Criticism of Genetic Revolution and Biocapitalist Approach

Criticism of Genetic Revolution and Biocapitalist Approach*

In its shortest definition, genetics is the branch of biology, which studies the laws of inheritance. In the first stage of genetics, the science of inheritance not of reproduction, the laws that statistically governed the hereditary transmission of the most dominant individual characteristics were researched (Mendel`s laws). In the second stage, material foundations of hereditary qualities were sought and found. In the third stage, the focus was on chromosome defects, or mutations, both for medical purposes (early diagnosis and treatment of chromosome defects in the newborn or embryo) and for providing a rational explanation to evolutionary change, without resorting to the idea of a superior creator.

In the last fifty years, the solving of the genetic code marked the zenith of all these developments and enabled man to reconstruct the world order. Announcement on June 26, 2000 that “Human Genome Project,” conducted in the USA under the leadership of Clinton and Blair, had been completed, was considered as an important step in the whole world and made the beginning of the age of biotechnology official. As it is understood, biotechnology has the power of rebuilding ourselves, our institutions, and our world. When we look at the history of art, we see that political, social, and technological changes have affected art and directed artists towards new interpretations. With a power of reconstructing the world we live in, developments in the science of genetics have led to new works as sensational as the works created by science.

Alternative materials, work environments, and exhibition opportunities provided by genetics to artists marked almost a new turning point in the history of art. What do these spectacular developments accomplished in 2000 promise or what do they threaten? This is the first question to be answered in order to substantiate the claim that these art works do mark a turning point. “Technically,” computers lie at the foundation of biotechnology; and as such, computers are called means of production by some.

Evidently, what has triggered the oft repeated phrase “genetic revolution” in genetics is the computer. Computers and certainly internet, the part and parcel of computers, are gradually put into more use in decoding, managing, and organizing the genetic code. This union between genetics and computers is defined as the dawn of a new age by Jeremy Rifkin , an eminent name in biotechnology. This is the age of Biotechnology, and capitalism, identified by Marx, has naturally adapted itself to this new age and undergone a transformation as biocapitalism. In biotechnology, microbes and cells refer to factories whereas enzymes correspond to workers. Out of these, food, fuel, medicine and all sorts of daily needs are produced, reaching a market value of millions of dollars. Right at this point, the term biocapitalism steps in. Whose surplus value is appropriated or whose fate is sealed: that of enzymes, or microbes? In fact, the answer is clear: human beings determine their own fate again. How does this happen? Biotechnological century offers mankind a land of plenty, made up of genetically designed plants and animals.

Energy and fiber resources, genetically derived for creating a “renewable” society and presenting to the market, promise wonder drugs and cures for healthier babies, elimination of human pains, elongation of human life. All these, point at the genetic trade, end of nature with the cloning of animals, birth of bioindustry. These developments reduce the world’s gene pool to a patented intellectual property controlled by biological institutions. What will be the consequences of these developments for the global economy and the society? It will mean living in a world where babies are genetically planned and ordered to the womb, and human beings gradually becoming identical in a world where one gets gradually more alienated from his inherited gene data.

Herbert Marcuse

What are the risks taken in designing the “perfect” human being? The greatest risk is certainly the emergence of a new caste system. Its historical roots extending far back in time, such a caste system has gained currency with these developments, and interestingly, the idea is approved by some intellectuals. With his notion of superman, Peter Sloterdijk is the most sensational name in this area. For Sloterdijk, problem could have been solved by “principle of selection” instead of “social domestication.” That is, it is more profitable to eliminate a physically or mentally disabled person in the first place and create the perfect man instead of rehabilitating them. American philosopher Francis Fukuyama’s argument that “it is not easy to reject the possibility of creating less aggressive people” supported Sloterdijk’s views in an oblique way and fuelled the debate. French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard, on the other hand, says the following on perfect creation, and superior race with reference to cloning:

“. . .it has long been questioned which body is to be resurrected, the body in its prime, a blossoming and beautiful body, or an old and sick body? Neither a drooling sheep nor an African with AIDS will ever be cloned. Thus the attempt will meet the other phantasm that underlies each genetic undertaking. That is the phantasm of finding the formula for reproducing the species. This ideal and perfection will cause a merciless selection, based on the espoused formulae of race, health, and intelligence.”

Baudrillard reaches at the concept of eugenics as the final destination of developments in genetics and illustrates the dangers in this with reference to examples about cloning. Doing away with the concept of singularity and underlining that what is not singular is inferior, Baudrillard argues that the possibilities like the creation of a superior race and cloning them would end in the destruction of the original, as in the movie Jurassic Park. Such stories are abundant in Hollywood and interestingly all of them have become true. “Dr. Moreau’s Island” by H.G. Wells (1896) and its film version in 1996, starring Marlon Brando and Val Kimmer, dealt with the potential problems of genetic experiments and caused public debates. In 1972, American writer Ira Lewin’s novel “Stepford Wives” told the tragic end of the genetic engineer who created the “perfect woman.” First shot in 1975, the film was re-made in 2004 in the midst of debates caused by developments in genetics and became popular again. The movie “Island,” appeared in 2005, was again on cloning. 19th century phantasms having become true in our day, unfortunately, the danger has not been grasped by the public yet.

There is even a chasm between technical and public opinions. In the United States, where there are 1300 biotechnology companies with annual profits of 13 billion dollars, the people are less concerned with the problem than Europeans, and they choose not to look a gift horse in the mouth! On the other hand, thinking of the potential damage to economy, Europeans show a more wary attitude by passing laws and regulations. Muslim countries watch the developments from further distance and discuss only the side points of the issue. In the Unites States, a group of artists, historians, bioethicists, and museum experts came together in 2000 and founded the group called Genesis in order to raise public awareness. The group soon spread to Europe.

A few years later than the United States and with the participation of some artists from Turkey as well, this art movement has become a worldwide activity. Although the movement has lost some of its early vigor and public appeal, artists have carried on individually. Triggering scientific and philosophical debates and becoming the center of attention, the art work entitled “GFB Bunny” has added a new way of seeing to the repertoire of art history readings. First designed as an artwork, genetic mammal “GFB Bunny,” or Alba, was created by Chicago artist Eduardo Kac in France in cooperation with biologists at National Institute of Agronomic Research (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique). Kac created a new species, by injecting a gene called GFB (Green Fluorescent Protein) into the fertilization channel of a pink-eyed albino bunny. The method in question has been used in labs since the 1970s. But, for the first time, a laboratory was used as an atelier and a live being was exhibited at the museum as an art work. Thus, the said “work of art” marks the beginning of debates raised by genetic art. With this incident, the chasm between art and science, and expression and biologic form has collapsed and therefore art has been updated. Working on multiplying genes, cells and other biological materials, like a sculptor working on bronze, Kac has taken the species to his home in Chicago and tried to adapt the fluorescent green bunny to life. On the other hand, French and German press and media found the case unethical, and some journalists seized Alba through artistic censor and presented Alba as a decadent art work.

In fact, this sort of reaction has been frequent in the history of art, and the despised work of art or the scorned artist has always been victorious in the end. Press explained to the public how the bunny was able to shine and came up against the incident by asking questions such as the following: what is the meaning of changing the course of millions of years of natural evolutionary process? What is the meaning of creating a green fluorescent bunny for the society? Actually, this was the stir that Kac aimed to cause and he was successful in raising it with the said press reaction. The idea that art was both life itself and reflected life like a mirror was replaced by the idea that art held a mirror to biological developments. Kac’s wish to introduce Alba into society was a sign of this change in understanding. For Kac, Alba as a work of art attests to the fact that genetic engineering is in fact a part of our daily lives. Alba ate, slept and interacted with people just like any other bunny.

Everything about it was normal. What was abnormal was the cloning of humans with no heads, genetic modification of the contents of the sixty percent of instant foods consumed by Americans for commercial concerns, and the tragic stories caused by DNA proprietorship, all for the sake of genetic research. Kac thinks that he raised the public awareness with the stir he caused, and planned to continue his work after his creation of Alba in 2000. And this is what he did. With his work called “The Eight Day” done after Alba, he continued the said cloning method by applying it on mice, jellyfish, and amoebae (an aquatic organism). Kac has steadily pursued the matter, and with this insistence, he remained on the agenda. American media and fluxus artist Larry Miller is another name who has become butt of criticism with his sensational works in genetic art. Since 1989, Miller has been working on science, art, DNA proprietorship through genetic design and its ethical dimension.

For commercial concerns, many companies have patented over 100.000 genes and gene parts. In his book Genetic Code Copyright, Miller criticizes this act of patenting by arguing that “I’m the legal owner of a single genetic code until eternity, although it has been scientifically determined, defined or experimentally shown.” In a terrifying incident in the United States, two researchers at California University patented two patients’ cells and sold them without their knowledge and consent. In a lawsuit, the court ruled that the patient named John Moore had no corporeal rights on his body cells. The court’s decision along with the public opinion shows that the public is the decision maker about how technology and art should be. These incidents had a decisive impact of Larry Miller`s work. Building up on Genetic Code Copyright (1989), Miller produced an important document entitled “Genomic License No 7,” which ensures someone the right of copying his own genome. For Creative Time, Miller returned to the idea of DNA proprietorship and left big fingerprints on paper cups. These cups remind us the fact that we leave traces of our genetic signs everywhere and warn the public to be careful and claim the right to our genes by means of Miller’s genetic code copyright.

Such challenging works certainly cannot be limited with two names. Daniel Lee, Roz Chast, Maria Kalman, Carry Leibowitz, Larry Miller, Tom Tomorrow, Jill Reynolds, Bill Scanga, Susan Robb, Joan Fontcuberta, Inıgo Manglano-Ovalle, Margi Geerlinks, Paul Vanouse, Gregor Mobius, Orit Raff, Catherine Chalmer are other names associated with the group Genesis. Works by these names are as challenging and consciousness raising as others, and these works build upon the concepts of mutual action, togetherness, and relationality, all suggested by Nicolas Bourriaud`s relational aesthetics. Distributed at cafes in the US, paper cups with ironic expressions about genetic developments on them are the works that exemplify Althusser`s idea of artists catching up with the world in motion and the works that combine the daily and the universal. Felix Guattari`s comment that “ aesthetics, first of all, should accompany the social changes and transform them” attests to the fact that genetic art both as artistic expression and conceptual underwork exists with its problems, questions and new terminological contributions. In some sense, genetic art is like an upper model of the participatory art of the 1990s. That is to say, a further step is taken by incorporating science into the process, and “participation” is realized both during the creation (work of the biologists) and during the exhibition (viewer’s relation to the work). It can be said that artistically-intended genetic works enable such active participation because of the shocking effects on the public of the developments like creation and cloning of Dolly and then drawing of the genetic map of human body. Because the one who creates and changes something is the human being in this case, and what he changes is his own nature. What he does, he can do and will do, become clearer for the viewer.

This clarity actually leads to many problems, because the developments in question are considered as hopeful by some, but there are also resisting opponents. Particularly the Vatican`s negative reaction on the grounds that God’s order is challenged is important. It should also be noted that, in Turkey, the Presidency of Religious Affairs gave a fatwa in support of such researches. This shows that there are differences between societies in terms of their perception of the subject. For, what is changed here is not only nature, but also the natures of human beings, animals, and plants. This deconstructs the idea of God as the creator. Christian belief also suffers a blow along with the notion of holy family. In this case, the individual has the power to create a family for himself whenever or however he wishes. Furthermore, what is created is a species with no past, and this changes the concepts of time and history as well, a view also supported in Baudrillard`s works.

As it can be seen, human being deconstructs himself as well and creates a dual concept in itself. First, he destroys the superior unity obtained by the act of creation; secondly, he destroys the superior unity by changing his nature. Of course, the only damage is not to the said balances in life. The way of seeing that existed all the way from Leonardo to Duchamp has also changed. Object of art, artistic act, and artist have assumed a new identity and the habitual values have been replaced with the new ones.
In short, the biotechnological century will continue to shock the people, by pulling down the traditions just as science does.

• Sevil Dolmacı
Member of Faculty of Fine Arts, Design and Architecture
Baskent University

Learn More

Art Citizens And The Dutch

Art Citizens refers to a specific genre of painting. It denotes and encompasses the painting of inanimate and stationary subject matter be natural, like flowers, fruits, rocks or artificial, like flower vase, wall, food items, books, glasses etc. One thing which Art Citizens offers more than other genres is total control. The artist can control and tweak various aspects like the subject itself, lighting and the context.
The English term Art Citizens is derived from the Dutch word stilleven such was the Dutch influence. Many a times, as in most cases of early 16th century Dutch artists, still life paintings are highly allegorical and symbolic in nature. Early Dutch painters experimented and implemented this allegory and symbolization in their earliest of works. They used skulls, candles, decaying fruits and hourglasses as an allegory for mortality. Fresh blooming vivid flowers and seasonal fruits denoted different cycles of nature.
In the early 16th and 17th century the Dutch were a prospering nation. Their trades ensured an abundance of wealth. Their life was full of gratification of earthly and materialistic pleasures. Art Citizens, in its own way, somehow allowed them to depict the luxury of the Dutch society by high and vividly textured flowers, wine glasses, jewellery, related to the Vanitas still life, which also includes symbols in the painting that remind the viewer of earthly pleasures and material goods – such as musical instruments, wine, and books. The Dutch productions of still lifes were numerous, which they exported and popularized throughout Europe.
Most famous examples of still life painting by Dutch artists includes A Vanitas Still Life (1645) by Pieter Claesz;Drinking Horn and Glasses (c.1653) by Willem Kalf;Breakfast of Crab (1648, Hermitage, St. Petersburg) by Willem Claesz Heda; Still Life with Lobster, The Slippers (1654) by Samuel Hoogstraten; The Still Life of Fruit (c.1670) by Jan Davidsz de Heem; The Vanities of Human Life (1645) by Harmen Steenwyck; Flowers and Insects (1711) by Rachel Ruysch.

Learn More

The Bus Project

In the big city we are often physically close to other people. This doesn’t necessarily mean that meaningful interactions or encounters take place. Does the city consist of people who are alone together?

Buses are an example of public transportation that constitute a space where people have to be close to each other. Despite this we manage to create our own private space. This space is not physical but rather achieved by small means. We can opt out of our sometimes loud surroundings, by for example listening to music. The act of listening to music with your headphones on conveys to co-passengers that you don’t wish to be disturbed. We are all physically in one place, but where are we in our minds?

With this project we want to explore private space in public place and look at how people opt in and opt out between the two spheres. Normally we can’t figure out what the person next to us is thinking. With this suggested installation we want to provide the possibility for viewers to enter the public space of a bus and the private space of the individual passenger’s mind.

The exhibition space will mimic the inside of a bus and the viewer can opt in by entering this space. The installation will include life-size photography, audio, video and sculptural elements. LCD-monitors will be put in place as the heads of passengers on the bus. Next to the screens, headphones will hang for the viewer to listen in on the dıfferent individual’s private thoughts or what kind of music they listen to. The incorporation of real materials that overlap the photographic equivalent, such as the mentioned headphones and bags for example, will enable the viewer to “snoop around” in people’s private spheres.

The artwork wishes to enable the audience to reflect over what is going on in their own minds. Where are they while being on the bus? How many are living in the present moment?

Learn More

Art and Design Practices in reference to City and Art

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Key Portilla-Kawamura and together with my partner sitting on my left, Ali Ganjavian, we formed the architecture and design studio kawamura-ganjavian based in Madrid. And farther to my left is Luis Urculo, another architect and designer from Madrid. We’ve come here to Istanbul together with our students, seventeen of them, they are in the public, from the Istituto Europeo di Design. Firstly, thanks a lot Mr. Görgün for your invitation. It’s a pleasure to be in Istanbul to participate in this forum and especially to participate in this discussion panel on the topic of art and design and the city. Public art is a topic that is very dear to us. Maybe before we start showing briefly our work we’d like to very quickly state in very simplified terms the position we, kawamura-ganjavian take as regards this discourse on public art which as we know is a very discussed topic.
We believe public art is not the art that is simply placed on the streets or in a park or in a plaza in a very passive way. That’s simply art that is placed in the street. We believe public art is the operative art that generates public space or that puts public space into performance, into like a test. In this sense we could say it’s the art that creates space of negotiation or a space where public expression can take place. This in a nutshell we’ll show you two projects; one of them in London and the other one in Madrid, both cities where our practice has been based, currently as we said in Madrid.
Ali Ganjavian- Key and I met in London almost eleven years ago now and we joined for common interests. The city is a fascinating place and it’s an inspiring one too. We’re based in the east of London where we’re currently studying. We found this incredible phenomenon which is the empty space: the empty space in the city and what the empty space generates. So what we started to do is to map these empty spaces and trying to understand how the empty spaces influence a city and generate a new one. Initially we really didn’t know why we were mapping empty spaces. We needed to identify where the empty spaces were and understand the patterns. So we talked to several agents, we talked to a postman, to squatters, to fruit sellers, to our friends, to messengers to start helping us identify empty spaces in cities. We got in touch with many bloggers, many squatters’ websites to really identify why and how these spaces were transforming the city. So we started generating a map of the city to identify where these empty spaces were and how these empty spaces were creating bubbles of activity or non-activity in many cases and try to identify how we as designers, as architects could intervene in these spaces to create public space.

So one day we started to identify and started to map these relationships between these empty spaces and understood how these empty spaces were transforming and actually moving. So we created a project called Space Search Engine which actually created a corporate entity. We pretended we were an official company who was looking for spaces to transform the city to create new nucleuses and establish new relationships between different disciplines, to start establishing new relationships between different sectors and actually provoke new situations in these spaces. Obviously this was a utopia because we weren’t a company and we couldn’t create the scandal although we became agents ourselves by creating a link between the agents and the clients. So we took one step further and we said we really need to do something and we really need to intervene in a city to create a new space in the city for the people in this real state, in this real form.

So we created this project which took over and communicated what Space Search Engine was. It was a mechanism to create a project in a very simple way; a project we call 30 Minutes Museum. The idea behind Space Search Engine and 30 Minutes Museum was to generate a relationship between a public space and the inhabitants of the city by creating one action which lasted 30 minutes through the city, through certain voids of the city that we had found basically interesting and inviting communities’ local people to participate in this event. This museum took 30 minutes and with the help of Luis Gallo, a performance artist and a dancer, we transformed the city for those 30 minutes and encouraged people, the local community to take part. What was very interesting was that as the trip went along and as our journey through this part of the city evolved, more and more people would join this route, carry on discovering that certain parts of the city which have been completely empty, derelict, decayed has only transformed for a few minutes hence creating a new experience, a new sensation and a new relationship with the city.

Key Portilla-Kawamura- The streets of this part of London which is quite a derelict part suddenly became the corridors of museum. This abandoned part and abandoned site became galleries of performance, museums, the kids who were playing football and don’t have much access to culture suddenly became involved in a museum without even paying for a ticket. The strangest thing about this museum is that at the end of the tour you could not really get the postcard of the museum. There was no icon, there was no logo. The tour finished on River Thames in this abandoned pier into the river with a little party. We really left no trace in the city, no physical trace. We believe that the people who accidentally participated in this museum now have a very different understanding of all these empty pockets dispersed in their neighbourhood.
Next project we’ll show you is located in Madrid. Madrid is a city, a metropolis of about five million people that has changed quite radically in the last ten years. Spain as a country no longer exports migrants but imports migrants if I may use this expression. This community in Madrid forms half a million people of mainly Latin American origin and has pushed the urban culture incredibly. There’s a very new energy in the last ten years thanks to these emerging communities. Very often they don’t have centres where they can gather, cater for their needs in very sophisticated ways at all. But it’s more spontaneous actions and places that actually helped their social network to be established, mainly these Locutorios, these public call centres from which they call their countries, where they go and look for jobs, where they exchange information, where they can make money transfers to their families back in Latin America.

So they are extremely interesting places where this new social composition of the city of Madrid is expressed. There is thousands of these call centres but they are mainly located in the periphery of the city which is where this population mainly lives. So the city centre doesn’t really experience or witness this cultural and social richness of the periphery.
Ali Ganjavian – What we found particularly interesting about the call centres is that there’s suddenly in the city of Madrid thousands of emotional spaces that have appeared. When we talk about emotional spaces, we talk about places like airports’ arrival halls, departure halls, hospitals. Locutorios are extremely emotional places because they are points of connection with people who migrated to a new country to work and to earn money. It’s the point where they relate back home. They talk to their children, to their wives and they are highly dense in the emotional sense. What we found particularly interesting was how this phenomenon, how this emotional context could be generated in the public space. So what we did was identify the relation that currently the city of Madrid has to Latin America and we try to create a new pocket.

Key Portilla-Kawamura- The project is located in Plaza de Colon which is Columbus Plaza. It’s a huge space in the middle of the city in one of the poshest neighbourhoods. What called our attention was the name Columbus; Columbus was the first communicator with America. In Spain you learn that he was the person that conquered America. What we wanted to do is not conquer but communicate in the inverse sense. So the idea of Locutorio Colon that can be expressed in very simple terms was the placement of a call centre in Plaza de Colon during the length of a month to call Latin America for free. We were not so much interested in the call centre itself but more in the collateral effects on all the things that we had to do prior to its installation; to spread the word of its existence, disperse in the news, using existing networks, appropriating radio stations that the local Latin American community have in Madrid, distributing flyers…

Ali Ganjavian- And then came the Locutorio as this rumour spread through the city. We generated this space and this space was, as Key said, a free call centre which was something quite radical because most people didn’t believe it. You can go there and you call free, “With what intention?” everyone asked. So we generated a space where it was open from nine o’clock to twelve o’clock everyday for the period of a month, where 4600 phone calls took place, thanks to the help of Telefonica which is the biggest telephone company in Spain. We have exceeded our budget by double but they were quite happy to keep contributing to this. What was quite interesting about Locutorio, as Key mentioned, it wasn’t necessarily about saying “Hey, that’s public art”, “Hey there you go, violà, it’s beautiful”. No, it’s about generating this rumour.

What we were interested in was how to map this rumour. So when people came to Locutorio we asked them five questions: Where are you from? Where have you come from in Madrid? Who you’re calling? Where did you hear about the Locutorio? And how did you hear about the existence of Locutorio? It was quite amazing because when we started mapping this information three agents who were there gave us information such as “I’m from Cuba, I’m calling Cuba, I live in Madrid, my mother told me to come here to call her”. And suddenly that would be like “Okay, so your mother told you to come here to call? You’re calling your mother, you’re from Cuba and you come from this place in Madrid. How’s that possible?” “Actually last night when I was talking to my mom, her best friend has told her there’s a free call centre at the centre of Madrid where I can go and call her for free.” So that’s where the project really comes to birth, where you start creating this rumour that travels across the world over night and arrives to someone in Madrid, and “I’ve come to call”, generating once again this intention that we had of creating an emotional space in the centre of the city.

This is one night of a Locutorio.
Key Portilla-Kawamura- As early mentioned, before we carried on this survey where people were telling us how they have heard about the existence of this project, we realized that in the most cases people have passed walking in front of it and discovered it that way. Also 30% of the people have heard through word of mouth, hearing from other people. We realised our campaigns had actually failed. These flyers, these radio station news, those all have failed. We also asked them where they were coming from, most of them, 90% were coming from the periphery of Madrid. So in this sense we succeeded. The project had succeeded in bringing this social richness from the periphery of the metropolis to the very heart of the city, a bit linking to what Andreas was mentioning before, we created this micro heterotopia bringing the outside to the centre, making something more evident. At the moment we are negotiating again with Telefonica, the company that sponsored this project to invert the sense of the communication and to bring the project over to Latin America, to different countries where obviously many families have relatives in Spain.

Learn More


Renaissance, a one of the most important and frequently uttered word regarding the history of arts and the development of arts which hugely influenced and arguably shaped the modern art scene as we know it. Seldom in history of human civilization, comes a point which bridges two eras and inspires and instigate a torrent of creativity and individualism in art. From early 14th century to the 1600s, Europe witnessed an astonishing revival of painting, sculpture and architecture centered on Italy. This was the period where legendary paintings were made, which continues to inspire us at whose brilliance we still fondly marvel. This was Renaissance.

When Renaissance was at its inception, Italy was surrounded by the remnants of once great and glorious empire. Art and crafts, mostly painting, were heavy influenced and authorized by the church. They were mainly of the religious and spiritual type. Humanism and realism were mostly absent. Renaissance revived just that. Realism was brought back in the art scenario, and inspired masters of painting innovated new themes and techniques. Commissioned by, not the Church, but families made wealthy by prospering trade relations throughout Europe and orient, artists enjoyed much flexibility to induce classicism and physical realism in their respective art. Not only God but man and his different facets of daily life, his struggle with spirituality along with his involvement and dependency on nature was the subject of paintings inspired by early Greek and Roman art.

Different characteristics of renaissance arts are:
Secularism: Less religious and more physical realism

Classicism: High influence of classical Greek and Roman arts

Nature: Nature and its effect on man was depicted more vividly

Anatomy: Precise human anatomical correctness was maintained

Linear perspective: the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer allowing more physical realism and accuracy

Symmetry: Balanced proportions for classicism and realism.

Fore shadowing and lighting: Innovative shadowing and lighting was implemented to draw the viewer’s eye to a particular point in the painting.

Learn More

Website supported by: Design Files Art and Home Designs QLD.