Abstract
Technology has become inseparable from human existence, evolving from a mere functional tool to a constitutive element of the body itself. Its integration no longer concerns only the recovery of lost motor abilities but extends to the expansion of perceptual, cognitive, and physical capacities driven increasingly by aesthetic choice and personal expression rather than medical necessity. This hybridization between human and machine raises profound ontological and epistemological questions, challenging the distinction between natural and artificial. As artificial systems increasingly influence identity, perception, and proprioception, their effects transcend the physical sphere, impacting subjectivity and social dynamics. The emergence of DIY prosthetic communities and the growing market for elective enhancement provide concrete evidence of this cultural shift. Cases like Alessandro Colombo’s elective amputation and the global e-NABLE network demonstrate how individuals are becoming active creators rather than passive recipients of technological enhancement. The growing practice of ‘designing the self’ through prostheses and embedded devices exemplifies this shift, underscoring the urgency to understand how technology is redefining what it means to be human through the lens of choice, aesthetics, and community empowerment.
Keywords
Human Augmentation
Hybrid Body
DIY Culture
Aesthetics of Technology
Identity
Index
1.Technology and the Human Body: Framing the Question
2.Beyond Repair: Technology as Aesthetic and Poetic Extension
3.Symbiosis and Elective Enhancement: Redefining the Body Through Choice
4.Embodiment, Hybrid Identity and the Relational Self
5.The Rise of the Self-Maker: DIY Culture and Technological Agency
6.Aesthetic Dimensions and the Democratization of Enhancement
7.Conclusion
1. Technology and the Human Body: Framing the Question
The body represents the primary tool through which human beings engage with the environment, yet it is far more than a mere interface with the external world. As a modifiable and adaptable entity, the body does not remain static: every gesture, habit, and interaction shapes and reshapes its form and characteristics in an ongoing and reciprocal relationship with the surrounding environment. In contemporary society, scientific and technological progress has profoundly altered this dynamic. Artificial inserts, embedded systems, prostheses, and the digital devices we use daily have extended the body’s capacities and redefined our behavioral patterns, thoughts, and even our conception of identity. Increasingly, the body emerges as not only a biological organism but as a technological agent.
This evolution has entered a new, accelerated phase, supported by substantial economic investment and growing public acceptance that signals a fundamental cultural shift. The global human augmentation market, valued at USD 253.6 billion in 2023 and projected to reach USD 545.1 billion by 2028 with a compound annual growth rate of 16.5%, provides concrete evidence that human enhancement is not a niche phenomenon but a major emerging trend[1].This economic momentum, driven by consumer demand across diverse sectors including healthcare, defense, consumer electronics, and sports performance, reflects a society increasingly comfortable with technological body modification.
The Cartesian dualistic view has profoundly shaped Western thought, positing the body and the self as two distinct entities: res cogitans and res extensa. The body is considered as a machine separated from the mind (or the person), a whole made up of different parts: an assemblage[2].Cartesian dualism implies that the body is owned and objectified, much like a vehicle or smartphone, its parts easily replaceable by surgeons acting as mechanics. This mechanistic conception has deeply influenced modern medical and technological practices, legitimizing interventions such as organ transplants, biomechanical implants, and even speculative procedures like cryonics. Many contemporary practices, including organ donation and the use of smart and cybernetic implants, are rooted in this view of the body as an object composed of modular, substitutable parts[3].
Historically perceived as a surface to be shaped through cultural practices such as exercise, diet, decoration, and surgery, the body is now increasingly subject to deeper forms of modification. Emerging movements like DIYbio exemplify this shift: technological advancements and greater accessibility are pushing body modification beyond aesthetics, penetrating the very core of identity itself. Public opinion research reveals this cultural transformation in striking detail. A 2022 study by Lee Rainie, Cary Funk, Monica Anderson and Alec Tyson found that while therapeutic applications receive the highest support (67% of U.S. adults express excitement about technologies that prevent serious diseases), there is also significant enthusiasm for non-medical enhancements, with nearly half of Americans expressing excitement about cognitive (47%), auditory (47%), and physical (44%) enhancements[4].This growing acceptance signals a cultural shift where the modification of the human body is moving from a question of necessity to one of choice, desire, and aesthetic expression.
In modern medicine, bodily alterations are often framed in mechanical terms. Devices such as cochlear implants, artificial limbs, brain stimulators, and biosensors are socially accepted as efficient solutions for repairing or enhancing bodily functions. This reflects a Cartesian logic in which the brain is the governing unit and the rest of the body is treated as replaceable machinery. In the neurological view of the body, the brain rules supreme in the machine, and it has a body that is perceived through a Cartesian perspective[5].
However, this purely functional approach fails to account for the profound cultural, aesthetic, and subjective dimensions of technological hybridization, particularly as we witness the emergence of elective enhancement choices that transcend medical necessity and enter the realm of personal expression and identity construction.
2. Beyond Repair: Technology as Aesthetic and Poetic Extension
The integration of artificial systems cannot be reduced to mere function. Prostheses are also aesthetic devices, influencing identity and perception far beyond their mechanical capabilities. Artists like Stelarc, with his extra ear implant, and Neil Harbisson, who perceives colors via sound through an antenna, illustrate how body-technologies transform into aesthetic-poetic practices that challenge conventional boundaries between art, technology, and embodiment.
The physical embodiment of artificial systems marks only the initial phase of integration. The broader transformation involves aesthetic, psychological, and relational dimensions increasingly recognized as central to successful technological adoption. Achieving unity with the machine requires integrated proprioception, positive self-image, and affirming social interactions. Identity is not a fixed state but an evolving process shaped by subjective, cultural, and social factors. The relationship between body and machine cannot be reduced to efficiency alone; it is a multifaceted dynamic whose emotional, cultural, and aesthetic implications reshape both individual experience and broader social understanding of embodiment.
For centuries, the human body has been augmented by prostheses and artificial means that expanded its range of action and interaction. How can we determine where the body ends? The body is open-ended, extending through tools, implants, and digital devices that participate in shaping subjectivity and aesthetic experience.
The integration of artificial systems dramatically expands the body’s capacity for action while creating new possibilities for aesthetic expression. The consumer market for wearable technology, valued at over USD 115 billion in 2021, demonstrates mass adoption of this enhancement[6].These devices function as extensions of the self, augmenting cognitive and sensory capabilities while serving as fashion accessories and identity markers.
The relationship between biological and artificial systems has become reciprocal and deeply interconnected, giving rise to continuous mutual transformation encompassing both functional and expressive dimensions. What emerges is not merely an enhanced individual, but a new, hybrid subject whose identity reflects the profound inseparability of human and machine, function and aesthetics, necessity and choice.
A prosthesis is not merely a functional device; it becomes part of the body, closely intertwined with the subject’s sense of agency, selfhood, and aesthetic identity. Possessing a prosthesis means integrating a new element into one’s self-image that may enhance, transform, or transcend original capabilities. Over time, the prosthesis merges into the lived experience of the body, dissolving the boundary between self and device, natural and artificial, functional and beautiful.
3. Symbiosis and Elective Enhancement: Redefining the Body Through Choice
In the context of human-machine hybridization, symbiosis suggests not mere coexistence, but cooperation between autonomous yet interdependent systems. This growing interdependence challenges traditional boundaries while opening new possibilities for elective enhancement. Human-machine symbiosis reshapes cognitive and psychological processes, altering how we learn, perceive, and act. Technology, though initially a product of human creation, now evolves in tandem with us, blurring the lines between creator and creation, necessity and choice, therapy and enhancement.
As expressed by Sini, there is no human body that is then expanded; the body is human since it has always been expanded[7].From this perspective, all tools, from language to prostheses, from computers to pacemakers, can be viewed as extroflections of a body-system that is inherently technological. The relationship between humans and machines should not be seen as the encounter of two separate systems, but as the expression of the body’s innate capacity to modify and evolve.
The idea of symbiosis offers a valuable lens through which to understand this phenomenon. In this context, symbiosis refers not merely to the coexistence of biological and artificial substances, but to their shared origin and mutual capacity for transformation. The body becomes both the space and the medium for this reciprocal integration, where choice increasingly determines the direction and extent of modification.
This view finds concrete manifestation in the evolution of prosthetic devices and elective enhancement practices. Since the second half of the twentieth century, prosthetic technology has progressed rapidly, shifting perception from simple substitutes to advanced instruments capable of enhancing human abilities. In some cases, individuals have chosen to sacrifice healthy limbs in favor of prosthetic alternatives offering superior performance, fundamentally challenging traditional medical ethics.
A landmark 2016 study published in Scientific Reports documented three patients who underwent elective amputation of a hand to be fitted with a bionic prosthesis[8]. The study demonstrated that the bionic hand offered significant improvement in function and pain reduction compared to their biological limb, providing crucial scientific foundation for elective amputation while challenging traditional boundaries between medical necessity and enhancement choice.
The case of Alessandro Colombo exemplifies this paradigm shift. A former paratrooper and Paralympic athlete, Colombo chose voluntary amputation of his foot in 2022 after years of chronic neuropathic pain. His decision was not merely to escape pain but to embrace a technological solution offering the promise of a better life. The innovative Targeted Sensory Reinnervation (TSR) technique he underwent prevents phantom limb pain and allows connection of sensory devices that create the sensation of walking on a biological foot[9]. Colombo’s “Tagliato per Vivere” (Cut for Living) project has become a public mission to raise awareness and advocate for inclusion in the Italian National Health Service.
Colombo’s case is particularly significant because it occupies the liminal space between medical necessity and elective enhancement, demonstrating how the boundaries between therapy and enhancement are increasingly blurred, and how individual agency and choice are becoming central to decisions about bodily modification.
4. Embodiment, Hybrid Identity and the Relational Self
The concept of prosthesis is inseparable from the agent who employs it. When regarded as extensions of the body, technological devices, even those not physically embedded, can be understood as prostheses of the mind. Unlike transplants or implanted systems, these external tools do not visibly alter the body’s integrity. Nevertheless, they possess the capacity to profoundly transform cognition, perception, and cultural experience. Through such subtle yet profound influence, technology becomes part of the embodiment process, reshaping the way individuals relate both to themselves and to the world, whether or not its presence is immediately apparent.
This dynamic is especially evident in clinical contexts, where the success of prosthetic integration depends not only on functional performance but also on psychological acceptance and social integration. Rehabilitation professionals working with individuals with upper limb absence have long observed that patients who perceive a prosthesis as part of their body, rather than as a mere auxiliary tool, are more likely to accept and integrate it into their lives[10]. However, it is not well known whether a certain training protocol is the most efficient training to facilitate acquisition of prosthetic skills[11].
There are still many issues related to the process of acceptance, and it is still not clear how to achieve better performances. Average rejection rates for body-powered (BP) and myoelectric (MYO) prostheses are 26% and 23%, respectively[12].These figures remain high, and understanding how the process of embodiment could be facilitated is important and necessary, although it implies many aspects that, as seen previously, are not strictly clinical.
Training increases the functional use of an upper limb prosthesis, but little is known about how people learn to use their prosthesis[13]. One of the most important aspects to take into account is proprioception, the body’s ability to sense movement, action, and location. An object may be implicitly embodied if some of its properties are processed in the same way as the properties of one’s own body[14]. The degree to which a prosthesis is perceived as part of the body largely depends on how closely it replicates the substituted limb, but increasingly, this relationship is being redefined by aesthetic and expressive considerations that may diverge from biological mimicry.
Initially, prostheses were designed primarily to restore the appearance of the missing limb, with limited functional capabilities. Over time, however, the focus has shifted toward enhancing performance and functionality, sometimes at the expense of aesthetic resemblance to biological limbs. This shift reflects a broader transformation in how prostheses are conceptualized and valued. Rather than merely compensating for loss, they are increasingly viewed as opportunities for enhancement and self-expression, where the aesthetic dimension becomes as important as functional restoration.
The process of embodiment is not merely physical but deeply psychological and social. The integration of artificial systems into the body schema involves complex negotiations between the individual’s sense of self, their relationship with technology, and their interactions with others. These negotiations are increasingly influenced by aesthetic preferences, cultural values, and personal choices about identity expression. Body modifications, even when not directly visible, can generate alterations in subjectivity and subsequent identity changes[15].
Prostheses and artificial systems become powerful markers in identity construction and social positioning, altering not only physical appearance but also personal history, habits, and capacities. They evolve into symbolic features that redefine self-perception and mediate relationships with others. Acquiring an artificial system initiates a re-identification journey, where individuals adopt new attributes shaped by both the device’s integration and its aesthetic possibilities.
This re-identification process is particularly evident when individuals choose prosthetic designs that deliberately diverge from biological norms. Some users embrace a cyborg aesthetic that celebrates technological enhancement, others opt for realistic designs that blend seamlessly with their biological body, while still others choose artistic or customized designs as forms of personal expression. These choices reflect deeper philosophical positions about technology, identity, and social integration, demonstrating how aesthetic considerations have become central to embodiment.
The relational dimension of embodiment extends beyond the individual to encompass social interactions and cultural meanings. How others perceive and respond to prosthetic devices influences the user’s own sense of embodiment and identity. Social acceptance, curiosity, admiration, or stigma all shape the subjective experience of technological integration, highlighting the importance of cultural change and education in supporting successful embodiment of artificial systems.
5. The Rise of the Self-Maker: DIY Culture and Technological Agency
One of the most fascinating aspects of the evolving relationship between humans and machines lies in the growing possibility for individuals to independently design and construct their own artificial systems. This phenomenon has been made possible by widespread accessibility of knowledge through online forums and virtual communities, and by increasing availability of materials and technologies needed to create functional devices. The capacity to incorporate artificial systems into the body is no longer confined to clinical domains but has expanded into a vibrant culture of technological self-determination.
Today, devices capable of integrating with the human body exist along a wide spectrum of hybridization. These developments do not arise solely from medical necessity. Increasingly, the desire to modify and expand bodily capabilities has engaged experts from various disciplines, including biology, engineering, electronics, computer science, design, and the arts. This convergence highlights the emergence of a new cultural and technological paradigm where reconfiguring the body is part of a broader reflection on human potential and individual agency.
An emblematic example is Ian Davis, a mechanical engineer who, after losing four fingers in a work-related accident not covered by insurance, chose to build his own prosthetic hand. Leveraging his engineering skills and a 3D printer, Davis created a mechanical hand tailored to his specific needs and aesthetic preferences. Unlike commercial prosthetic models, his device openly displays its mechanical structure, embracing its artificial identity as a statement of technological empowerment and aesthetic choice.
Davis documented the entire process in online videos, establishing a YouTube channel with over 500,000 subscribers. His work demonstrates technical ingenuity and a level of flexibility and customization rarely seen in conventional prosthetic solutions. Notably, he created a hand capable of spreading fingers independently, a feature still largely absent in standard models. By building his prosthesis from scratch, Davis gained the ability to repair, upgrade, and continuously refine his device according to evolving needs and preferences.
Davis’s case is part of a broader movement exemplified by the e-NABLE community, a global network of over 40,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries who use 3D printers to create free and low-cost prosthetic upper limb devices[16].This community has delivered an estimated 10,000-15,000 devices worldwide, demonstrating the scalability and impact of open-source, community-driven prosthetic design.
The story of Graviel Nuel Jacobo in the Dominican Republic illustrates the transformative potential of this movement. After losing his leg at age six and enduring years of limited prosthetic access, Jacobo founded Centro de Prótesis & Terapia Física, the country’s first nonprofit prosthetics center. Working with e-NABLE volunteers and utilizing open-source designs, his center now serves a waiting list of over 800 people and receives requests from across Latin America[17]. Jacobo’s approach emphasizes community building and local manufacturing, stating that “it’s not just about giving out devices, but creating community.”
The aesthetic dimension of DIY prosthetics has evolved significantly. Designer Dean Rock has pioneered culturally sensitive designs that prioritize aesthetic appeal alongside functionality, including materials printed in various skin tones and life-like aesthetics[18]. Mat Bowtell’s Kinetic Hand design represents another evolution, demonstrating the increasing sophistication of community-developed prosthetic solutions[19].
In this evolving landscape, the boundaries between user and maker, patient and designer blur significantly. The act of constructing one’s own artificial systems has become a powerful expression of self-determination and technological agency, representing a fundamental change from passive consumption to active creation and customization.
6. Aesthetic Dimensions and the Democratization of Enhancement
The aesthetic dimension of human augmentation represents one of the most significant yet underexplored aspects of contemporary body modification practices. While traditional medical approaches to prosthetics have prioritized function over form, the emergence of DIY culture and consumer-driven enhancement technologies has fundamentally altered this paradigm. Aesthetic considerations now play a central role in how individuals conceptualize, design, and integrate artificial systems into their bodies and identities, transforming enhancement from a purely medical intervention into a form of personal and artistic expression.
The consumer market for enhancement technologies demonstrates the growing importance of aesthetic appeal in technological adoption. Wearable devices such as smartwatches, fitness trackers, and wireless earbuds are chosen as much for their design and status symbolism as for their functional capabilities. These devices serve as fashion accessories and identity markers, allowing users to express personal style while augmenting their capabilities.
This aesthetic dimension extends beyond consumer electronics to more invasive forms of enhancement. The growing acceptance of cosmetic procedures, body modifications, and elective surgeries reflects a cultural shift toward viewing the body as a canvas for self-expression and improvement. The global cosmetic surgery market, valued at over USD 15 billion annually, demonstrates the willingness of individuals to invest in aesthetic enhancement even when no medical necessity exists[20].
In the realm of prosthetics, aesthetic considerations have evolved from simple mimicry of biological forms to embrace new possibilities for design innovation and identity expression. Contemporary prosthetic design increasingly embraces alternative aesthetic approaches that celebrate rather than conceal artificial identity, opening new possibilities for creative expression and enhanced capability.
The work of designers like Sophie de Oliveira Barata exemplifies this shift toward prosthetics as wearable art. Her Alternative Limb Project creates prosthetics that function as artistic statements, incorporating elements such as carved wood, metallic finishes, and integrated technology displays[21].These designs reject the imperative to appear “normal” and instead embrace the prosthetic as an opportunity for creative expression[22]. Recipients of these artistic prosthetics often report increased confidence and social engagement, suggesting that aesthetic appeal can significantly impact psychological and social outcomes.
The democratization of 3D printing technology has further expanded aesthetic possibilities in prosthetic design, making customization accessible to individuals and communities worldwide. Open-source communities like e-NABLE have developed designs that can be customized not only for functional requirements but also for aesthetic preferences. Children receiving e-NABLE prosthetics often choose bright colors, superhero themes, or personalized decorations that reflect their interests and personalities.
Cultural considerations play an increasingly important role in aesthetic design choices, highlighting the intersection between technology, identity, and social belonging. Dean Rock’s work with communities in the Dominican Republic highlighted the importance of skin tone matching and cultural appropriateness in prosthetic design[23]. This work challenges the assumption that aesthetic considerations are superficial, revealing instead how appearance and cultural sensitivity are fundamental to successful technological integration.
The aesthetic dimension of enhancement extends beyond visual appearance to encompass broader questions of identity and social signaling. For many users, the choice between realistic and overtly artificial designs reflects deeper philosophical positions about technology, identity, and social integration[24].Ian Davis’s mechanical hand exemplifies this approach. By choosing a design that openly displays its artificial nature, Davis makes a statement about his relationship with technology and his rejection of normative expectations about bodily appearance.
The democratization of enhancement technologies through open-source design, 3D printing, and online communities has made aesthetic customization more accessible than ever before. Individuals can now participate directly in the design process, creating devices that reflect their personal aesthetic preferences and functional requirements. This shift from passive consumption to active creation represents a fundamental change in the relationship between users and enhancement technologies.
The aesthetic dimension of enhancement also raises important questions about access, equity, and social stratification. The cost of advanced prosthetics and enhancement technologies can create new forms of inequality based on aesthetic capability and technological access.
7. Conclusion
The progressive integration of artificial systems into the human body marks not merely a technological evolution, but a profound transformation in how identity, perception, and agency are conceptualized. Prostheses, embedded devices, and cognitive technologies now participate actively in shaping subjectivity, extending the body’s capabilities while blurring boundaries between natural and artificial, functional and aesthetic.
This analysis has demonstrated that human-machine hybridization is no longer confined to medical necessity but has expanded into a vibrant ecosystem of choice, creativity, and personal expression. Driven by growing public acceptance, rapid technological innovation, and a burgeoning multi-billion dollar market, human augmentation has emerged as a significant societal trend. Statistical evidence reveals that significant portions of the population express excitement about various forms of enhancement, while economic data confirms a rapidly expanding market serving both therapeutic and elective purposes.
The aesthetic dimension has emerged as crucial to adoption and integration, revealing how appearance, cultural sensitivity, and personal expression are fundamental to successful technological integration. Contemporary prosthetic design increasingly embraces alternative aesthetic approaches that celebrate rather than conceal technological identity, reflecting broader cultural changes in how we conceptualize the relationship between technology, identity, and social acceptance.
Identity emerges as fluid and relational, constructed through dynamic interplay between biological and technological elements, shaped by individual choices and social contexts.
While the possibilities opened by this symbiosis offer new forms of agency and expression, they also raise critical questions about access, equity, and social inclusion. The democratization of enhancement technologies through open-source design has made some modifications more accessible, but significant barriers remain that could create new forms of technological inequality.
In this evolving landscape, understanding human-machine integration demands contributions from neuroscience, philosophy, sociology, design, and beyond. As we move towards increasingly intimate forms of symbiosis with technology, the urgent task is to critically interrogate what these transformations mean for the future of the human condition while ensuring benefits are accessible to all.
References
O. C. Aszmann, I. Vujaklija, A. D. Roche, S., Salminger, M. Herceg, A. Sturma, & D. Farina, Elective amputation and bionic substitution restore functional hand use after critical soft tissue injuries, Scientific reports,VI. n.1, 2016, pp. 1-10.
S. de O. Barata, Alternative Limb Project, «Prosthetic Art», 2023. https://www.thealternativelimbproject.com/ (cited 20 february 2025).
H. Bouwsema, C. K. Van Der Sluis, R. M. Bongers, Changes in performance over time while learning to use a myoelectric prosthesis, «Journal of Neuroengineering and rehabilitation», 2014.
A. Colombo, Tagliato per Vivere, 2022. https://www.tagliatopervivere.it (cited 20 february 2025).
e-NABLE Community, Enabling The Future – A Global Network Of Passionate Volunteers, 2023 https://enablingthefuture.org/ (cited 20 february 2025).
S.M. Engdahl, S.K. Meehan, H. Deanna, D.H Gates, Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users, «Nature Research», 2020.
I. Hacking, Our Neo-Cartesian Bodies in parts, «Critical Inquiry», XXXIV, 2007, pp. 78-105.
Grand View Research, Wearable Technology Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report, 2022.
P. Giraux, A. Sirigu, F. Schneider and J. M. Dubernard, Cortical Reorganization in Motor Cortex after Graft of Both Hands, «Nature Neuroscience», IV, n. 7, 691–2, 2001.
G. Haddow, Embodiment and everyday cyborgs. Technologies that alter subjectivity, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2021.
International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Global Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures, 2022.
D. Lupton, Digital Sociology, Routledge Taylor and Francis, Abingdon-on-Thames 2015.
Markets and Markets, Human Augmentation Market by Product (Wearable, Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Exoskeleton, Intelligent Virtual Assistant), Functionality (Health, Performance), End-User (Healthcare, Manufacturing, IT & Telecom) and Region, Global Forecast to 2028, 2023.
C.D. Murray, An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Embodiment of Artificial Limbs, «Disability and Rehabilitation», XXVI, n. 166: 963–73, 2004.
L. Rainie, C. Funk, M. Anderson and A. Tyson, What Americans think about possibilities ahead for human enhancement, Pew Research Center, Washington 2022.
B. Rubin, Dean Rock’s Cultural Design Innovations, in Enabling The Future. https://enablingthefuture.org/ (cited 20 february 2025).
B. Rubin, Survivors of Traumatic Injury Are Leading an Open Source Revolution in the Dominican Republic, in Enabling The Future. https://enablingthefuture.org/ (cited 20 february 2025).
C. Sini, L’uomo, la macchina, l’automa, Lavoro e conoscenza tra futuro prossimo e passato remoto, Bollati Boringhieri Editore, Torino 2009.
Ludovica Corponi
(Ludovica Giacomini Corponi è produttrice esecutiva e co-fondatrice di Onymous Studios, dove unisce visual, cinema e tecnologie emergenti per sviluppare strategie visive innovative. Già dal 2016 ha lavorato con realtà come Fondazione Teatro Piemonte Europa di Torino e Fondazione Emanuele Luzzati – Teatro della Tosse di Genova. Ha conseguito una Laurea Magistrale in Arti Sceniche presso l’Accademia Albertina di Belle Arti di Torino e una Laurea Magistrale in Digital Communication & Public Opinion all’Università degli Studi di Milano, con una tesi dal titolo How embedded systems and prosthetic technology affect identity and the perception of the self. Ha successivamente approfondito tecniche e metodologie di ricerca con un Master di II livello in Metodologia della Ricerca Sociale presso l’Università La Sapienza di Roma. Oggi prosegue la sua ricerca in maniera indipendente, integrando le competenze accademiche con l’attività multimediale.)