Bioart (4cr)

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

At the end of the course student is able to:
- focus on learning that can arise from different sensory experiences through listening, seeing, feeling and other ways of perceiving the environment and the effects we can have when interacting with it.
- to understand how bioart can assist us to engage with aspects of biomimicry that can enable us to understand our societies differently, in addition to reflect on our roles, both collectively and individually, within our societies.
- work in teams to explore a way of mark-making within environment.
-reflect through storytelling and group discussion on choices of methods, sustainability, ethical implications and ‘traces’ and their relation to bioart.

Execution methods

Active participation to lectures and process portfolio. Portfolio should include: photos or/ and videos from the process(es) and samples.

Accomplishment methods

28 hours lectures, 80 hours independent work.

Content

Intersectional approaches to bioart.

Materials

• Bardt, C. (2019). Material and Mind. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The MIT Press.


• Berger. E., Mäki-Reinikka, K., O’Reill, K.y, Sederholm, H.(eds.), (2021). Art as we don´t know it. Aalto Univeristy and Bioartsociety. Helsinki. https://shop.aalto.fi/media/filer_public/6c/aa/6caa756a-bab7-4d9b-a5f1-07dd1bc171be/aaltoartsbooks_art_as_we_dont_know_it.pdf


• Bennett, J. & Kilpeläinen, T. (2020). Materian väre: Olioiden poliittinen ekologia. Also in English: Bennet, J. (2009). Vibrant matter.

• Escobar, A. (2018). International Institute of Social Studies (IISS) Lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl4TuUjoiU8

• Grant, M. & de Peyer, O. & Imlach, H. & Pietarinen, H. & Bovermann, T. & Yoncha, A. & Sandgren, N. (2020). Field Notes – The Heavens. https://bioartsociety.fi/projects/field-notes-the-heavens/posts/hab-blog; .

• Härkönen, Heidi, Ballardini, Rosa, Pietarinen, Heidi, Sarantou, Melanie, 2023. Nature’s Own Intellectual Creation: Copyright in Creative Expressions of Bioart. Nuart Journal. https://nuartjournal.com/pdf/issue-7/11_NJ7-Harkonen.pdf

• Kamen, R. (2018). Art-Based Research in the Natural Sciences. Teoksessa Handbook of arts-based research. The Guilford Press.

• Lapworth, A. (2016). Theorizing bioart encounters after Gilbert Simondon. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(3), 123-150.


• Mononen, S. (2020). Taidetta elämästä, ajasta, katoamisesta ja hajoamisesta – Haastattelussa Antero Kare. Niin & Näin, nro. 104, 1 / 2020, 32-37.

• Pasanen, A. & Berger E. (2020). Field_Notes – The Heavens. Taiteiden ja tieteiden välistä kenttätyötä subarktisella alueella. Niin & Näin, nro. 104, 1 / 2020, 68-73.

• Pietarinen, Heidi, Miettinen, S., & Sarantou, M. (2022). Biotaidetta tarkasteleva laboratorio. Tahiti, 12(3), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.23995/tht.121885


• Pietarinen, Heidi and Qureshi, Amna: Life Between Art and (Reindeer) Blood. Ruukku Journal. http://ruukku-journal.fi/


• Pietarinen, Heidi, (2021). The Reddish Orange – Ruskie. In Documents of Socially Engaged Art. Ed. Raphael Vella & Melanie Sarantou. InSEA. https://www.insea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/DocumentsOfSociallyEngagedArt_web.pdf


• Pietarinen, Heidi & Timonen, Eija, (2021). The Flying Ants and the Beauty of Ice. In Art-Based Methods for Decolonising Participatory Research. Routledge. New York. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003053408-14/flying-ants-beauty-ice-heidi-pietarinen-eija-timonen

• Tenetz, A. (2020). Valoa hangella – Elämää käsittelevä taide. Niin & Näin, nro. 104, 1 / 2020, 27-31.


• Vaage, N. S. (2016). What Ethics for Bioart? Nanoethics, 10(1), 87-104.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

- To include satisfying evidence of research, and a final presentation that shows a capacity to work fairly independently.
- Satisfying evidence of attending the workshop, active participation and questioning. Evidence of skills or knowledge applied in an interdisciplinary context.
- Satisfactory use of research skills in a bioart context.
- Satisfying quality, impact and appropriateness of final work presentation.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

- To include fair to good evidence of research, concept development and a substantial final presentation that shows a capacity to work independently.
- Fair to good evidence of attending the workshop, active participation and critical reflection and questioning. Fair to good evidence of specialist skills and knowledge appropriately applied in an interdisciplinary context
- Fair to good use of research skills in a bioart context
- Fair to good quality, impact and appropriateness of the final work presentation.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

- To include evidence of research, concept development and a substantial final presentation that clearly shows the capacity to work independently.
- Strong evidence of attending the workshop, active participation and critical reflection and questioning. Strong evidence of specialist skills and knowledge appropriately applied in an interdisciplinary context.
- Use of research skills to further an understanding of design issues in a bioart context.
- Quality, impact and appropriateness of the final presentation of the work, supported by the articulation of the student’s knowledge to illustrate the strength of the work contributed.