×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ear Grown From Van Gogh DNA On Display

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the great-things-are-not-done-by-impulse-but-by-a-series-of-small-things-printed-together dept.

Biotech 64

First time accepted submitter afeeney (719690) writes 'The Centre for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany, is displaying an ear grown from DNA contributed by a relative of artist Vincent Van Gogh. The Center said artist Diemut Strebe made the replica using living cells from Lieuwe van Gogh, the great-great-grandson of Vincent’s brother Theo. Using a 3D-printer, the cells were shaped to resemble the ear that Vincent van Gogh is said to have cut off during a psychotic episode in 1888. “I use science basically like a type of brush, like Vincent used paint,” Strebe told The Associated Press. Historians argue about whether Van Gogh cut off his own ear and if so, why, but it remains one of the most famous acts of self-mutilation in the Western world.'

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Van Gogh (-1, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 6 months ago | (#47169133)

Van Gogh had toads in his hat, that is why he went mad! Also a lot of Slashdort posters have toads in their hats, but unlike Vinny, they are not geniuses. The bright idea was my idea. We are friends!

Re:Van Gogh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169281)

communism sucks

Re:Van Gogh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169461)

We are superbestfriends, man of the understatements. Onwards to invent a time machine for the UPS to deliver the ear.

Re:Van Gogh (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#47170547)

It is perfectly alright to have toads in your hat , so long as they are not soaked in Cadmium and mineral spirits.
Cadmium, is bad shit, slowly absorbed by fondling your paint rag then running your fingers through your hair, picking your nose, eating without washing and even scrubbing the pigment off your hands with mineral spirits which carry it into the bloodstream. Starry Night was a hallucinatory painting indicative of the damage being suffered.
Not to worry though, painters, real Cadmium hasnt been used in decades for ANY paint, they merely call it cadmium red or yellow. Still plenty of unwholesome shit in paint, just not Cadmium .... or lead.

Re:Van Gogh (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47174215)

Yeah, they need the lead for pencils.

Re:Van Gogh (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47174203)

I do not have toads in my hat! Se... well, lookie there.

Physics on a stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169139)

So let's talk about the advanced chemistry of placing a crucifix in a glass of urine.

Seriously, what's so fucking great about using a relatives DNA?

Re:Physics on a stick (2)

AudioEfex (637163) | about 6 months ago | (#47169201)

Yeah I thought they had a piece of hair or something so it really was his. It's not far fetched - locks of Lincoln's hair still exist (as do samples from a great many folks, like Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, and Elvis). VH1 has some "memorabilia" program that had an episode going to the home of one of the big "hair collectors" - I'm sure there is some weird name for them if one wanted to look it up - who had authenticated samples of all of the above and many more displayed and the most valuable ones like Lincoln in a big fireproof safe. Looked like a bank vault. It was pretty creepy, but very cool at the same time. He has all the documents to back them up, as well.

Re:Physics on a stick (5, Funny)

Quasimodem (719423) | about 6 months ago | (#47169613)

In Monroe's case there would be little question about what to grow. Mammorabilia.

Re:Physics on a stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169675)

You sir, are sick in the head

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#47169703)

But is is Jackson's real hair?

Re:Physics on a stick (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#47169799)

I saw a bunch of famous peoples heads kept alive in jars.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

cHALiTO (101461) | about 6 months ago | (#47170699)

You watch far too much Futurama :)

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 months ago | (#47173261)

You watch far too much Futurama :)

I posit that it is impossible to watch too much Futurama.

Re:Physics on a stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47173705)

Hair has no DNA, but if pulled out by the root might have a follicle or some epithelial cells. Most of these are cuts of hair. Worthless.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 6 months ago | (#47169945)

Seriously, what's so fucking great about using a relatives DNA?

It's art, in the same sense as it is art when David Blaine tries to impress people by sitting in a Faraday cage for while, or when somebody can sell a rotting pig's carcass for millions of dollars.

I can't see it myself - but maybe I'm just not sensitive enough. To me art is something that induces you to think or feel more deeply about something important by demonstrating something 'deep', and as far as I can see, what a lot of modern art demonstrates is simply the gullibility of certain people with more money than sense. Or taste.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#47170391)

To me art is something that induces you to think or feel more deeply about something important by demonstrating something 'deep'...

That's an extremely narrow definition of art. To many people, art isn't something rare, deep and important that you go to appreciate, it's something you can appreciate anywhere, any time. Is the song "Happy" art? Most people would say yes, and I'd agree. How about that neighborhood mural of Julius Erving in Philadelphia? I'm not a basketball fan, but yeah, I'd say it is. Is Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto art? I think it's the finest piece of art ever created.

How about a piece alluded to by an earlier post in this thread, "Piss Christ", a crucifix in a jar of urine? Well, I think that, along Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain", which was just a urinal are art also.

However, the great thing about art is you're not obliged to agree with anyone. My only quibble with you is that your definition excludes the majority of what I believe is art.

Re:Physics on a stick (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47171347)

How about a piece alluded to by an earlier post in this thread, "Piss Christ", a crucifix in a jar of urine? Well, I think that, along Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain", which was just a urinal are art also.

Ah yes, the "Whatever you can get away with" school of art.

Which unfortunately leads to a carny/rube relationship with a person putting a dead cow on display, and then the critics stumbling to assess the dead cow in strange and mysterious ways.

Obviously the dead cow and it's putrification process is not in the least creative. The creative process is the grifter who put the dead cow there making the critics do his/her bidding.

It's a exceptionally silly game, in the end, a sort of cockamamie performance work by the critics.

Meh - critics make for shitty performance art.

"Piss Christ" is the perfect example. No particular creativity in production of the work. But purposefully designed to inflame certain subsets of society. So people discuss it for it's inflammatory virtues. Yippee skippee, that makes a group of people sitting around the breakfast table discussing last nights episode of "Here comes Honey Boo-Boo," or "Duck Dynasty" equally performance art. It makes this thread performance art.

So more the Meh. I have a broad enough definition of art to include such things. But there is art, there is good art and there is poor art. There is also art that is incomparably stupid and virtually worthless, designed to provoke, not appreciate.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#47176401)

You think art that is designed to provoke is not art. Well, then you're probably only half blind. But whatever floats your boat.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47176665)

You read that from my post? NO - art is whatever you can get away with. I can take a shit and put it on a board, and take another and smear it on the face of everyone that looks at it. It is quite provoking. Therefore it is art. And you cannot declare that it isn't.

But it is silly and at the utter depths of banality, and in the end, existing only to provoke. not to be admired.

Except for those who like Goatse, or two girls, one cup, perhaps. There's some provocative high art, yes no?

Because in the end, the best sculptors, painters, photographers and poets can piss in a cup with a little crucifix.

Then again, we all can. But we all can't be the best of the above. Most of us can't be among the middling of them.

Re:Physics on a stick (2)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#47187855)

I think you're trying to nail Jello to a board (which might get you a grant).

This is like arguing religion.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47173011)

Then the word 'art' is meaningless.

Re:Physics on a stick (0)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#47176407)

That's quite a useful reply. It doesn't require you to have thought about it at all. Congrats.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47174237)

However, the great thing about art is you're not obliged to agree with anyone.

And the bad thing is that there are those that will tax your wealth to pay for it anyway.

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 6 months ago | (#47176415)

However, the great thing about art is you're not obliged to agree with anyone.

And the bad thing is that there are those that will tax your wealth to pay for it anyway.

Yes, because people should only be taxed to support things they personally agree with. Where do I get the refund for my share of the $1.1 Trillion the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

Re:Physics on a stick (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47180555)

That's a travesty too. For much the same reasons.

Re:Physics on a stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47171165)

Art means to challenge someone to break from their mental routines. It's great when that someone is you, but it is still art if it is someone else.

There is a certain appeal in my mind to the flawed demise of Van Gogh. Restoration of the ear is like an alternative universe. It's even more appropriate that the ear exists now that Van Gogh doesn't.

The story behind the ear is even compelling. You have two versions, one romantic and dramatic about an erratic painter, and one responsible and self sacrificing attempting to save a friendship that was obviously crumbling.

Nothing about the ear is whole. And yet the established dichotomy itself is whole. It is appropriate at some levels that the ear lives on, in a manner where it cannot ever be restored to the painter. The expression of duality with a single object has some very appealing aspects.

Is it art that will withstand the test of time? Perhaps not. It does require a lot of orientation to modern technology, and when that technology becomes mundane, it will too.

Re:Physics on a stick (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 6 months ago | (#47170563)

The estate of John Holmes has been tossing around the idea of cloned penii to be used for transplant and are furiously sampling DNA from amongst the family.
If you have a right foot and a left foot, it only makes sense to have a foot hanging between them. Be the life of the party! Impress girls! Quit stuffing potatoes down your shorts and get the real thing!

Van Gogh DNA, huh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169199)

I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

Some of that Syrianous sheolling broke a Ceil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47172117)

Blame resident Bush for this arival of Van Gogh.

If it isn't killed now, then the eyes of Van Magogh will rise from the Syrnian sea to gauze upon your porn habits; followed by a generation of interpretive artwork unlikes of which even the wormwood of Washington DC has never been chewn.

And then the organs will descend, and assimilate a host through the consumption of itself in a cup of Ra-men, and we'll know these days when the consumption of Nissin carts goes with the disappearance of Pirates and Global Warming continues....

Ears come in handy (1)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | about 6 months ago | (#47169205)

What? WHAT?

Hey bro... (1)

ewhenn (647989) | about 6 months ago | (#47169215)

Hey bro, I hear you like art!

Ear speaks: (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#47169241)

"Since I'm alive again, where's my damned royalty check!"

So fake. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169251)

Fake and gay.

Re: So fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169343)

I think you're commenting on the wrong site. This is Slashdot, not YouTube.

Re: So fake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170189)

Ah yes. Thanks for the correction, I'm so sloppy today. Indeed I meant to actually comment a magic trick in YouTube.

Psssh (3, Funny)

Radish03 (248960) | about 6 months ago | (#47169331)

Not even grown on a mouse's back? Come on!

Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (4, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 6 months ago | (#47169365)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/in... [wolframalpha.com]
Only 1/64th blood relation.

Re:Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169433)

The title is a lie. The ear wasn't grown from van Gogh DNA, but from "DNA contributed by a relative of artist Vincent Van Gogh." (news body).

Re:Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (0)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 6 months ago | (#47169615)

Which is exactly what he was pointing out...

Re:Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (2)

Smonson78 (2728057) | about 6 months ago | (#47169787)

Even worse... The ear wasn't grown at all. A pile of cells were grown and then sculpted into an ear shape - making this a complete non-story.

Re:Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170971)

Even worse... Van Gogh's ear wasn't cut at at all. A pile of myths were grown and then sculpted into the infamous ear hacking - making this a complete non-story.

I am just saying your point or argument has no point, since no one can say with 60% certainty if Van Gogh chopped of his own ear.

Re:Not much of Van Gogh's DNA (3, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#47170625)

using living cells from Lieuwe van Gogh

The title says "Van Gogh DNA". Misleading, but not a lie.

Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (2)

mbstone (457308) | about 6 months ago | (#47169377)

Stir in a little melatonin and give the ear to Evander Holyfield.

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169561)

That would just make the ear sleepy. Melanin would darken it.

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (2)

freeze128 (544774) | about 6 months ago | (#47169687)

Maybe we can get George Lucas to digitally put Van Gogh's missing ear back into his self portrait.

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 6 months ago | (#47172581)

So the ear cut the body off first?

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (2)

tgeller (10260) | about 6 months ago | (#47169993)

Melanin. Melatonin would just put him to sleep.

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#47172471)

Being a knock-off of Van Gogh's ear it would be more appropriate to make it swirling blobs of primary colors. Evander could call it a fashion statement.

Re:Since the rest of Van Gogh isn't around, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47173347)

melatonin? You mean melanin I think, unless you're worried about his sleep cycle.

Tetsuooooo! (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 6 months ago | (#47169401)

Anyone else think the art piece itself looks like the contents of one of the Akira sample canisters? Maybe she can make some more of them...just in time for the things to be buried in a secret military installation beneath the construction site for the 2020 Olympics venue. :P

Come on guys (1)

silvermorph (943906) | about 6 months ago | (#47169439)

This is the only thing he DIDN'T want to last longer than him. Don't be cruel.

Like Vincent used paint, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169531)

Dang, that takes some cojones to call yourself the Van Gogh of science. Though I guess having a piece of your art on the ISS could pretty easily result in that kind of ego.

Inheritence (2)

metac0rtex (3682733) | about 6 months ago | (#47169587)

So the ear owns all of his collective works?

Follow-up projects (1)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 6 months ago | (#47169589)

So as a follow-up to this success, what other missing body parts will they be growing? Jerry Garcia's middle finger? Heather Mills' leg? Rick Allen's left arm? George W Bush's brain?

Re:Follow-up projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170819)

So as a follow-up to this success, what other missing body parts will they be growing? Jerry Garcia's middle finger? Heather Mills' leg? Rick Allen's left arm? George W Bush's brain?

Grow Bush's Brain??
Thats shrinking bro..

Those DUTCH must have some really good shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169713)

because you got to be pretty damn high to come up with that. Around here, we just stop after cutting things off.

Photo (1)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#47170805)

Wouldn't it be easier to just take a photo of the relative's ear?

“I use science basically like a type of brus (1)

wdc2 (2648473) | about 6 months ago | (#47171083)

“...like Vincent used paint.” — Vincent Van Gogh didn't use paint like a brush. he had actual brushes for that.

Can't wait (1)

casner (3683473) | about 6 months ago | (#47171635)

Interesting news - can't wait for another organs made of DNA of famous people...

lend me your ears (1)

Steven Krantz (2984837) | about 6 months ago | (#47172015)

Friends, Romans, countrymen . . .

Ghouls gots art? (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 6 months ago | (#47172419)

As the man actually said, "When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This would be such a case.

Grew an ear? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47172521)

Growing a blob of building material then using a 3D printer to make a shape out of it does not count as 'growing an ear' to me.

One chromosome (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 6 months ago | (#47172565)

If they are lucky. We need to get over the myth of the "blood relative."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?