Happy Easter!
March 30, 2002 10:17 PM   Subscribe

Happy Easter! "Bio artist"/eccentric intellectual Eduardo Kac has made a bunny that -- literally -- glows in the dark.
posted by milkman (21 comments total)
This link is better. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:22 PM on March 30, 2002

Yikes! That was the scariest rabbit I've seen since...well, this.
posted by jonmc at 10:24 PM on March 30, 2002

whoops. sorry. and thanks, miguel.
posted by milkman at 10:26 PM on March 30, 2002

Yeah, it's pretty old, but just for the sake of cross-referencing...here's the previous post.
posted by Su at 10:37 PM on March 30, 2002

zoiks. what can i do? i figured somebody had to have posted about this, but i searched the link. i searched 'aldo' i searched 'eduardo kac'...isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on double posts?
posted by milkman at 10:40 PM on March 30, 2002

Oh, God, don't mention statutes of limitations.
posted by yhbc at 10:43 PM on March 30, 2002

well it was new to me so thanks milkman
posted by Tarrama at 11:31 PM on March 30, 2002

I think this is more of an inadvertent follow-up than a double post. The old post was a link to a sort of human-interest article, with a lot of quotes from scientists calling the mutation a waste of time, frivolous, etc. But milkman links to an elaborate essay by the glowing-rabbit creator himself, justifying (or attempting to justify) at great length, why what he did was profound. Besides, we now see that he still hasn't succeeded in taking her home with him, and there's a petition etc.

My question is, what if she breeds with a regular rabbit? Or even another glowing rabbit? Could these rabbits end up all over the world? Actually I think that would be kind of funny.
posted by bingo at 11:33 PM on March 30, 2002

Wow is that guy a wind bag. I've never seen anyone dress up a thought as stoner-simple as "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if we had a rabbit that glowed" in as much pseudo-intellectual crap.

I prefer my rabbits in the natural coats, like my own (er, self link I guess, taken today).
posted by malphigian at 11:47 PM on March 30, 2002

It is peudo-intellectual, but then, the guy made a glowing rabbit. On top of that, his peers seemed to think it was more annoying than interesting, so he's put in the awkward position of a scientist having to defend what he does in a non-scientific context. It reminds me of that West Wing not too long ago, when a physicist tries unsuccessfuly to explain to Rob Lowe why billions of dollars should be spent building a superconducting supercollider; it's going to prove or disprove something important, but why it's important is still too abstract to explain to the non-physicist.

p.s. if bunnyfire doesn't comment on this thread, I think a rift will open up in space-time.
posted by bingo at 12:01 AM on March 31, 2002

why would GFP be expressed as part of the rabbits hair? seems fishy. (just the pic i mean, i don't doubt some bored guy put it in a rabbit)
posted by rhyax at 12:08 AM on March 31, 2002

i actually had the privilege to see kac speak -- at berkeley -- and though his presentation was fairly well-rounded among the projects he has accomplished, most people were interested in, well, shouting him down about the bunny. whether or not you agree with genetic modification (and after much consideration, i think of the GFP bunny project as rather underwhelming -- or at least incomplete) the most interesting factor is whether the bunny actually exists or not. the most enjoyable (arguably) case would be of kac creating the idea of the bunny, and generating (more than enough) uproar and publicity without the project ever taking place.

that said, kac's other works are far more interesting, though less controversial, and the fact that he has gained publicity as an artist mostly through the gfp bunny leaves a rather sour taste in my mouth. however, if he's pulling a massive andy kaufman -- which could still be the case, because assumedly, alba (the gfp bunny) does exist and has not left the french facility she's been created in -- well, hats off to him, as he's pulled a massive hoax, which i don't know to be such an easy feat anymore.

meanwhile, i've written plenty (at least two, er.) letters about the viability of such a project and why it could be interesting, and i'm rather pleasantly surprised at the lack of knee-jerk reactions within the metafilter community that were (loudly) vocalized at the lecture he gave at uc berkeley.

to elaborate, i suppose, the project would be more interesting if there was a reason to create a fluorescent bunny, rather than the technological possibly. new media art has become a realm where things that *can* be done *should* be done, whether or not they make an interesting piece.
posted by fishfucker at 12:45 AM on March 31, 2002

How long do rabbits live, anyway? And how old was it when the first link was made vs. now? Is this hypothetical rabbit getting old?
posted by bingo at 2:30 AM on March 31, 2002

I still think this is the ultimate rabbit site.
Anyone who's taken a photo of their pet bunny with a fish cake on its head was surely born to have a Web site.
posted by malevolent at 3:18 AM on March 31, 2002

Well, in the interests of preserving the spacetime continuum.....

By the way, I just bit the ears off my chocolate bunny.

I think they are wasting their time creating glow-in-the-dark rabbits. They should instead concentrate on figuring out why the quality of chocolate in the construction of chocolate Easter bunnies is so awful.

posted by bunnyfire at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2002

Why is there only one photo in existence? All links seem to be that same photo by"Chrystelle Fontaine" which is clumsily clipped and looks photoshopped to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
posted by jeremias at 7:06 AM on March 31, 2002

Bingo: he isn't a scientist, he's an artist. Also, FYI, a rabbit that is treated right lives anywhere from 6-10 years.

"Generating uproar" is silly, this is more "shock art", and even more dull because the debate was already happening. This is an artist attempt to insert himself into that debate, and generate some publicity for himself. At least that last bit worked for him I guess.

I'm perfectly willing to believe his other works are great, but this one isn't, and his explanation is embarrasing (come to think of it, most artists do pretty bad explanations of their work).
posted by malphigian at 7:38 AM on March 31, 2002

The spread of glowing bunnies in the wild could cut down on the number of road-kill rabbits, if you really wanted to reach of a practical use. Although I'm uncomfortable with modifying a live animal for the sake of art. I mean, I could shave a spot on the top of my cat's head and superglue a little sombrero on her and call her art, but it would be a pretty mean thing to do, you know?

malphigian, that's a cute rabbit you've got there.
posted by jennyb at 7:50 AM on March 31, 2002

The spread of glowing bunnies in the wild could cut down on the number of road-kill rabbits

Glowing rabbits would never survive in the wild; they're too easy for nocturnal predators to see.
posted by kindall at 10:44 AM on March 31, 2002

Alba is not a glow in the dark bunny, folks.
She's a glows-in-a-particular-kind-of-light bunny. Re-read the articles.
posted by Su at 11:17 AM on March 31, 2002

Su: Yah, a black light no less, you could achieve the same effect by covering a rabbit in quinine... do the same thing, AND the rabbit would smell like a gin and tonic!
posted by malphigian at 5:56 PM on March 31, 2002

« Older Are You Ready For April Fool's Day?   |   The Law of the Mental Mirror Image. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments