[Guest: Wei Ying]

--The Evolution of Bioart: From DNA Manipulation Reductionism to Holism in Life

I think this is a huge topic, and we can start from the definition. Bioart— which includes the art of life, also mentioned earlier, has been proposed in the art world. However, the concept of bioart is clearer. In 1997, an artist named Eduardo Kac had a work called "Time Capsule," and then from 2000 to 2002 he created the "Transgenic Art Trilogy." During this period, he provided a very concrete concept of bioart—the art of modifying or "manipulating" the process of life.

So this involves the question of what is bioart? He believes that from the artist's perspective, intervening in life itself, if it is just observational or speculative, does not count as bioart. Bioart must intervene in the biological/ life itself through technology.

This further involves a question he discusses: What is life?

We talked a lot earlier, including "life as a medium," understanding life at the DNA level. Everyone is modifying life based on coding, which leans towards DNA chauvinism, but life has many layers. Simply put, for example, humans have DNA layers, proteins, organs, and individuals. The 1990s to 2000 was an important period for the biotechnology revolution. During this time, many artists in Europe and America were quite fervent about biotechnology, and a large number of their works revolved around this topic—"manipulating" DNA. They actively discussed this topic, but they kept revisiting DNA to create transgenic bioart works. In our era, in fact, the means have become even more diverse.

I believe this also involves the issue of reductionism. Everyone is actually dismantling life into gene segments for contemplation, while the bioart of our era may need to return to "holism," which could be a trend.

[Host: Shen Cong]

Following what Teacher Wei mentioned about the development of bioart today, Teacher Xia, what do you think has been the impact on people's new aesthetic perception changes during the development of bioart?

[Guest: Xia Kejun]

The Three Dimensions of Technology and Life Art: From Making Life Text Readable to Technological Reconstructing Artistic Perception, and then to the Artistic Presentation of Gene Coding

There are three levels here.

The first is focused on the readability of the “text” of life through technology. Before Robert Hooke's discovery of the microscope in 1665, people could not read the text of life, or to say DNA/bacterial cells. Thus, the invention of the microscope—from optical microscope to electron microscope and then to scanning tunneling microscope—allowed cells/viruses to be seen. This was purely because of technology that the so-called life text could be edited through coding. Now it is said that life has no secrets because it is readable. Of course, regarding how readable it is, gene editing is still striving to achieve that. Making life as an editable text code is an extremely important discovery on the technological level—the discoveries brought about by microscopy—these are purely technological.

The second level is the impact of technology on art, mainly beginning with photography in France in the 19th century. With the invention of photography, Impressionism emerged—classical painting changed from being confined to a studio to quickly capturing changes of light and shadow. By the 1930s, surrealism emerged because of film—the montage effect—that allows for the connection of different images in an instantaneous way, enabling expression that can be non-linear or “logical.” Every new technology at each stage changes our perceptions. From photography to film, it is all due to the emergence of technology that changes people's artistic perception as well as methods of painting and viewing.

Before this, a critical stage was brought about by Duchamp. We know that the entire concept of conceptual art began when Duchamp saw a propeller. After seeing the rotating propeller, he believed painting was meaningless—no matter how brilliant the painting was, it could not match the craftsmanship and the shock brought by the speed of the rotating propeller. So in his work "The Large Glass," he directly painted the propeller. He was fascinated by the challenges posed by this technology all his life.

This is the influence of technology on art, all the way to Andy Warhol (1960s), who used television to show a scene for eight hours without movement—utilizing the public/democratic long-term viewing of television. All of these come from technology bringing forth new visual experiences, thus influencing the way art works are created.

Now in our era, with the advent of AI, AI-created artworks can be remarkably (including realistic artworks). This is also the pressure and stimulation technology imposes on art.

The third level is the focus of our discussion, where life technology enables people to discover that genes can be coded.

As for the future (perceptions), there could be several possibilities. One possibility is to directly enlarge the cells we see, much like Robert Hooke, who drew the cells he observed. That act itself is an astonishing artistic work. Additionally, through anatomy, “opening” the body allows us to see. The artist discovers that the anatomy of the human body’s sketching relationship originates from the internal muscle structure. Therefore, when the organs of the human body were “opened” during the Renaissance, it undoubtedly changed our perspective (viewing method). The “internal” life text was unveiled, and when we film it/depict it, it becomes technological art.

[Host: Shen Cong]

Historically speaking, how do you view the interaction/influence between technology and art, Teacher Hu?

[Guest: Hu Yilin]

The Division and Integration of Art and Technology: Preserving the Uncontrollable and Vital Artistic Rebellion in the Face of Precise Life Technology

From a historical or conceptual history perspective, art and technology have always been two sides of the same coin. In ancient times (Greece), it was one term τέχνη (téchnē)—art or craft.

It was not until modern times that they separated. But why did they separate in modern times?—Because after the Industrial Revolution, technology expanded and became increasingly precise, there were fewer gaps in technology. When I talk about “mediality”—technology became very transparent/very precisely able to achieve goals.

Actually, we know art develops in some blurry areas—your goals are not so clear. For example, when I write, I just want you to see clearly. The function of writing is to let you see what I am writing. But if I particularly emphasize “clarity,” then calligraphy will be undermined, or there is little room left. The space it can unfold becomes narrow. Calligraphy requires you to partly give up clarity. The goal of my writing is to let you see clearly, yet many times, you cannot read the writing of many calligraphers.

But that’s calligraphy. This means you can only reveal the space of art when the purpose is not so precise or direct.

But why didn’t they separate in ancient times? Because the technology at that time wasn’t so precise, all technology had very loose, wide leeway for you to create. Therefore, technology is simultaneously artistic.

However, nowadays, because technology is becoming increasingly precise, even very mechanical, stiff, rigid, and automated in completing some things, the space for art is lost. Art must rebel against the trend of excessive precision. Therefore, I still need to retain some blurred spaces and indulge in things that are not so direct in purpose. I need to explore more within the means or from the medium itself, which is a trend of art under modern technology.

Including the relationship between photography and painting. Painting doesn’t have such strong aims. Classical painting originally had aims, and classical painting resembled documentation—being “true to life” is an external target to be measured against, while modern painting increasingly lacks external goals. The painting itself is the artist’s expression. Therefore, I think the trend of modern art and the development of technology is that continuous precision of technology makes us artists rebel and seek out a personal artistic “space.” Life technology is just like that, as life is the least precise; life is irrational—what we call emergence—you may not even predict it. For example, what is “vigor”? Traditionally, aesthetic concepts have been related to life. Those things that make life vibrant must be good.

What is vitality? If you go to truly vibrant places, you’ll find it is impossible to precisely control where flowers bloom, where fruits bear, or where animals appear? These things cannot be controlled. Places rich in vitality will be overgrown with wild grass. For instance, when the wheat fields are less vibrant, they become less “wild.” So the more you train them, the more they will lack vitality.

Now life technology is pulling the rug from beneath us, trying to allow vitality itself to be planned, strictly controlling it through engineering, in the same way as building a house, strictly creating a specific type of life.

So how does art question what life is?—If we contrast life with machines, machines are guaranteed, precise, while life is inherently ambiguous. But when life itself is treated as a domain filled with precision, predictability, and computability similar to machines, artists must strike back from life technology, further exploring what life really is. At least reveal this fact, and I think this might be the historical mission of bioart in the age of biotechnology.

[Host: Shen Cong]

Teacher Hu says that the mission of bioart in this era is to serve as a rebellion or a reflection towards this precise discipline that seeks to control everything. Can Teacher Wei respond about what such reflections might look like?

[Guest: Wei Ying]

From Duchamp to the Fluorescent Green Rabbit: Bioart Extends Subjectivity and Multidimensional Intervention in the Context of Conceptual Art

I just mentioned Eduardo Kac, whose most famous work is the fluorescent green rabbit. When we held a forum at the Central Academy of Fine Arts, many people asked—why is this rabbit an artwork rather than a scientist's experimental specimen? My response at that time was Duchamp's ready-made—if Duchamp's "Fountain" is a work, then this fluorescent green rabbit is a continuation of that thread, which is the next step of [conceptual art].

Questions like this—why is this an artwork and not a scientist's experimental specimen?

I want to say: the history of art is gradually evolving—this does not need to start over. Each time it may have taken a step forward. Earlier ready-mades could have been objects but now they may be entities; later they might become subjects and the issues they need to address have multiplied. Eduardo Kac writes in his book—when he created this rabbit, the work may have only completed 50% or 30%. Much more depends on the societal discourse this rabbit enters afterwards: How do people see this rabbit? If everyone raises pets, and a normal rabbit has been genetically modified to become your pet, how will you and others view this matter, and what will public opinion be like? This entire process forms a complete work. Therefore, I think this matter has taken another step forward based on Duchamp’s conceptual art, but it is certainly not a completely new phenomenon. It is just that the discussions we participate in this era are more varied; bioart is both an object and a subject. This work itself has a subjectivity.

Regarding the relationship between art and life, there was previously a book called "The Veil of Isis," which mentioned two attitudes: one is a “Promethean” intervention, and the other is an “Orphic” contemplation and observation. I feel that today faced with biotechnology, these two attitudes are completely different. It does not necessarily require us to use technology to modify life; we can also observe or interact from the sidelines, looking at the phenomena that may arise from this matter, or engage in some critique, rather than feeling the need to directly use biotechnologies to alter the objects.

[Guest: Xia Kejun]

From Genotype to Phenotype—The Beauty of Life Derives from the Uselessness of Complexity and the Serendipity of Art

The relationship between technology and art is indeed fascinating and also a difficult issue.

Of course, there are two responses. One response is from the perspective of technology, which is what I discussed earlier—from genotype to phenotype.

Genotype was only discovered after DNA was found; when people found genes to be readable, we began to understand genotype, which later progressed to genetic determinism. However, in terms of phenotype—say, we have black hair—how does that derive from DNA? We still have not achieved that through enzymes, genes, and proteins synthesizing our somatic life.

The microscopic structure of DNA has allowed us to see, but the beauty prominently presents itself more in the phenotype. In biology, it mostly relies on epigenetics, dependent on learned behaviors. From Goethe through Haeckel to Sackmann, it is believed that beauty concerns appearance—why is a peacock's feather so complicatedly beautiful? It’s answered that it is for courtship or reproduction, but after much investigation, biologists have concluded that the peacock’s feather is not to please others but purely to display, to render an appearance so complex and unreasonable, independent of any attention. Thus, biologists don’t believe the phenotype is entirely determined by genes since it could be detrimental to reproduction—heavy feathers are cumbersome. Therefore, it is not necessarily DNA, but it still remains a topic of debate whether it is epigenetics. Thus, the beauty of life might stem from instances that appear useless—purely to manifest forms that are complex, rhythmic, and aimless/ purposeless.

Heidegger later suggested that objects computed by technology are assemblages that can be controlled, particularly algorithms like those of AI, which have changed our perception and modes of thinking into patterns. However, art cannot be computed. Hooke's most crucial theory—the life is diverse due to errors, even produced through mistakes or natural disasters—is a product of a “mistake.” But can AI make mistakes? Can technology make mistakes? Art has an element of serendipity or “error-proneness.”

[Host: Shen Cong]

Teacher Hu, regarding the errors in life technology and beauty, how do you understand this?

[Guest: Hu Yilin]

Aesthetics, Ethics, and Science Intertwined—Bioart Encourages Viewers to Reflect on Good versus Bad and Right versus Wrong through Ambiguity

“Leeway” signifies “error,” but I want to add that when we talk about aesthetics now, we often narrow it down to something that seems to be about appearance—especially visual imagery. However, beauty is a broad concept; the so-called “truth, goodness, beauty” are now three separate parts, and this division is itself a modern thing.

“Beauty,” in a sense, is about the popularization of the truth and goodness. What does that mean? Truth, goodness, and beauty focus on questions of good and bad because an object is good—why is it good? For instance, based on proportion, or it is “true”; it’s “right,” and when it's referred to as “right,” it must be good. When one asserts it to be good—it tends to pertain to ethics, legality, or reasonableness. You say it is good but are unable to clarify why, yet it is good, which is aesthetics. Beauty seems like that quality that is hard to pinpoint amidst daily practices. For example, when you are shopping for clothes, wondering which piece is better, you may first consider if the fabric is all cotton or synthetic... and so forth. This is a scientific question or a “truth” issue. There is a scientific or “truth” dimension, along with a “good” dimension. For instance, it could be wrong for a man to wear a skirt, or it’s inappropriate to wear something too revealing, which is an ethical consideration. Once both have been evaluated, the remainder concerns aesthetics—not just a mere matter of appearance.

Hence, things involving biotechnology or conceptual art and all these things relate to aesthetics. They do not just consider appearance but also the essence of display—it displays something to you. If you feel what is presented is off-putting, where is the discomfort? You often can’t articulate it. This raises an aesthetic issue. It’s not necessary to exhibit something with a good appearance; sometimes it’s about displaying something that seems aesthetically significant in some sense. Therefore, the concept of “error-proneness” is actually a problem: what do we mean by “error-proneness”? Here, the right and wrong is: is it a scientific notion of “truth”? or is it about ethical right and wrong? This is also a quite confusing issue.

Thus, aesthetics does not presuppose a metric of right or wrong. When you discuss aesthetics as a “error-proneness,” aesthetics aligns with science and ethics in providing right and wrong metrics. Such standards for right and wrong are never singular or predefined.

Science also provides standards for right and wrong from a scientific viewpoint; ethics provides standards for right and wrong; concurrently aesthetics also offers guidelines for right or wrong. Therefore, what aesthetics involves is a very broad and ambiguous issue—manifesting when you cannot distinguish clearly.

Thus, we feel that bioart is actually in harmony with bioethics, or rather, it is unified—it intends to make you see whether this matter is good, bad, right, or wrong, but at this time you again cannot distinguish it clearly. Let me provide perhaps an uncomfortable example: if I paint our ancestors’ ashes onto a wall, is this acceptable?

From a scientific standpoint, ashes consist of calcium carbonate, the same composition as wall-painting materials. Scientifically, one cannot differentiate after painting the wall with them. Ethically though? You might say scattering ashes into the sea or river might be “right,” but applying them on a wall seems to bring up an ethical dilemma. Some might perceive it as “right,” while others continuously feel it’s “wrong.” So is it an ethical issue, a scientific issue, or an aesthetic problem?

This seems to be a marginal issue. Nonetheless, once I undertake this act, you might react that such a display is not appropriate, but it’s merely a kind of exhibition. This display could be seen as artisanal, and art merely exposes an act, and this exposure does not preset a view of whether what I showcased was proper or improper but reveals it for you to reflect and contemplate the potential issues within. Therefore, I perceive that art or, in a broader sense, aesthetics represents a kind of reflection. If we conduct discussions about aesthetics, ethics, or scientific analysis, they are actually consistent—all research and exploration revolve around the good versus bad/right versus wrong query but approached from a more ambiguous or comprehensive angle.

[Host: Shen Cong]

What are your thoughts on this issue, Teacher Xia?

[Guest: Xia Kejun]

The Challenge of Art: Breaking Existing Aesthetic Norms through Discomfort and Problem Consciousness, Transforming into Artistic Forms

Art at this stage faces certain challenges. The word beauty comes from sensation. What is sensation?

For example, when we feel discomfort, we contemplate what health is. When I sense that an organ does not feel right, I become aware that something is wrong with that organ. Thus, within the part that feels discomfort or seems odd, there lies a kind of sensation. We say the sublime is beauty, yet the sublime frightens us and makes us feel “uncomfortable,” and not “beautiful” as derived from “symmetry” or “harmony.”

This discomfort brought by sensation is a significant aspect of art. Now, what is the aesthetic issue?

Contemporary art differs from traditional art—it considers craftsmanship more and faces certain technical challenges. However, modernity since Duchamp emphasizes that artists must possess a problem consciousness; artists, like scientists or philosophers, need to ponder—what is your question?

It is not merely about painting, nor just about sculpting; otherwise, you are not an artist but merely a painter or sculptor. An artist must embody a problematic consciousness. An artwork does not necessarily need to look like anything; rather, it is vital to use painting to address the “potentiality” I am concerned about. Art must always delve into universal issues.

The more art challenges our senses, the more it stimulates our responses. Artists always uncover significant issues to challenge people's established thinking and the aesthetic standards of the time. Meanwhile, artists need to possess restraint; these two elements lead to no boundaries in art. This restraint is contemplating how to transform a sensual/philosophical issue into an artistic expression form.

[Host: Shen Cong]

Thank you very much for the wonderful speeches from all the guests today. The discussion ends here, thank you all for participating. Tian and ARTECH will continue to instigate profound reflections and cross-disciplinary practices concerning technology and art, philosophy of life, and future societies. Welcome to follow us and participate in this ongoing conversation about humanity, technology, and the perception of the future.