Week 5&6: Leading the Cyborg Dialogue: Technology, Identity, and Art in the Post-Human Classroom

Introduction

This week we had the opportunity to co-lead the seminar with Shivon and Stacie, delivering an immersive and discussion-based session that deepened our ongoing exploration of the "Artist as Cyborg." Drawing on Haraway’s ideas, speculative art, and real-world examples, we wanted to push the conversation toward self-reflection and practical creativity. Our goal was to position students not just as observers of technological change but as co-authors of a cyborg future. Leading this session allowed me to integrate my own research interests, particularly those covered in my critical exploration The Role of AI in Education and Profession (Martine, 2025), which became a foundational point for the workshop debates.

Key Concepts: Cyborgs, Identity, and Artistic Agency

Using our class’s “Artist as Cyborg” framework, we clarified distinctions between cyborgs, robots, and androids. A cyborg, as explained in our seminar, is not a futuristic fantasy but a current reality, defined as a human with technological enhancements that extend ability and perception (Artist as Cyborg, 2025). We cited real examples such as smartphone dependence, brain implants, and prosthetics, showing that the line between biology and technology is already blurred.

The artist as cyborg is not just a metaphor; it’s a creative methodology. Artists like Stelarc, who sees the body as obsolete and expandable through technology, and Sougwen Chung, who collaborates with AI to co-produce art, highlight how post-human thinking challenges what it means to author, perform, and design (Martine, 2025).

Workshop 1: My Cyborg Personality

In our first activity, students were invited to imagine their own cyborg persona. This exercise required them to answer three core questions:

1. What technological extension do you have?

2. How does this influence your art?

3. What social issues does your cyborg self raise?

For my own persona, I envisioned a neural-architectural interface, allowing me to sense and respond to the emotional and physiological states of space users, especially those from marginalised communities. This would support my practice of designing emotionally intelligent interiors that adapt to real-time needs. The social issue here is data ethics. Whose emotions are read? Who controls the feedback loop? In many ways, my cyborg is both empowering and surveillant, embodying a tension central to contemporary design.

This idea was inspired not only by Stelarc but also by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, whose interactive installations like Pulse Topology respond to users’ biometric data to create collective, living environments (Lozano-Hemmer, 2023).

Workshop 2: AI vs. Human Challenge and My Research Contribution

The second workshop challenged participants to work exclusively with either traditional materials or AI-generated tools. This binary framework raised crucial questions around authorship, intuition, and artistic autonomy. While Group B (AI-based) produced refined digital visuals, Group A (manual materials) produced emotionally resonant outcomes that prompted deeper conversations.

These observations intersect with my detailed research in The Role of AI in Education and Profession (Martine, 2025), where I explored how AI’s integration varies across disciplines. In education, AI is praised for offering personalised learning, streamlining assessment, and supporting diverse learners (Bond, 2024). However, it may also reduce critical thinking if learners over-rely on algorithmic answers, rather than developing their own reasoning.

In civil professions such as architecture and engineering, AI is generally viewed positively. It automates tasks, predicts building needs, optimises workflow, and supports design iteration (Marr, 2024). A YouTube case study by The B1M (2023) illustrates how AI is already assisting architects in planning smarter and safer urban spaces.

In contrast, non-civil professions, such as the creative industries, face more contentious impacts. While AI can enhance productivity and generate inspiration, it also risks diluting human emotion and originality. My research points to an essential question: Does AI enhance or restrict our ability to think freely and create uniquely human work?

This was the very debate we ignited in the seminar: Are machines tools for inspiration, or do they gradually become the authors? This tension is particularly critical for artists from marginalised groups, whose perspectives may not be fully represented in AI training data (Whittaker et al., 2021).

Critical Analysis from Research and Seminar Dialogue

In my research notes, I connected AI-influenced design to cyborg identity in practice. For instance:

• Wearable design: Fashion-tech artists like Amy Karle create data-responsive garments that could inform future interior environments.

• GAN-generated visuals: Artists like Refik Anadol use AI to visualise neural and spatial data as immersive, human-scale installations.

• Bias and exclusion: The documents stressed that AI must be approached critically. Without ethical input, it risks reinforcing dominant cultural aesthetics, especially in architecture and design sectors where Eurocentric or data-privileged models dominate.

  
  

These topics were also explored through discussion questions I prepared:

• Can AI truly benefit education without compromising interpersonal, emotional development?

• Can it help creativity flourish, or does it render art more algorithmic, less soulful?

Reflections from Leading the Seminar

Facilitating this session allowed me to step into the dual role of researcher and educator. It was a practical opportunity to bring my ideas to life in a collective learning space. I saw first hand how cyborg discourse is not just about futurism, it is an urgent, lived reality. The class’s emotional reactions, laughter, debates, and even disagreements illustrated the deep relevance of AI, embodiment, and expression to all of our practices.

Bringing in resources like The Next Rembrandt (Microsoft, 2016), Netflix’s Connected (2020), and YouTube think pieces like Humans Need Not Apply (Grey, 2014), we framed AI not as a monolith, but a tool that must be shaped by its users. Like any artistic medium, it carries both risk and possibility.

Conclusion

Week 4 was both a personal milestone and a professional insight. As I co-led a session that fused theory with tactile practice, I realised how much power there is in merging academic research with lived experience. AI and cyborgs are not future concepts, they are already here. What matters most is who gets to shape them, and how. For me, the answer is clear: artists, educators, and designers, especially those from underrepresented communities, must lead this conversation, crafting futures that are ethical, inclusive, and alive with creative potential.

Reference List (Harvard Style)

Artist as Cyborg (2025) Seminar slides and lecture notes. MA Digital Arts, University of Greenwich.

Bond, C. (2024) Banning Student AI Use Is Not the Answer. Edutopia. Available at: https://www.edutopia.org/article/banning-student-ai-use-chanea-bond (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Grey, C.G.P. (2014) Humans Need Not Apply. YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Karle, A. (2020) Biofashion Series. Available at: https://amykarle.com (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Lozano-Hemmer, R. (2023) Pulse Topology. Lumiere Festival. Available at: https://www.lozano-hemmer.com (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Marr, B. (2024) How Generative AI Will Change the Jobs of Architects and Civil Engineers. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2024/03/15/how-generative-ai-will-change-the-jobs-of-architects-and-civil-engineers/ (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Martine (2025a) tt: Cyborg and AI Influence in Art and Design. Unpublished document.

Martine (2025b) The Role of AI in Education and Profession: A Plus or Minus?. Unpublished document.

McQueen, A. (1998) Cyborg Collection. Available at: https://www.sivasdescalzo.com (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Microsoft (2016) The Next Rembrandt. Available at: https://www.nextrembrandt.com (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Netflix (2020) Connected: The Hidden Science of Everything. Netflix Documentary Series.

Refik Anadol Studio (2019) Data Sculptures. Available at: https://refikanadol.com (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

The B1M (2023) How AI Is Changing Architecture. YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/FLY75Gn0gyU (Accessed: 15th February 2025).

Whittaker, M., Alper, M., Anderson, M., Crawford, K., Garvey, C., Larson, J., and Rasheed, M. (2021) Disability, Bias, and AI. AI Now Institute. Available at: https://ainowinstitute.org/disabilitybiasai.pdf (Accessed: 15th February).