Machines and bodies

In a world where technology often feels cold and impersonal, Behnaz Farahi redefines the human-machine relationship with her visionary designs. Blurring the line between body and environment, her work marries robotics, AI and interactive media with deep emotional resonance. At the intersection of art and innovation, Farahi’s designs invite us to rethink the role of technology – creating spaces that not only adapt to us but connect with us on a visceral level. How can art and technology come together to evoke empathy and reshape the way we experience our surroundings?

hube: Your work often explores the intersection between the human body and its environment, using emerging technologies to create interactive experiences. What drives your interest in this dialogue between a human and a machine?

Behnaz Farahi: I am particularly intrigued by the ways in which the boundaries between our physical bodies and the environments we inhabit can blur, allowing us to interact with the world in new, intuitive, and expressive ways. These tools enable us to challenge conventional perceptions of space, social interaction, materiality, and identity, creating environments that are not just static but actively responsive to human presence.

Emerging technologies enable us to detect, analyse, and interpret physiological signals from the body – data that is typically intangible and beyond our reach. These technologies offer unprecedented insights into human responses, translating subtle emotions, movements, and biofeedback into interactive experiences.

I am also fascinated by how materials in our surroundings can become active and dynamic, changing their shape, colour, or behaviour through the integration of emerging technologies.
By blurring the line between machine and material, we enter a space where materials become machines, and machines behave like materials. Ultimately, my work aims to foster an empathetic relationship between humans and the environments they inhabit, creating spaces that respond, adapt, and engage with us on an emotional and sensory level.

h: Your recent appointment as an Assistant Professor of Transformative Design at MIT Media Lab is a significant milestone. How do you plan to use this platform to push the boundaries of design and technology in addressing societal challenges?

BF: My appointment as Assistant Professor of Transformative Design at the MIT Media Lab is an exciting opportunity to explore the intersection of design and technology in innovative, socially impactful ways. I aim to push the boundaries of what design can achieve by moving beyond the application of technology towards its critical and imaginative use. This will involve creating projects that provoke dialogue, elevate underrepresented voices, and challenge traditional perspectives on identity and society.

The unique, interdisciplinary environment of the Media Lab – where brilliant minds come together to rethink what’s possible – offers incredible access to cutting-edge resources and technologies. I plan to leverage this platform to develop transformative experiences that not only address design challenges but also inspire new ways of thinking about the role of design in shaping our collective future. Through this platform, I hope to foster conversations that use art and design as catalysts for social change and innovation.

h: Blindness, one of your latest immersive installations, discusses sensory perceptions and human experiences. What was the conceptual journey behind this project and how did you use technology to talk about such an abstract yet complicated theme?

BF: The Blindness project was inspired by the tragic stories of protesters in Iran and other parts of the world who were blinded by police and military forces using non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets and metal pellets. While these weapons are intended to disperse crowds, they have caused severe injuries, including permanent blindness, often in the context of peaceful protests. This immersive installation reflects on the violent repression of these protests and seeks to highlight the importance of non-violent political expression.

By projecting the victims’ words onto their eyes, Blindness emphasises the profound human cost of state violence. It underscores the need to hold governments accountable for their actions.
Through the immersive use of technology (sound and visuals), this work evokes empathy, ensuring that the voices of those who have suffered are not forgotten.

From a technical perspective, this artwork incorporates a close-up recording of eyes that are shedding black tears, while expressing the comments of victims through reaction-diffusion patterns. The piece is created using shader-based programming in C# in Unity.

h: Your work frequently addresses critical issues such as feminism, bodily perception, and social interaction. Can art exist in a vacuum, away from the global issues of our world? 

BF: There are many different ways of being in the world, and I believe it is essential not to view just one perspective as valid while dismissing others.
I personally like to see art as a lens through which we can address broader societal concerns and issues while staying in the realm of aesthetics. I’m particularly interested in how art can make us pause and reflect on the complexities of life rather than abstracting or distancing itself from it. Art, in my view, has the potential to provoke thought, challenge conventions, and engage with the pressing global issues we face.

An example of this can be seen in the work of Krzysztof Wodiczko, whose powerful public projections interrogate social and political issues. Similarly, Barbara Kruger’s iconic text-based works, like Your Gaze Hits The Side of My Face, directly engage with feminist issues and societal power structures. I find both their works inspiring!

h: You’ve been recognised for integrating computational design, robotics and advanced materials into your work. How do these technologies enable you to explore new forms of expression and communication? How do they help you better connect with the topics of your work? 

BF: Technological tools (such as AI computer vision, computational design, robotics, and advanced materials) serve as extensions, offering both constraints and affordances that augment artistic expression. Each tool brings its own set of limitations and possibilities, and in this partnership between creator and technology, new opportunities for innovation emerge.

By integrating robotics and sensory technologies into the design, I’m able to explore movement and interaction in real time, turning passive materials into dynamic systems. Computational design and fabrication, for instance, allow me to work with complex geometries or novel fabrication techniques, enhancing my ability to create environments inspired by nature. This partnership with technology allows me to create design interventions that not only communicate but also respond to viewers, fostering a more nuanced dialogue between the body, the environment, and the technology that mediates them.

h: Your designs are often described as ‘critical making’. What does that mean for you? And how do you balance artistic expression with the technical demands of creating interactive and responsive environments?

BF: I see myself as a ‘critical maker’, combining critical thinking and practical making – where the act of creating something is also an opportunity to reflect critically on societal issues, technological limitations, or cultural norms. In my practice, the process of making goes beyond just producing objects; it’s about exploring the implications and deeper meanings behind what we build. This approach challenges us to think about the political, ethical, and social impact of our designs, engaging in a dialogue with the world around us.

I see the role of design as being to ask questions and challenge dominant outlooks. For instance, I am fascinated by the gaze and issues of surveillance, and in my work examine how different strategies of the gaze can be seen to undermine various forms of power structures and promote forms of resistance.

The term ‘Critical Making’, originally coined by Matt Ratto, underscores the idea that the act of making itself is a form of critique – an opportunity to reflect on the implications of the things we build. This concept also resonates with the broader idea of ‘Critical Design’, introduced by Dunne and Raby, which seeks to challenge conventional design by creating objects that provoke questions rather than providing solutions. Like critical making, critical design uses objects as a medium for critique, questioning the role of technology and society in shaping our future.

I also draw inspiration from Krzysztof Wodiczko’s idea of the ‘Critical Vehicle’, which involves using objects or machines to express social critique and explore political discourse. Wodiczko’s work shows how design and technology can be harnessed to amplify marginalised voices, offering a form of resistance or reflection on cultural issues.

The difference in my practice lies in emphasising materials and their behaviours. My research group at MIT Media Lab will be called ‘Critical Matter’. The term ‘Critical Matter’ has two meanings: firstly, and most obviously, it signifies an issue of great importance – a ‘critical matter’. Secondly, it evokes not only the strong tradition of ‘critical thinking’ within philosophy and social sciences but also advanced research into ‘matter’ within the fields of science and technology. The divide between philosophy and social sciences on the one hand, and science and technology on the other, is vast, but the ‘Critical Matter’ group seeks to bridge this divide.

h: Are there any uncharted territories within design and technology that you’re particularly eager to explore with your students and colleagues?

BF: I am interested in the question of memory… and this is an area which I hope I could engage with from neurological, psychological, as well as physiological perspectives.