want to trigger that belief and extend it, to trigger a feeling of wonder that connects people to the natural world, to see a person like themselves as a wild animal," says Willers.

Does he succeed? Post below. :) 

Detail: Halloween Bio-Art: The Centaur of Tymfi.

0 Bio-Art: Lisa Black.

So, before I went to Canada, I ditched my smart phone. At first, it felt like I was a little lost at sea, but then I realized something: no, I was not lost, I had been freed. Since then, I've felt more creative and happy without the phone than I was with it. The experience has also made me more aware that more and more people are slowly becoming little more than cyborgs, unable to lead normal lives without some electronic whosiwhatzit.

Then Lisa Black reminded me that I will be assimilated, and resistance is futile.

Hasta la vista, Bambi. 

Born in Auckland, New Zealand in 1982, Lisa Black does plenty of work that reminds us how terrifying or beautiful the future can be. The idea behind many of her pieces forces viewers to question the relationship between, and eventual integration of, nature with technology. This does not mean animals with iPods. It means that we have to face the inevitable reconsideration of our definition of "natural."

There are two main types of cyborg animals on Lisa Black's production line: "Departed" and "Fixed." The "Departed" pieces feature various animal skulls with various cybernetic bits - gears, wires, etc. - attached. The "Fixed" series hits a bit harder, integrating various mechanical parts with more or less whole animal bodies. The very use of the word "Fixed" also suggests that what was already natural wasn't 100% perfect to begin with - and, admittedly, it usually isn't.

Another thing Lisa Black does involves found butterflies preserved forever as jewelry. While not as jarring as her cyborgs, these are still pretty cool pieces. For those not aware, dead butterflies are extremely fragile creatures. They are nonetheless beautiful, causing many a butterfly to be put behind glass in order to preserve it. At least they get out there as wearables, here. See them and more at this page, which also shows off the cyborg beasts and skulls. 

I'm going to (mis)quote my bio-art book when I say, "mankind has evolved to manipulate evolution." Indeed, maybe a reconsideration of nature's sanctity is in order after these dozens of millennia mankind has been on Earth. Dogs aren't really natural given how much we've meddled with them; neither is corn.That still doesn't mean that we should all be glued to our iPhones just because they're the future.

Detail: Bio-Art: Lisa Black.

0 Bio-Art: Omnivore.

Remember the bargain bin ?I found another thing in the same bin that proved to have enough merit for an entry. Piers Anthony's Omnivore is marketed as a sci-fi classic, but I had never heard of it, and thought it could not be that bad for just a couple bucks.

Omnivore tells the story of a government agent seeking information on a certain alien planet. To find this information, he ventures into a small community near a forest. There he finds the last three survivors of a trip to Nacre, an alien planet with a unique ecology, who slowly divulge more and more about their experiences. It was written in 1968, and is the first in a trilogy.

"Alien ecology?" Sign me up! Let's take a look at Nacre's ecology and see what we can see. 

The ecology of Nacre is interesting, to say the least. There are no plants. Almost everything is some sort of fungus. They still need water (and can hold it, as a spongy fungus demonstrates), but that's still creative. A lot of research went into creating something so creative and believable, yet alien. Props to the author; you can learn a lot about yeasts, drugs, and Earth ecology by reading Omnivore.

The other lifeforms on the planet are, well, far more bizarre. The animals have all evolved to have amazing eyesight in their one eye, and have exactly one foot. The only herbivores are little, fluffy things with gills that help them process the spore-saturated air. The main carnivores, the "mantas," are strange, manta-like creatures that can flatten themselves into discs and fly in the thicker air as if it were water. The titular omnivore is a nightmarish creature with tentacles and an eyeless snake of a tail. What they lack in diversity, they compensate for in strangeness and creativity.

Compare this to, say, Pandora. There's a lot of life there, but it's all identifiable. Everything there is very Earth-like. There's even a gorgeous humanoid species for us to identify with. It's more like Pandora's an idealized Earth...with dragons. It's really up to you which type of alien ecology you prefer, but I have to give Anthony a cookie for trying something truly different. It's certainly alien.

Unfortunately, Omnivore has something in common with Avatar: both are really heavy on the environmentalism. Factory farming comes up in Omnivore. It's pretty darn clear that humans being omnivores is a bad thing. Conspiracy theorists will find plenty to chew on. Even if the ecology isn't diverse, the messages get across pretty clearly, with very little to get in the way and a lot to think about. It's worth a read, if nothing else. Orn, the next book in the series, has been considered an improvement regardless.

Detail: Bio-Art: Omnivore.

0 Bio-Art: Fur Is Alive.

"Fur is murder!" is the rallying cry of PETA and animal-lovers everywhere. Indeed, the fur industry is one of the most controversial parts of the fashion industry. Most people who buy fur are not swayed by animal rights activists at all, but in general, there's a weird disconnect when it comes to humans using animals for meat or hide.

Well, Cecilia Valentine intends to put an end to that mindset. Her "Fur Is Alive" series proposes that fashion involving animals can be humane. In contrast to skinning an animal alive for fur, Fur Is Alive uses live animals and plants without actually harming them. Yes, this is still considered high fashion.

Cecilia Valentine designed Fur Is Alive with one idea in mind: the reconnection that things like fur and meat were once living, breathing creatures. This blog has posted numerous times about how disconnected Americans are from their food - particularly meat products. We're the same way with fashion fur. By and large, the people who buy fur are oblivious to what's really going on.

Here are a few shockers for you:

"Garment or accessory labels cannot always be relied upon to accurately identify the type of animal fur used in an item. Born Free USA advises erring on the side of caution and compassion by not buying items that you cannot verify are fur-free." 

"With nearly $1.3 billion in retail sales, the fur industry makes a substantial contribution to the U.S. economy. The fur industry in the U.S. provides full-time employment for over 32,000 workers and seasonal or part-time employment for an additional 155,000+ workers. Over 12,500 workers in fields such as marketing, banking and insurance also owe their livelihood in part to the fur industry."

 "As any pet owner knows, the condition of an animal's coat is one of the clearest indications of the care it is receiving. A fur farmer's livelihood depends upon assuring that his animals receive the best possible feeding, sanitary housing and care. Killing methods used on fur farms are similar to those commonly used in humane society shelters."

..."synthetics are generally made from petroleum products which are non-renewable resources and not biodegradable. From an environmental perspective, as long as trapping is well regulated, it is far preferable to use natural furs. Fur is renewable, long lasting, biodegradable, and it is warmer than any synthetic product." 

"During the 2009-2010 season, more than 67,000 seal pups were killed for their fur, genitalia and Omega 3 oils. The fur is used to make clothing, boots and garment trim; genitals are widely used as an aphrodisiac in traditional Chinese medicine; and the oils are used as a supplement for human consumption. The majority of the seals are skinned alive and are between the ages of 12 days and 12 months old. Others are left to suffer after being clubbed until a hunter returns to skin them. "


Notice that I am including both sides of the argument in these facts. Fur trading is one of the oldest trades in existence, and we should not expect it to die anytime soon. Beaver pelts were a fairly popular commodity when the New World was still being colonized. Human beings would not be alive if we hadn't learned to use the hides of animals as clothing. Synthetic fabrics have not been around since the dawn of time. Like it or not, we owe the fur industry and all of the animals who lost their lives to make sure the human species lived to have iPhones.

Another, more personal reason for watching both sides of this argument is my own experience with reptile legislation. For big bills banning, say, pythons, reptile owners can and will use the fashion industry to prove their point. They are against snakeskin farming during the other 364 days in the year. It's an interesting bit of hypocrisy, highlighting sides of skinning that PETA-pushers rarely consider. Snakes don't even have to be skinned to be in the fashion industry, so the case is particularly interesting for that reason as well. Plus, reptiles already make great living jewelry.

Back on topic! Cecilia Valentine's series consists of animals and plants on or in attractive-looking lattices. I particularly like the rodent in a necklace, in part because it actually has fur. These designs were made on a 3-D printer, allowing for testing of templates. The hamster was compensated for his time, by the way.

Unfortunately, the project looks to still be in the concept stage. The bird, for example, was photoshop'd in. None of this stuff is on the market, but I hope it's a hit when it gets released. This is a truly eye-opening idea. No matter what side of the argument you're on, when was the last time you saw a hamster cage necklace?

Detail: Bio-Art: Fur Is Alive.

0 Bio-Art: Meat Dresses.

It's odd that there hasn't been too much about Lady Gaga for a while. She used to be the biggest thing since sliced bread, but you don't even see her on magazine covers anymore. Still, she was known for wearing crazy stuff like this:

This blog entry is not necessarily about her, however. Meat dresses are not a shiny new thing that Gaga introduced. In fact, the (likely) original meat dress caused just as much controversy and had a much clearer message behind it.

This is Jana Sterbak's Vanitas: Flesh Dress For An Albino Anorectic. In 1991, this meat dress was put on display so as to show the contrast between our obsession with youthful physical appearances and eventual death. It consisted of 50 pounds' and approximately 300 dollars' worth of steak sewn into a dress. The dress was displayed, unrefrigerated, on a hanger next to a photo of a woman wearing the dress in the National Museum of Canada.

Wait. Unrefrigerated? Yes, this dress was just hanging there, decomposing in front of a large audience. It had to be replaced after 6 weeks of being on display. Slightly cheaper meat was used for the replacement, totaling 260 bucks instead of 300. Talk about a temporary exhibit.

The backlash to this piece was insane. Countless protestors sent in food scraps to the museum. Goodness knows where those all went, but I daresay anybody on staff with a dog had a happy pooch by the time this was over. It's fairly hard to send raw stuff through the U.S. mail, so someone in Canada must have really gone above and beyond.

As much as I like Gaga, I must admit that Sterbak's meat dress is more profound. Gaga's description of her own outfit sounded, well, like it had been cobbled together by her marketing team. Like many of her outfits, the meat dress was a sensation piece. It works just fine regardless of the generation it appears in. It's not like meat will ever be high fashion or anythi-

...kill me now.

Detail: Bio-Art: Meat Dresses.

0 Bio-Art: So Human An Animal.

If possible, go check out the bargain bin at a book store, or the book sales at a local library. Books make better friends than cell phones, 3DS's, or any other electronic device on a plane, so it never hurts to have a good book or two when traveling. Bargain bins are an awesome source for good books, if a little worn. You never know what you'll find.

I managed to find this at a discount book sale: So Human An Animal by Rene Dubos. Its whole argument is that, as technology progresses, humanity will start to lose what makes it human. In order to retain our humanity, we must get back to nature on some level. Published in 1968, many of its ideas are now outdated...because we implemented them.

First of all, let me say that this book is well-written. The writer was a French immigrant who did not have English as his native language. Even so, the imagery is excellent, the text well-supported with a million citations (in the back of the book), and the points crystal clear. He writes better than most English-speakers I know. It's pretty enough that I'm calling it art; there is definite skill and beauty, even though it's nonfiction.

Wikipedia does not so much as give one a summary of this Pulitzer-winning book, so the burden falls on li'l old me. In short, the book thoroughly details the influence the environment has on an individual - physically, psychologically, and psychosomatically. The urban environment is particularly toxic, harboring numerous pollutants, overcrowding, and, most importantly, removal from nature. The mindset of "produce more so we can consume more so that we can produce even more" does indeed not make sense, and is a vicious cycle that needs to stop.

And y'know what? We've made steps towards that...or have tried. LEED certified buildings are, for example, both a triumph and an epic fail. They economize on energy, but LEED-certified buildings also tend to abuse glass to help their eco-friendly goals. Birds do not realize there is glass; thus, a lot of bird crashes occur around LEED buildings. Farmer's markets are now fairly frequent in cities, even if the food still comes from far away. Finally, yes, even office buildings are now dotted with greenery to make the area more bearable. Given the prominence of this book, it would not be surprising if many such ideas came directly from it.

So Human An Animal is one of those books that helped shape the modern world as we know it. Aside from perhaps Silent Spring and Thoreau's diary from Walden Pond, no book has had so much to say about man's relationship with nature. It's awesome that I was able to find it in a bargain bin.

Detail: Bio-Art: So Human An Animal.

0 Bio-Art: Mermaids: The Body Found.

A while back, there was a huge controversy about how Animal Planet had gone from being an educational channel to more of an entertainment channel. This sentiment reached its peak with Mermaids: The Body Found, a pseudo-documentary (2012) that worked around making mermaids as realistic as possible. They did such a good job that people were fooled into believing it was real. So just how do you make such a realistic pseudo-documentary, anyways?

Here's a hint: start with facts. The documentary opens with mention of conspiracy theories, and how even conspiracy theories need evidence. In particular, it mentions two events: the "bloop," a mysterious noise heard on sonar, and whale beachings brought about by sonar testing. These are both real.Pseudo-science, you're doing it right.

Throughout the film, the narrator details how mermaids could have evolved from a humanlike ancestor, taking to the sea instead of staying on land. Now, marine mammals are not my forte, but in spite of much of the documentary being fake, I'm going to give Animal Planet the benefit of the doubt when it talks about marine mammal evolution. The stuff about whales coming from wolflike (!UNGULATE) ancestors is definitely true. Point is, I didn't see any obvious flaws like I did in Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. If mermaids did indeed wind up being real, this is some pretty solid reasoning of how they could have evolved.

The documentary also mentions the Aquatic Ape Theory. This is a thing, not something made by Animal Planet. Due to having little hair, a certain balance of body fat, and requirements like iodine for healthy brain function, the theory posits that part of mankind's evolutionary history happened in a marine environment. Unfortunately, even a mere glance at the linked site will tell one that a lot of this stuff has been discredited. It was still used well in the documentary, so I'll give it the paragraph it deserves.

Suffice it to say, the mermaids look amazing. As if the tail was not enough, the creators also factored in brain composition, communication (with dolphins!), sensory adaptations for life in the deep sea, and other features that one would usually not think of on the average mermaid. The transition stages are also pretty believable, with ancestors sporting tails like pinniped fins at one point. Neat.

Granted, there is one huge flaw almost unrelated to the content: the pacing of this thing is awful. It's one thing if you're trying the "American Godzilla" approach of not letting us see the monster without us seeing the movie. It's another when you advertise "Mermaids: The Body Found" and the first hour or so of the 1 hour and 21 minutes deals with bits and pieces and random, apelike creatures that are not the body promised. The word "mermaid" does not even come up until like 50 minutes in. In my personal opinion, that's a little bit too late for something advertising mermaids. This is in-character for science, which would indeed be in denial about such a subject. At least Dragons showed us the body right out of the gate; the mermaid "body" is a mess when we see it. Talk about beating around the bush.

That said, it's still a great documentary, and I'd advise anyone interested in pseudo-science or mermaids to give it a look. It's not quite as good as Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (which still has flaws), but in the same vein and an enjoyable, if uncanny, watch. The mermaids themselves look believable.  The people making it did a darn good job.  Check it out, and do as the documentary advises: continue to treat mermaids as mythical creatures, even if they are out there.

Detail: Bio-Art: Mermaids: The Body Found.

0 Bio-Art: Crazy Chameleon Tattoo Ink.

Oh, tattoos. I've been told that tattoos are "edgy as a padded watermelon." The fact is, tattoos are still art, and have a lot of social significance. Over the ages, a lot of natural dyes, including cobra venom, have beenused to add designs to the relatively bland human skin. It's embarrassing that this section hasn't covered it before; how more bio-art can you get than injections of color?

Well, it turns out art has evolved with science once again. Tattoos have become more techy than ever. Conspiracies about barcodes and injected computer chips aside, tattoos are probably the most techy from of illegal art around. While some people have 3-D tattoos thanks to silicon injections, this entry will cover something far less disturbing than silicon bumps painted with boobs: blacklight tattoos.

Found on a blog, from the official site.

This is a tattoo done in Crazy Chameleon tattoo ink. The Crazy Chameleon shop is located in Pittsfield, MA. The ink, however, can be found in many local tattoo shops or ordered. It is also the number one tattoo ink that one should look for when it comes to blacklight tattoos. It is important to note that any "glow-in-the-dark" ink is not safe. Blacklight is...safer.

All blacklight tattoo inks, as well as tattoo inks in general, are not screened by any health testing ever. Crazy Chameleon ink is the exception to the rule. It is the only blacklight tattoo ink to be approved by the FDA in tracking invasive species. With everything else, one risks carcinogens and a few other nasty side-effects. Always make sure those needles are clean, too.

Crazy Chameleon ink does not use GFP, unfortunately. Instead, a fluorescent particle is coated in something called polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). PMMA is used in medicine, so it's certainly safe for human injections. Sure, it's not jellyfish DNA, but probably as close as we'll get until Batman Beyond splicing becomes a thing.

Detail: Bio-Art: Crazy Chameleon Tattoo Ink.

0 Bio-Art: Prima Materia.

Bio-art is a developing field. There are, as of right now, no real restraints on what is or is not bio-art. For example, in the class we had, even the use of things like X-ray shots was considered bio-art. Photomanips could be considered bio-art. The 'official' definition extends to art utilizing living tissues. It is, however, slowly gaining a following...and broadening its definition a little.

Bio-art, however you choose to define it, has an amazing following in Finland. Finland has its own Bioart Society, in fact. In 2012, the group hosted one of the weirdest galleries that the medium has ever known: Prima Materia - Four Artistic Positions on Ecology. While this definitely has the "bio" side going, some of the time, I kept trying to see the "art."

That presentation included this bizarre little number: 

Sea: it's what's for dinner!

That is soup stock, sort of like bullion cubes that one can find at the supermarket. The catch? It's made from the water of the Baltic Sea. All the stuff floating around in the sea was condensed into a soup block and rehydrated to be edible. Definitely not the tastiest soup on earth, but watch brains break when people say they've eaten the sea. The soup was served by one of the artists and a professional chef.

The reason I bring this one up is that it struck me as the most artistic (culinarily artistic, at that) of the lot. Making soup stock out of the organic matter in the Baltic Sea sounds like fun, if nothing else. You got to eat the sea if you went to this exhibition. The other three just didn't grab me. Also, I cannot read Finnish, so some of the impact may have been lost.

For the curious, there was at least one other project monitoring the Baltic seawater. Someone else tried a technique of whitening rhubarb that supposedly made for smashing Swedish food, but failed. Another project involved geomanipulation using an odd white shield (albedo) - anyone know more about this? Although some of the photos were really nice, I'm still wondering if anything except the soup qualifies as art. Hmm...Lake Michigan soup... 

Detail: Bio-Art: Prima Materia.

0 Bio-Art/A Week of Hogwash: Tattooed Pigs.

Whew, back on track! For the record, me collapsing on Monday nights is indeed normal. Luckily, this week promises to be fun. It's a whole week of hogwash, or awesome pigs you never thought you'd meet.

Belgian tattoo artist Wim Delvoye has found new meaning in life: tattooing pigs. He started tattooing pig carcasses while working at a slaughterhouse, then proceeded to tattoo live, sedated pigs in 1994. There is now a massive gallery of tattooed swine. They are found only in Art Farm China and, occasionally, in museums. 

So, why pigs? "They grow fast and are so much better to tattoo than fish," says Delvoye. It's also nice that we can see the ink on the pigs because their hairs are so fine. As the artist points out, it is also fascinating to see a tattoo on a young pig blossom into a massive artwork on a full-grown hog. Then, when the pig's time has come to go to the sty in the sky, the tattooed skin remains.

Even if you put fashionable tattoos on a pig, it's still a pig.

Interested in having a pig as a pet? How about an inked pig? Art Farm does indeed intend to sell its swine, probably for a pretty piggy penny, somewhere down the line. For now, however, it is possible to buy an inked pigskin or stuffed pig. They are also occasionally on display in various art galleries, so be on the lookout for tattooed pigs in a museum near you.

Or not! Some people have amazingly strong reactions to these pigs, calling the inking a violation of animal rights. Delvoye claims that the pigs actually feel less pain than humans on the skin - in part because pigs were wild at one point and aren't known for having flimsy skin in the first place (think "football"). Regardless, the topic of tattooed swine tends to carry mental outrage in its wake. Unless every single protestor has never touched bacon, however, they are probably just as "hypocritical" as the vegetarian artist is; you do not wanna know what goes on at pig farms where the porkers aren't inked.

Detail: Bio-Art/A Week of Hogwash: Tattooed Pigs.

0 Bio-Art: Glowing Monkeys.

I've been looking into a book called Frankenstein's Cat. It details the advances made in mixing organic lifeforms with technology, covering everything from GloFish to Roachbots. In other words, it gels very nicely with this little column. It is so named because, hey, we've made a cat that glows green in the name of curing lethal diseases.

It's weird -maybe even cute - when cats and danios get turned green, but what if science did a GFP splice that really hit home?

Source: PopSci.

Well, Japan did. In May 2009, Erika Sasaki of the Central Institute for Experimental Aninals in Japan injected marmoset embryos with GFP. That's right: we've made a monkey glow green.Or, rather, we've made twin monkeys glow green, and it's 100% heritable. As with most of these experiments involving GFP, the scientists hope to track the genetics of Parkinson's, Huntington's, and many other hereditary diseases.

Marmosets, for the record, are probably the ideal lab monkey. (Rhesus monkeys are the other big monkey you need to know.) They reproduce at a young age, and are juuust distant enough from humans to avoid any really sticky ethical issues. Experiments have been done to make monkeys glow in the past, but this is the first time that the trait has been heritable. The last monkeys did not pass it on to their offspring, or else suffered genetic lottery fail.

Kei and Kou are the first F2 glowing marmosets. They were made by effectively cloning a male glowing marmoset's sperm into the egg of a normal female marmoset. Although not as well-expressed as one might think, the little monkeys do indeed glow in the dark beneath their fur. If nothing else, their underpaws glow green, showing the transgenics at work. Since then, they have gone on to sire many a glowing monkey, creating the first glowing primate founding stock.

Here's the kicker: even monkeys aren't close enough to humans to track some diseases. Soon, we will need to splice human embryos if we want to cure diseases that can only affect people in a certain way. Ethical concerns aside, it should be easy to find some crazy mom who would want a bright green baby, so long as "will not look like The Grinch" was part of the contract. This isn't art yet, but look for gene spliced kids in the future. It'll happen.

Detail: Bio-Art: Glowing Monkeys.

0 Bio-Art: Roachbots.

I'm going to let the video do the introducing this time:



Now, WTF was that? A company called "Backyard Brains" has released a series of kits related to neurology and cockroaches. Some of them just feature moving cockroach legs with a few wires. The more impressive kits allow one to brainwash cockroaches. No, you do not need a degree of any kind to do this; that's the whole point.

As the site itself puts it, "Backyard Brains enables anyone to be a neuroscientist."  The site has a series of experiments, all of which can be dome with their kits and a few things found in most households. Another famous invention of theirs is the "SpikerBox," which amplifies the sound of neurons to an audible level. It's all pretty cool, and a lot of it will be fuel for future entries.

The "RoboRoach" involves stimulating the antenna nerves of cockroaches so that one can have a brainwashed roach puppet for a few minutes. The whole thing is done via a "backpack" that fills the antennae with fine wire, which in turn tells the cockroach where to move via nerve pulses. You can only tell it to do things like move left and right, but that's still pretty nifty. Same basic idea as RatBot, only less precise and using an icky roach instead of a cute rat.

It's not that this idea has not been touched on before. There was an old cartoon involving robot roaches. One also appeared on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but do note that these RoboRoaches will not become the roachinator above.  Roachbot is not a real cockroach; it still works just as good as RoboRoach for freaking out your friends. Have fun messing with household pests!

Detail: Bio-Art: Roachbots.

0 Shark Week/Bio-Art: Neat Shark Stuff.

Now that summer's here, or should be, some of you will probably be going on vacation.  That means you'll see touristy crap, and one of the most touristy things at most beach spots are these shark tooth necklaces:

And y'know what? Aside from sharks being in the water and therefore on beaches, shark tooth necklaces have a reason for being,

Sharks are majorly important in many island cultures. Shark teeth are used for arrowheads, cutting tools, and decor. Sharks are so significant that these island cultures have a number of shark deities, some of whom have stories that would be fun to play with if a certain movie shark needs a reboot. When fishing for sharks, some Polynesian tribes use human flesh because darnit, sharks love mana, and human bodies are full of it. In other words, Jaws was onto something.

The good news is that sharks shed their pointy teeth all the time. By buying a shark tooth, you aren't hurting a darn thing unless the people making them are exceptionally cruel to the sharks. The teeth grow back throughout the shark's lifetime. A shark tooth is pretty much the most badass accessory you can get without actually harming an animal.

Award for "The Biggest Shark Tooth" naturally goes to Megalodon, one of the biggest sharks to ever live. Its name means "big teeth." Cheap Megalodon teeth can be as low as 15 dollars -  perfect for starting a fossil collection. More hardcore collectors may pay over 2000 USD for a well-preserved tooth in the front of the mouth. Think carefully before buying the tooth. It could take a bite out of your wallet if you don't know your stuff.

Whole rows of fossilized teeth have also been used for bling. Fossilized shark teeth were believed to have come from dragons, and were called "tongue stones." The teeth were believed to be petrified snake/dragon tongues, which sounds a little stupid just to talk about; soft tissue does not fossilize well. Chalk up another "dragons are fish" point for Asia.

Now. esotericism aside? Let's look at some cool sharks.

Detail: Shark Week/Bio-Art: Neat Shark Stuff.

0 Potential Bio-Art: After Earth.

Or, "Ecology: You're Doing It Wrong."

The movie After Earth features Will Smith and his son on Earth...millennia after humanity has left it. My immediate worry was that this new Earth would be like the book Fragment. Earth has probably evolved into a whole planet of super-preds, each one deadlier than the last. Most likely, they will all exhibit "Hollywood Predator Syndrome," making them have moves that no real predator would have, like relentless pursuit of prey. (Ambush tactics are more effective on humans for a number of reasons.) Good idea, but will probably be flushed down the toilet.

The problem? Unless the ecology has become so cutthroat that everything is as intelligent as a human being, it does not have any reason to be as lethal to humans as the trailer proposes. Humans have been gone for quite a long time. In theory, we can demolish everything because it can't take us after lack of exposure. We've wrecked nature; we can do it again.

Let me put it this way: Humans are nature's nightmare. Intelligence solves most of the issues that keep other apex predators limited. We can eat anything. We have no reproductive season, allowing for a reproductive rate on par with rodents. Where humans go, environmental destruction follows. Let's not even get into the flora and fauna we absolutely must have everywhere.

Does this mean that a species could not possibly adapt to humans enough to be a formidable predator? No, not at all. Humans have some exploitable weaknesses.

For starters, we are really visual animals, enough so that hearing and smell have suffered in favor of things like color vision. We depend a ton on sight for things like body language, too. Unfortunately, we are still not as visual as eagles, leaving humanity with a very odd sensory spread. Sufficient camouflage or light diffusion would already give a predator a serious edge. Throw in a better reproductive cycle than most preds and you have something that could likely trim the human population down. Let me restate that: not demolish, but trim it down, eliminating the weak and sick like predators are supposed to do.

Another tip for anyone trying something like this: small things matter. It's easier to kill one large predator than it is to stomp out a lot of small ones. Humans are good at strength in numbers; some researchers think we learned this from wolves. When the numbers are even, the fight is suddenly a lot more terrifying. It's even more threatening when humans are outnumbered. Cloverfield actually did this aspect really well; the parasites on Clover were small, yet vicious, and perhaps even more threatening than the giant monster in New York City. The raptors in Jurassic Park were another stunning example of big not always being better. This trailer uses baboons of some sort; IMO, not a smart move.

Also, for a post-human scenario to work, something had to evolve to cripple technology. Sensing electromagnetic waves on land might actually help species survive; you can avoid/detect humans easily now that everybody's carrying a Blackberry or iPhone. Just out of spite, someone should sic electricity-sensing rodents on Facebook HQ and see what happens. I doubt After Earth will consider this, though.

Once I looked it up? Oh, wow. This looks to be as bad as The Room if the sheer amount of personal investment Will Smith put into it and Shaymalan as director are any indication. Nice try, Hollywood. I'll wait for Rotten Tomatoes to deliver you justice.

Detail: Potential Bio-Art: After Earth.

0 Bio-Art: The Human Race Machine.

If somebody isn't white as bread, then it's usually easy to tell where somebody comes from based on things like skin color, eye color, facial shape, etc. I'm willing to bet that somewhere, in some bar, someone has asked, "hey, I wonder what I'd look like as a black person?" Well, wonder no more.

Enter the Human Race Machine by Nancy Burson. The tagline is "There's No Gene For Race," and indeed, there isn't. It was originally developed as a commission for London's Millennium Dome in 2000, but several copies have been made. They have since appeared on CNN, Oprah, and other major media outlets.

The Human Race Machine creates realistic images of how one would look if one was a different race. The machine has black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and Middle Eastern variations on your own face waiting to be produced. It's certainly a neat device, and should you find one in a museum near you, please try it out. It's not necessarily revolutionary software (similar "morphing" programs have been around for ages), but definitely a good use of computer graphics.



As her site puts it, "the concept of race is not genetic, but social."Indeed, the concept of race is not genetic, but the traits leading to race are. Things like hair, skin, and eye color can all be genetically mapped. The site details the discovery of exactly one gene that coded for the amount of expressed melanin in Homo sapiens. We are indeed 99.9% alike beneath the skin.

This is another one where I feel pressed to ask, "is this really bio-art?" Considering how many things I have considered bio-art on this column, it'll count, but the only real science to this one is that race does not have a single gene. Also, it feels more warm and fuzzy than most of the entries here. Still, if it's good enough for the course I took on bio-art, it'll cut it here.

Detail: Bio-Art: The Human Race Machine.

0 Bio-Art: Mendelian Video Games.

There is still a fair amount of debate over whether video games are a proper art form or not. A fair amount of gamers are in favor of comparing video games to high art like Picasso or Monet.

Here's my stance on it: Video and computer games are interactive art. That many people instead of one usually work on them is irrelevant; most would consider movies art, and a lot of people work on those, too. For video games, you have writers, composers, and several different sorts of graphic designers. It just so happens that certain forms of art happen to be crack, and addiction of almost any sort has some sort of consequence.

So, what if somebody made a bio-art video game?



One of the first forays into this area was made by a contest under the name of "Make Something Unreal Live." Unreal is a development engine for PC games, so the title is not quite as mystical as it first sounds. This contest is yearly and open to all college students studying game design in Europe.

This year's theme? Mendelian genetics. For those of you not familiar with the term, Mendelian genetics is the inheritable stuff we all know and love. Specifically, Gregor Mendel traced a simple recessive trait in pea plants while at a monastery. The tracking of dominant and recessive traits has been common in biology ever since. Your dog is your dog precisely because of Mendelian genetics. It's an awesome idea to base a game off of.

Here's what the winning designs were titled:  "Loch Ness," "Polymorph," "Mendel's Farm," and "Beings." Without knowing much more, these sound pretty promising. I'm sure "Mendel's Farm" is not as dry as it sounds if it can compete with Nessie. Technically, these are computer games, but that's splitting hairs. (I am prepared for the backlash from this statement.)  It's still quite an awesome way into science into a medium that some deem trash.

Detail: Bio-Art: Mendelian Video Games.

0 Bio-Art: Brainbow.

A good friend of mine once suggested that paleontologists were exercising an inborn urge to pose dinosaur skeletons. This was in response to a comment I had made about scientists just plain wanting to make things glow in the dark for fun. Nowhere is this more firmly visible than in the "brainbow." That is not a misspelling - it's exactly what it sounds like.

Source. 

That, friends, is a "brainbow." It is a photograph of the brain of a genetically-engineered mouse. The rodent houses several different GFP types in its DNA. No PhotoShop was used in his image; it really does look like something one could see in a museum of modern art.

CBS Labs went even farther than GloFish in terms of making a single organism have perfect camouflage for a rave party. Anything with a "brainbow" has each neuron color-coded with a different fluorescent protein, each of which is derived from GFP. The end result looks like something a stoner would see at Christmas.

There is indeed a method to this psychedelic madness. By color-coding each neuron, it is possible to trace individual neuron pathways. Who said art was useless? This is functional and fashionable. Whether it is properly art or not is another issue entirely.

So, the question is once again if this is really art. The brainbow at the very least looks awesome. It does not ask anything by itself. This is your brain; this is your brain on a trip. That the trip happens to look awesome is more of a side-effect than anything, although no doubt the idea arose because someone thought it would look pretty. Chicken or the egg? You decide. 

Detail: Bio-Art: Brainbow.

0 Bio-Art/Newsflash: The Repercussions of Bio-Art.

So, this column has been deprived of a Newsflash owing to events last week. We also need a bio-art thing for this week. Hey, let's kill two birds with one stone!

Conveniently, SymbioticA, who has done a lot of entries on this very column, has said a few things regarding the consequences of bio-art and what it represents. That includes its symbolism now and what it means for the future of art, science, and artsy science.  I will be annotating things throughout this article, sticking blurbs in and bolding certain points.

Let's reblog!

"The panelists focused heavily on the way we categorise forms of life that would not exist without human intervention. Phil Ross, a bio-artist in the San Francisco area, emphasised the importance of incorporating these new organisms into the taxonomy of the natural world. He touted the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Center for PostNatural History, which is dedicated to organisms intentionally altered by humans, as an institution attempting to tackle the profound difficulties associated with such classifications.

Catts took the point a step further, noting that our catalogue systems have transitioned from the taxidermy animals that fill natural history museums to DNA libraries, which supposedly capture the essence of the animal. But removed from context, he argued, the DNA means next to nothing. “It’s not just new life forms we can’t classify,” he said, “but a new approach to life we can’t come to terms with.”

(In English: With human-engineered species constantly breaking the laws established by natural species, they don't fit into the already-established boxes that science loves to use.) 

Engineered cell cultures were not the only life forms the panelists struggled to classify. It turns out that putting bio-artists in a category is a challenge in itself. Tami Spector, an organic chemist at the University of San Francisco, pointed out how competitive the scientific field often is, especially when it comes to being “scooped”. Could engaging with science in such an intimate way, using its materials and methods, encourage the same degree of competition in artists?

Ross thought so, and added that because of his facility with microscopy and other highly technical methods, he suddenly has a voice as valid as that of anyone else in the scientific process. “You can dabble at the edge of science and suddenly you’re a scientist,” he said. Yet not everyone agreed. Catts, for one, insisted that he would never call himself a scientist by virtue of his art.

All this overlap between the technical methods and emotional motivations of scientists and artists culminated in a profound question: in the world of bio-art, where does science end and art begin? 

Ross, along with artist and writer Meredith Tromble of the San Francisco Art Institute, emphasised the importance of context. Tromble described her recent experiences working with computer programmers, and how her unique demands of them sometimes cast their own problems in a fresh light. Ross related similar experiences, saying that artists have the essential freedom to do the wrong thing or raise the ignorant question. “This very dumb question often belies the truth of what we do or don’t know,” he said.

Catts, though, was eager to keep art in its own category. Though some of the projects the fellows at SymbioticA take on do yield information that interests research scientists, Catts estimates they make up only about 5 per cent of the projects. But even then, these “secondary outcomes” are measured by something other than artistic merit, and Catts is concerned that if artists and scientists start to emphasise data over artistic value, the data will become the focus, to the detriment of the art.
The only function he was willing to concede to his art is its ability to stir conversation about important issues surrounding how we define and behave towards life. Beyond that, Catts insisted that art is defined by its uselessness. “My role as an artist is to maintain this last bastion of futility,” he said." - Source.

We've noticed this disparity, too, not just with bio-art, but with art in general. Art is not a very useful skill - or so it seems. Companies use artists, after all; it's not entirely useless. So, where are we drawing the line between art and science? Aesthetics are a factor, but useless? Tell that to GloFish.

Detail: Bio-Art/Newsflash: The Repercussions of Bio-Art.

0 Bio-Art: Case Study- Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate.

You knew we would get to Monster Hunter at some point. It's not quite as scientific as most of the other bio-art entries, and such things might eventually merit a blog of their own, but a lot of the monsters in this game are exactly what this blog is trying to encourage: realistic, freaky creatures that make one realistically shit one's pants.  Really, it was inevitable; this blog has loads of amazing monster potential, and nothing has realistic monsters quite like the ones found in Monster Hunter.  (That said, all of the images here belong to Capcom et al., and are being utilized to review and advertise the game. Buy it. I did.)

For those of you unfamiliar with Monster Hunter, it is the child of Cabela's big game hunting simulators and Dungeons and Dragons. The jist is that you play a monster hunter, and are required to hunt monsters for fame, fortune, and resources. The more you hunt, the better you get, and the more things you unlock in-game. There's a plot, but most of your time is not spent getting intimate with it.

So, why is it being featured here? There are a few reasons. The first is, obviously, that we were blown away by how beautiful the art was in general. This is a gorgeous game that saps the power of one's 3DS like nothing else. It is also crack after a bit.

The second? So much effort went into these creatures that somebody, somewhere, did some serious research. Mating habits are detailed. These monsters have ecological niches to fill. They even death twitch after being killed. I actually see a lot of monsters sporting parts from animals found on this blog, so creature lovers, take note. Using real creatures as a basis works. These all look possible...for the most part.

That said, onto what we all came to see: MONSTERS!

First thing's first: There are a lot of dinosaurs in this game. They're usually referred to as wyverns, but "Call a Smeep a Rabbit" and all that. "Wyvern" seems to mean "anything big with scales" here; it may in part be a "lost in translation" deal, but yeah, dinos are dragons and dragons are dragons. The dino-dragon above is called a Jaggi, and sports traits of the Jurassic Park Diplocaulus (which in turn got its frill from the frilled dragon of Australia) and various small theropods, including raptors. Behaviorally, they act very canine, with Great Jaggi sounding like a wolf at one point.

The Jaggi is just one example. Another interesting not-dino, Aptonoth, looks like a mix between a Parasaurolophus, ankylosaurid,  and Chasmosaurus. It's a docile herbivore that doesn't attack you on sight, so take as many notes as you like. There is also one in the marina as a pet.

Arzuros is supposed to be a bear - sort of like Winnie the Pooh if he got hit by gamma radiation and ran out of honey. It also contains the distinct look of the ever popular honey badger, particularly in the golden fur.  If you know absolutely nothing about honey badgers, know that they don't give a darn about anything and eat cobras for fun. Throw in a tortoise and you get Arzuros. Why Transformers Beast Wars Fuzors never made this combination is beyond me; seems like something they might do.

Altaroth are almost direct imitations of honey pot ants. Not much more to say. Korea and Japan seem to love the creatures, though. Now you know what they're based off of - who says you can't learn stuff from video games?

Of course, we went ahead and did research beyond the first few quests. Meet Deviljho or "Evil Joe," one of the most terrifying bosses in the entire game. He looks like a tyrannosaurid mixed with Anhanguera. We'd like to think this guy's tail was inspired by Uromastyx, but geckos (like the leopard gecko) and gators are far more likely sources.

Design aside, Deviljho is...funny. He's supposed to be intimidating, but it's hard to make "it ate EVERYBODY" realistic. Humans aside, such a creature could not feasibly survive; the creators tried to combat this by making it nomadic, which is a decent way out that also adds randomness to Jho's appearance. Regardless of the occasional silliness, many of the MH3U designs are refreshingly realistic, intimidating, and very well-done.


 

Detail: Bio-Art: Case Study- Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate.

0 Bio-Art: THe Unfeathered Bird.

Last week, this column highlighted a relatively new book called The Unfeathered Bird. It is a brand shiny new publication by Katrina van Grouw. The cover features a "naked" peacock except for the tailfeathers, showing what to expect: a head-turning look at the inner structures that make birds tick.  This is indeed trying to sell the book, but we will be keeping this image-light so as to avoid legal shiznit. 

From the artist's site.

First off, apologies. Last week, we said that this book had all sorts of glorious bird insides for your brain to chew on. We were half-wrong about that. There aren't any guts. Muscles and bones are as squicky as things get. You never see anything that a taxidermist would not have to deal with. Actually, take that back- taxidermists have to deal with more disgusting things, like flesh-eating beetles. This book is pretty mild by comparison.

This book is a solid course in avian anatomy,  taxidermy-style. Did you know that all mammals have seven neck vertebrae? Did you know that all birds have more neck vertebrae, and that the rest of their spinal cords are pretty much rigid? Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. You can also see every one of those vertebrae in the artist's amazing renditions of bones, muscles, and feathers when necessary. The sketches are woven in with well-researched information to explain what you are seeing.

The best part is how it presents its information. We've said it before and will say it again: scientific literature is written so dryly that it sometimes hurts to read. Scientific documents tend to be loaded with jargon and spacing that really only makes sense if you have a degree in biology. This book does not hurt to read, and contains some well-done pictures to boot. The author has acknowledged the difficulty in reading scientific literature and made sure that her work was not like that. Major props.

Even when chock-full of astounding facts, this is an art book at heart. It's really here to show and explain the drawings. The drawings do merit explanation, especially since very few Americans could recognize the inside of a chicken, the most commonly-eaten bird in the world. Said drawings are so realistic that a splash of color would give one the illusion of touching actual bones and muscle. This is an art book well-worth your time.

It's really hard to go wrong with The Unfeathered Bird. You get what you pay for, and then some. Biology students, artists, and bird-lovers alike will find this book fascinating. Prepare to have your mind blown. "Possibly the best book inspired by a dead duck" indeed.

Detail: Bio-Art: THe Unfeathered Bird.