Heather Dewey-Hagborg and her strange DNA visions: "I'm amazed at how we leave genetic traces without even realizing it."

It's 2012 and Heather Dewey-Hagborg , a young New York artist, steps out onto the street after her therapy session. Something happened during the hour she spent lying on the analyst's couch, a kind of revelation that would lead to one of her most paradigmatic exhibitions: Stranger Visions . Composed of a set of 3D masks, the faces on display were created from the random collection of DNA on the street: chewed gum, cigarette butts, and hair, among other elements . When looking at these faces, it's impossible not to wonder about identity. How is it defined? What materials, circuits, and narratives constitute us? Can genetics tell us who we are, or who we could be?

Three years later, these questions would return in Radical Love , a work dedicated to Chelsea Manning, a former US Army soldier who, after denouncing abuses in the war in Afghanistan, was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Born Bradley, she began her sexual transition in prison. When her case became public, Dewey-Hagborg realized that no one knew her face, and that's why he contacted her. He asked her to send him DNA samples, and from that material, he created 30 possible faces.

Invited in mid-May by the Bunge y Born Foundation and the Williams Foundation to participate in "Presente Continuo," a program that invites artists from around the world to analyze and discuss art in a world shaped by technology, Dewey-Hagborg gave a masterclass at the Andreani Foundation and an intensive workshop for the 24 fellows from different parts of the country participating in the program. Ñ Magazine spoke with her about these relationships in general and about some of her works in particular.

–What was the question that gave rise to Stranger Visions ?

–One day, while I was in therapy, lying on the couch, I started looking at a picture hanging on the wall; the glass was cracked, and in the crack, a long black hair was caught in it. I spent the entire session thinking about the person who had left traces without even knowing it, and how this related to surveillance technologies . When I went outside, I started seeing cigarette butts, people spitting in the street, or people cutting their nails on the subway and leaving them on the ground. I was impressed by the way we leave genetic traces without being aware of it. I couldn't help wondering what we could learn about someone based on their DNA. Right at that moment, Genspace , the world's first community lab, had opened. The first thing I did was sign up for a crash course in DNA extraction. There, I learned to differentiate which of the genes we had obtained could be used to tell something about a person's physical appearance, features, and other data. So, combining that with my training as a programmer, and incorporating facial recognition systems, I built a model that allowed me to create codes and from them, I was able to generate faces.

–Does that mean those faces aren't real, but rather choices you made among multiple possibilities?

–Yes, it's very subjective. I chose faces that made me feel something, that inspired a feeling, or that reminded me of someone. As I told you before, at the time I was very interested in the issue of surveillance, the privacy of genetic data, and my goal was to make people aware of that. The sample I took for Stranger Visions was small; it was just a few DNA samples. In the case of Chelsea Manning, I decided to work the other way around: I decided to make 30 portraits from her DNA. In that way, I continued the work of Stranger Visions by proposing the opposite. The idea was to challenge and question stereotypes: to show that we have much more in common than what distinguishes us. We are 99.99% alike, and we focus on what makes us different. Chelsea Manning's DNA became a kind of canvas onto which I could project different identities. In this case, my work was more focused on showing the limits of genetics in defining identities. Believing that we could predict a person's appearance based on their DNA is very limiting at best, and at worst, it could be used by police to racially profile and preemptively target certain individuals.

–Is there scientific research that focuses on predicting potential criminal acts based on genetic information?

–Yes, I'm currently focusing on behavioral profiling. There are a few worrying things. There's research that tries to predict violence, depression, and even intelligence. It's as if by looking at your DNA I could say, "You're going to be able to get a PhD, but you're not going to finish elementary school." I think intuitively we would say it's very limiting, because we don't even know what it means. But deep down, there's the insistence on showing that we are predictable, limited, and thus limiting our possibilities. And although, as I said before, many scientists are interested in conversation and debate, they generally tend to give preponderant importance to genes and don't take into consideration other variables related to the environment, context, and all social elements.

–How are you conducting this investigation?

I'm working with someone who's awaiting execution in a Texas prison , on what they call "Death Row." He committed the crime, that's a fact. However, I became interested in his case based on the arguments the defense used at trial. The lawyers argued that this person had a genetic predisposition to violence, and instead of exonerating him, this ended up condemning him. I'm interested in showing how genetics is already being used in the courts. Meanwhile, I 'm meeting with him, and I'm trying to capture in his own words what's happening to him, what this kind of argument meant to him . In some ways, he feels that this "genetic condemnation" erodes his humanity.

–What media are you working with?

–It's a work in progress, but I think it's going to be a performance where his words, his voice, can be heard. I'm thinking of a video installation where I show his cell, his daily life, the interviews. We talk a lot about free will versus genetic determination. He's 30 years old and has been in prison for seven years. He committed a horrible crime and feels terrible about it and is trying to live with it. No one is saying he should be free, but the fact that it condemns him to death is something else entirely. The act of pointing the finger at someone and calling for their execution, that's the problem. My goal is to show that there is a genetic argument about violence, that it's not science fiction but something that's happening in the courts, in trials, now. I don't know where this will lead. My idea is for people to have the personal experience of hearing it. As you know, the death penalty is legal in half the states in the US, and its discussion isn't even on the agenda.

–Don't Stranger Visions ' warnings about the way we leave traces of our intimacy contradict the voluntary exposure of intimacy on social media?

–Yes, but here it's worth asking what's invasive and what isn't. For example, people use a search engine as if it were a private tool. They type all kinds of questions, search for very intimate things they wouldn't even share with their partners, and they do so without realizing that this history is recorded by these large technology companies. What I find in DNA isn't the same as what that person is willing to share about themselves, although in both cases it's about their private life. There are things in their DNA that not even they know. What's shown online is a character and a pre-curated image (even in these secret searches); on the other hand, DNA tells more subterranean stories. DNA gives you information about your ancestors, your ancestors. Through DNA, people learn about their immigration history, details they might not want to know: forced separations, slavery, families that have been separated. In the US, most people don't know their family tree. The interesting thing is to ask ourselves why we want a scientific version of our story. We look at our DNA and our genetics as if it were the gold standard. And I think this has to do with the role that DNA has played in criminal investigations. Because the power of identification is very strong, but that doesn't mean that everything DNA tells us has the same importance or validity.

– Stranger Visions is from 2012. Do you think people are more aware of the warnings about constant surveillance now?

–I think, generally speaking, nothing much has changed. Even though surveillance technologies have improved, and there are more risks, people still aren't aware, they still don't think about it. Ten years ago, with the Snowden case or the Chasing Manning case, concern about surveillance was a topic of public debate, but now it seems we've forgotten about that. AI seems to be the only concern, but the truth is that the surveillance apparatus continues to grow, and our genetic traces are still out there. For example, when we undergo a medical examination, have our blood drawn, or a sample taken, what is done with it afterwards? Where does that information go? A while ago, I sent a request to the hospital where I was born to obtain that data, and the request was denied on the grounds of "protecting patient privacy." Protecting it from whom? From themselves or from being used against them? And how?