Bogumiła Suwara

TECHNOLOGY AS A MEDIUM OF ARTISTIC CREATION: THE CASE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

Introduction

Technology as a medium of artistic creation: the case of biotechnology. Biotechnology is transforming artistic creation, challenging art criticism. This analysis proposes transhumanist discourse as a more suitable framework than posthumanism for interpreting art exploring human nature.

Abstract

In recent decades, artists have lost interest in the search for new solutions. In the celebration of traditional techné, and in pursuit of means of expression, they have turned to extreme areas of human activity or to the field of science and new technologies. The latest gene-editing technologies open up new challenges for art and force a rethinking of the interpretation of projects, artefacts, performances, and installations by artists focused on biotechnology. This is especially due to the fact that, for the time being, art criticism is in thrall to a posthuman discourse (grounded in theories of postmodernism) that at various levels focuses on the nature– culture opposition, primarily delimiting the biological aspects of humans to the interspecies social relationships of human and non-human beings. Because of this, artists and critics lack appropriate philosophical concepts to develop interpretive frameworks for art that reach into the realm of empirical investigations of human nature. Transhumanist discourse seems to offer a solution of sorts.  Although still evolving and facing ethical critiques, it provides a more appropriate (emulative) framework for some contemporary  artistic activities than the existing posthuman discourse.

Review

This paper addresses a timely and significant topic concerning the evolving relationship between art, technology, and critical discourse, specifically focusing on biotechnology as a medium for artistic creation. The abstract effectively highlights a perceived lacuna in contemporary art criticism, arguing that its prevalent posthuman framework, with its focus on nature-culture opposition and interspecies relationships, fails to adequately interpret artistic projects engaging with "empirical investigations of human nature" through gene-editing technologies. The author proposes transhumanist discourse as a potentially more suitable "emulative framework," offering a fresh perspective on how art can engage with advancements in biotechnology and human essence. This proposition is intriguing and points to a crucial theoretical gap. While the core argument is compelling, the abstract presents several generalizations that require further substantiation within the full paper. The opening assertion that "artists have lost interest in the search for new solutions" seems overly broad and perhaps a mischaracterization of contemporary art, which continually seeks innovation across various domains. More critically, the claim that "art criticism is in thrall to a posthuman discourse" and therefore lacks appropriate philosophical concepts needs a more nuanced defense. It would be beneficial to delineate precisely *how* existing posthuman theories, often rich and diverse, fall short in interpreting biotechnological art focused on human nature, beyond a simple delimitation of "biological aspects of humans to the interspecies social relationships." The jump to transhumanism as a "solution of sorts" feels somewhat abrupt without a clearer analysis of its specific interpretive advantages over a more refined engagement with posthuman thought, especially given its own acknowledged "ethical critiques." To strengthen this important contribution, the author should consider several expansions. Firstly, providing concrete examples of artistic projects where posthumanism demonstrably falters and where transhumanism offers superior interpretive power would greatly bolster the argument. Secondly, a more detailed theoretical unpacking of the specific tenets of transhumanism that make it a better fit, beyond a vague "emulative framework," is essential. This would involve engaging with the complexities and diverse strands of both posthumanism and transhumanism, rather than presenting them as monolithic and mutually exclusive. Finally, the paper could benefit from exploring how a dialogue between these discourses, rather than a mere replacement, might enrich our understanding of art engaging with biotechnology. Addressing these points would transform an intriguing premise into a robust and impactful theoretical intervention.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.