Comments on: My genes are prettier than yours.

My genes are prettier than yours.

ferociouskitty — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:52:10 -0800

Abstract art from DNA Scientific pretension meets artistic pretension and, um... beautiful things happen?

By: fenriq

fenriq — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:05:48 -0800

Couldn't this be called Extract Art as well? Its an interesting idea and site but I couldn't really see myself giving them $400 for a big copy of my DNA in a frame.

By: spacewaitress

spacewaitress — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:09:14 -0800

Ugh. Narcissism as home decor.

By: Decani

Decani — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:11:57 -0800

I think I'll just buy a bunch of Rothkos and stack 'em. Same effect, but less valuable than my DNA.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:12:09 -0800

It's not even a copy of your DNA, really. From the initial image of the (interminably loading) flash movie, it's evident all they've done is blow up an image of a "gel," which is a temporary apparatus for separating different sizes of cut up DNA in solution. Thousands and thousands of these gels and similar images are created every day in research labs, and the resulting image is only indirectly related to your DNA's sequence. And somehow, making a large image of your own DNA for sofa art seems incredibly narcissistic.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:12:30 -0800

spacewaitress: whoa.

By: PurplePorpoise

PurplePorpoise — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:37:26 -0800

Interesting idea, but it's just a little too kitschy for me - and it reeks of "oooh, lookit me, I've got science hanging in my living room" when it's just a friggin' gel. /I drew a happy face gel, once, with an outline surrounding the eys, nose, mouth, &c using different sized DNA fragments in different lanes

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:41:29 -0800

reality writes "...it's evident all they've done is blow up an image of a 'gel,' which is a temporary apparatus for separating different sizes of cut up DNA in solution. Thousands and thousands of these gels and similar images are created every day in research labs, and the resulting image is only indirectly related to your DNA's sequence." It looks like it might be RFLP data: a so-called genetic "fingerprint". So it is, in some sense, a unique genetic identifier. I object to the poster's characterization of this as "abstract". It's quite concrete, I think.

By: alicesshoe

alicesshoe — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:43:43 -0800

Now there's a conversation stopper. What's that? My DNA. oh. nice. A photo of appartments at night would be more interesting. Close up and a tad blurry, you understand. He!, at Christmas, with those balcony lights a twinkling.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:52:10 -0800

This is really bad.

By: ferociouskitty

ferociouskitty — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:40:47 -0800

mr_roboto: I object to the poster's characterization of this as "abstract". I was way copying their copy.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:09:40 -0800

Heh; I missed that. I guess I just scanned right over that "highlighted" chunk of text. Their copy has some readability issues....

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:14:19 -0800

I could do this in my lab. Simply take the negative from a gel and bring it to Wolf or something. I'll do it for only $300 ;-)

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:28:35 -0800

Isn't it just a Sanger sequence?

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:00:22 -0800

Man, I was hoping for some double helix action. This isn't just pretentious, it's boring to look at it. I wonder what the implications for this are in the world of crime-solving... "In light of that framed sample above your couch, we won't need your DNA." (Yeah, I watch WAY too much Law & Order)

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:03:47 -0800

At last the "spittin' image" makes sense

By: kafziel

kafziel — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:21:41 -0800

Convert an entire cell's DNA into one big string, listing the contents of chromosome #1, then #2, and so on down the list. There are, as I recall, 4 possibilities for each base, so every 12 bases would contain the color information for one pixel. Assemble into a bitmap image . THAT is how you make abstract art from DNA, and it'd probably be highly cool. Picture of a gel? That's just lame.

By: Eothele

Eothele — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:17:40 -0800

Musicians have fared a litttle better, you can actually hear the varying degrees of hydrophobicity! I'm not sure I actually like the music, but at least they're not just playing the notes A, G, C, and some substitute for T. More from a google search.

By: peacay

peacay — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:24:40 -0800

Yeah, I'd seen this and didn't think much of it aesthetically speaking. Much cooler is having an autorad of DNA you've grown/extracted/stained yourself.