AbstractsPhilosophy & Theology

This project investigates in what ways or senses bioart can potentially bridge the gap between theories about human nature and human dignity, and actual human enhancement. This is done in three parts. As I move from a discussion of the current biotechnological debate that finds itself at a stalemate, to a more general view on (bio)art and its potential transformative force, I eventually turn to case studies of bioart practice to see whether art can perhaps contribute to an embodied living of biotechnology in our society. Can art contribute valuable insights to the concept of human nature and our biotechnological future, which the theoretical debate cannot, and if so, how? In the final part, part 4, I suggest that bioart’s critical potential is best considered in terms of affecting the academic debate and discourse. In this sense, it can potentially play a role in the tug-of-war that is the biotechnological debate. It functions significantly better in an academic context than it does for The General Public. I conclude that there are three crucial aspects to the potential transformative force of bioart: ambiguity, embodiment and crossing of boundaries. The fourth, demystification, is shown to be not quite successful in practice. This research shows that ambiguity is the most important aspect to the specificity of bioart. It leads me to consider what I call The Complicity Paradox to be the most influential in terms of bioart potentially shifting the biotechnological debate and enacting a transformative force within discussions on biotechnology and its far-reaching consequences. Bioart does this across the different fields of art, science and the humanities. Bioart can simultaneously be complicit in, as well as contest and be critical of biotechnology and its forces by becoming part of the fields that are biotechnology and science itself, potentially changing them from within. Advisors/Committee Members: Zwijnenberg, Robert (advisor).