Talk:BioArt

It will take a few days to complete this article. I welcome authors and editors to work with me on this article. I am currently collecting information and will be updating this pay every few hours. Your contributions are welcome. Natasha Vita-More 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article has been wanting for inline citations for three years! I have a few books in front of me, but I look forward to many more print and peer-reviewed sources to make this a more complete and robust article. The lists at the end of the article may be less necessary once more citations are put up, and the artists and works are incorporated into the article itself. Infoeco (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put Andy Gracie back. He's an active BioArtist - currently running a workshop called Laboratory Life: http://www.artscatalyst.org/experiencelearning/detail/laboratory_life/ Although, that whole section could do with some re-arranging... what's the Wikipedia policy of listing a bunch of names? (FrauKramer (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Structure

1 Overview
2 Exposing artists to laboratories
3 Controversy
4 BioArt practitioners

The current article structure is a little flat. I propose the structure following this post. I'd also like to discuss the inclusion guidelines for having an artist named on the page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0 Lede
1 First use of term
2 History
3 Reception
  3.1 Critical reception
  3.2 Controversy
4 Notable practitioners
5 References

Removal of paragraph

I removed the paragraph below. Any discussion on that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Kac stated that this art medium fulfils a need to branch out of the bordering confines of what traditional art (such as painting, etc.) dictates. In Natasha Vita-More's Brave BioArt 2: Shredding the Bio, Amassing the Nano, and Cultivating Posthuman Life, artists thrive on challenges in learning how to master new tools. Vita-More also states that there exists a sense of detachment from the plastic arts and opted for the tools of computers and electronic media.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BioArt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDITS AND UPDATES ARE REQUESTED!

Bioart is a hot topic and a theme that curators, researchers, writers, and students seem to be currently researching.

This page is in desperate need of more updates and information. For those who have time to update this page, there is up to date and solid research in this book by Claudia Schnugg, [1] Creating artscience collaboration : bringing value to organizations. The author may be willing to provide a free copy to editors or she may be willing to contribute to this page directly, would an editor be open to reaching out to them? ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey 27 September 2022[reply]

CONTROVERSY section: For those interested on expanding on this section, this article has valuable information and further resources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791467/ ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable works or practitioners that should be added? Ideas:

Some of Ionat Zurr and Oron Catts early works?
https://guybenary.com/work/cellf/
https://www.daisyginsberg.com/about
Anna Dumitriu

what are your ideas? ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, this article has been a magnet for promotion/self-promotion, which is problematic per WP:PROMO of the policy WP:NOT. I think it is not a great idea to solicit a writer, seems like walking a fine line towards more WP:COI. I would be cautious about adding too many individual artists, per undue weight. Rather the article should focus on the genre itself. Whether or not BioArt is a "hot topic", the article should remain neutral, and stick to what the sources say to avoid WP:OR. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more exhibitions to be researched and considered, please add which if any are notable https://www.labiotech.eu/best-biotech/bioart-exhibitions/ ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What would make these shows notable, is not the labiotech.edu link - (that is a listicle based on press releases), but if any of the BioArt-dedicated exhibitions receive reviews - significant coverage of the bioart itself - in independent reliable sources such as art magazines or academic journals. For example, Ars Electronica may be much too vast an exhibition since their shows cover the whole of digital/electronic art. But if a review of a show in a reliable source (not a blog, or announcement or press release) had significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) dealing specifically with bioart, that content could be added to the article along with the citation. Some of the other shows listed seem more likely. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]