"Challenging what we perceive a beauty," of course. That's the first and easiest defense for offensive-looking art, but way too superficial to be a primary goal for this artist. She's made it clear, these sculptures are ultimately intended to bring attention to, and inspire discussion about, possible outcomes from tampering with human genetics.

This art isn't comparable to aliens in a movie. These poor creatures don't have the luxury of a story. We're entirely on our own, to decide if they're "benevolent" or "menacing." This artist certainly capitalizes on the shock value of naked sexuality - grotesquely wrinkled sagging skin, exposed breasts and genitalia, inexplicable multiple orifices, humanly-impossible contortionist poses - to sell her "ethical" concerns. I can make the stretch to understand that, as grotesque sexuality is way more compelling than say, adding a few extra eyeballs or appendages, or "dark colors," or "menacing expressions."

I don't find anything "innocent" or "open," let alone any humanitarian concern/message, in depicting these sexualized animal/human atrocities - with their weirdly "benevolent" facial expressions - in INTIMATE POSES, pressing their wrinkled, scaled, grotesquely rippling and pale, naked flesh up against seemingly peaceful and UNAWARE human children. That's just sickening, menacing, and completely inappropriate in a public venue.

It's far easier to believe your suggesion - the artist is offering friendly art works of mutated forms as a way of 'conditioning' us to accept mutation as acceptable in society - than to believe this art is created with any lofty intention to benefit humanity.