Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The influence of genetics on contemporary art

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 3, pages 967–971 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

Contemporary visual artists are incorporating genetic concepts into their work, and this work has become prominently featured in numerous museum and gallery exhibitions. Such art uses visual images that represent the language of genomics, the values affected by genetic understanding of the body and the implications of bioengineering. Here, we present various examples of how artists depict aspects of genetics as cultural icons and symbols; in particular, their focus on DNA as information and on the commercialization of genetics research material.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Code Noah by Tony Cragg (1988).
Figure 2: Zoosemiotics: Primates, Frog, Gazelle, Fish [detail] by Suzanne Anker (1993).
Figure 3: Designer Gene by Dennis Ashbaugh (1992).
Figure 4: Portrait of Jeff Koons by Kevin Clarke (1993).
Figure 5: Ecce Homo by Bryan Crockett (2000).
Figure 6: Oz by Frank Moore (2000).

References

  1. Petheridge, D. & Jordanova, L. The Quick and the Dead: Artists and Anatomy (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anker, S. & Nelkin, D. The Molecular Gaze: Art in the Genetic Age (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, in the press).

  3. Nelkin, D. Molecular metaphors. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 555–559 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schroedinger, I. What is Life? (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1943).

  5. Doyle, R. On Beyond Living: Rhetorical Strategies in the Life Sciences (Stanford Univ. Press, Palo Alto, California, 1997).

  6. Gamow, G. Possible relations between deoxyribonucleic acid and protein structures. Nature 173, 317 (1954).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kay, L. The Molecular Vision of Life (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lumsen, C. J. The gene and the sign: giving structure to post-modernity. Semiotica 62, 191–206 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Merrell, F. Peirce: Signs and Meanings (Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Stafford, B. M. & Terpak, F. Devices of Wonder (The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Andrews, L. & Nelkin, D. Body Bazaar: The Market for Body Tissue in the Biotechnology Age (Crown Press, New York, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Synnott, A. The Body Social (Routledge, London, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Monbiot, G. A corporate great blob coalesces. Guardian (London), 20 January 2000.

  14. Miller, L. Catalogue from Art Gallery, Williams Center for the Arts, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, USA (2001).

  15. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P. 2d 479 (Cal 1990).

  16. Krimsky, S. Biotechnics and Society (Praeger, New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crockett, B. interviewed in Heiferman, M. & Kismaric, C. Paradise Now: Picturing the Genetic Revolution Catalogue for Exhibit (The Tang Teaching Museum and Art Gallery at Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York, 2001).

  18. Woodruff, T. interviewing Frank Moore The Scientific Odyssey of an Artist 6–7, 10 (Update, New York Academy of Sciences magazine, 2002).

  19. Kemp, M. DNA = ML × LdaV: thoughts on the Mona Lisa of modern science. Nature (in the press).

  20. Dery, M. The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium (Grove Press, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to F. Gillette for his astute and critical reading, and to the artists and galleries who have provided visual materials.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, New York University, Room 440, 269 Mercer Street, New York, 10003, New York, USA

    Dorothy Nelkin

  2. Art History Department of the School of Visual Arts, 209 East 23rd Street, New York, 10010, New York, USA

    Suzanne Anker

Authors
  1. Dorothy Nelkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne Anker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

American Museum of Natural History

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

Geneculture

Lehmann Maupin Gallery

Marion Goodman Gallery

Mendel Museum of Genetics

National Portrait Gallery, London

Sperone Westwater

The Wellcome Trust

The Wellcome Trust Sanger Centre

Universal Concepts Unlimited, New York City

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelkin, D., Anker, S. The influence of genetics on contemporary art. Nat Rev Genet 3, 967–971 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg950

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg950

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing