Bio-Art Between Bios and Zoe


In this article, bio-art is analyzed in the framework of critical posthumanism, a specific feature of which is anti-anthropocentrism. Posthumanist theories predetermine the relationship of a modern person with himself, the world around him, and nonhuman agents. In this regard, the scope of the concepts of bios and zoe is being reconsidered, as long as they specify the difference between human and non-human life. Posthumanism is based on the idea of a broader understanding of zoe as the common basis of all life forms, including bios. Bio-art is genetically linked to posthumanism. The latest discoveries in biology have mainstreamed posthumanism issues and inspired the emergence of this art form. But more often than not, bios and zoe act as opposites in bio-art, since bio-art uses life and its various forms as media. Technological innovations allow artists to create new forms of life or to manipulate existing ones. The interrelation of these two terms (bios and zoe) is employed as the key criterion to confirm or refute the assumption that bio-art is associated with the ideas of posthumanism by analyzing some widely known works of bio-art.

Keywords: bio-art, posthumanism, transhumanism, bios, zoe

[1] Galkin, Dm. (2015). Cifra i kletka: (ne)organicheskij sintez. Hudozhestvennyj zhurnal, vol. 96, pp.72–81. (in Russian).

[2] Braidotti, R (2018). Kriticheskaya postgumanitaristika, ili otnosyatsya li media-prirody k prirodo-kul’turam tak zhe, kak zoe – k bios? In Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva, 24–41. Moskva: V-A-C Press. (in Russian).

[3] Bakke, M. (2012). Bio-transfigurations. Art and Aesthetics of Posthumanism. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. (in Polish).

[4] Harauej, D. (2018). Tentakulyarnoe myshlenie. Antropocen kapitalocen htulucen, in Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva, 180–227. Moskva: V-A-C Press. (in Russian).

[5] Kozhevnikova, M. (2018). Postgumanizm/postantropologiya: cennost biologicheskogo tela. Antropologicheskij forum, 2018, vol. 38, pp. 33–36. (in Russian).

[6] Eskott, R. Interaktivnoe iskusstvo: na poroge postbiologicheskoj kultury, in Biomediale. Sovremennoe obshchestvo i genomnaya kul’tura, 200–214. Kaliningrad: KF GCSI; FGUIPP «Yantarnyj skaz». (in Russian).

[7] Andrews, L. B. (2009). Art as a Public Policy Medium, in Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond, 124–149. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

[8] Kac, E. (2009). Art That Looks You in the Eye: Hybrids, Clones, Mutants, Synthetics, and Transgenics: introduction, in Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond, 1–27. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

[9] Braidotti, R. (2006). Transpositions. On Nomadic Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006.

[10] Kozhevnikova, M. (2017). Gibridy i himery cheloveka i zhivotnogo: ot mifologii k biotekhnologii. Moskva: IFRON. (in Russian).

[11] Heberle, M. (2015). ZHivye media. Real’nost’, vytesnennaya kopiyami, i monstry giperreal’nosti, in Rasshchepleniya vizual’nogo: znachenie novyh media. Sbornik statej po materialam Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma «Pro&Contra mediakultury», 54–57. Moskva: MVO «Manezh». (in Russian).

[12] Aristarhova, I. (2015). ZHivotnoe v gostyah u hudozhnika: bio-art Keti Haj, in Rasshchepleniya vizual’nogo: znachenie novyh media. Sbornik statej po materialam Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma «Pro&Contra mediakul’tury», 44-53. Moskva: MVO «Manezh». (in Russian).

[13] Zurr, I. (2006). Uslozhnennye ponyatiya o zhizni: «poluzhivye» sushchestva. Logos, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 148–157 (in Russian).