CONSTRUCTING J. DOE
Genetic information from the artist’s chromosome number 1
This series explores the complex interrelationship between identity, technology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering in the posthuman era. Through a combination of multimedia installations, interactive experiences, and philosophical reflections, the work questions the very foundations of what makes us who we are in a world increasingly shaped by technology.
A central aspect of the series is the notion of a collectively constructed identity. J.Doe, the enigmatic subject of the work, is not a singular individual but an amalgam of anonymous data, memories, and genetic traits from countless contributors. This concept evokes French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy’s idea of “plural singularity,” who argues that existence is always “co-existence” — that we are fundamentally intertwined with others in a network of relations that both precedes and constitutes our individuality.
A key point of departure for the series is English philosopher John Locke’s conception of personal identity. In his influential Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Locke argued that personal identity is based on the continuity of consciousness over time rather than the physical substance of the body. This idea of identity as fluid and mutable — grounded in memory and self-awareness — resonates strongly with the series’ explorations of the malleability of the self in the digital age.
The work also examines the role of genetic engineering — particularly the gene-editing tool CRISPR — in reshaping identity. In 99.9% or 0.1%, generative algorithms are used to create speculative portraits of J.Doe based on variations in their genetic code. This gesture raises questions about the future of identity in an era of biological design, echoing biochemist Jennifer Doudna’s warning that CRISPR could one day be used to “alter the genome of our own species in an inheritable way.”
Throughout the series, the use of anonymous data and generative algorithms raises questions about agency and authenticity in the construction of identity. If our identities are increasingly shaped by technological forces beyond our individual control, to what extent are we truly the authors of our own selves? As philosopher Gilles Deleuze observed, in control societies “individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and masses, samples, data, markets, or ‘banks.’”
The series also draws inspiration from the pioneering exhibition Post Human, curated by Jeffrey Deitch in 1992. The exhibition, which featured works by artists such as Jeff Koons, Cindy Sherman, and Charles Ray, explored how emerging technologies were challenging traditional notions of identity and the human body. As Deitch wrote in the exhibition catalog, “The artists in this exhibition accept the profound implications of life-altering new technologies. They understand that we have entered a new era in which we must radically rethink our definition of what it means to be human.”
NIH GenBank’s website, which provided the anonymous DNA sample
By generating a subject who is both no one and potentially everyone — the product of countless anonymous contributions and algorithmic manipulations — the work confronts us with the malleability and contingency of identity in the posthuman age. It invites us to consider, as posthumanist theorist N. Katherine Hayles suggests, how we are undergoing a “transformation of consciousness” as our minds and bodies become increasingly intertwined with technology.
"Constructing J.Doe" seeks to situate the series´ explorations within these broader philosophical, sociological, and scientific debates. In doing so, the series does not aim to provide definitive answers but rather to open a space for critical speculation and constructive imagination. At a time when technological advances are destabilizing long-held certainties about the nature of the self, the series invites us to rethink the very foundations of what it means to be human — and to imagine new modes of identity and connection on the threshold of a posthuman future
Example of the type of information that can be extracted from DNA sequencing
This series is composed of the following works:
In this work, Englebert explores the paradox of human identity through genetics and artificial intelligence. All human beings share 99.9% of their genetic material, regardless of whether we are related or not. The divergence is reduced to a mere 0.1% of our DNA — and it is within this small fraction that the physical and biological variations distinguishing each individual reside. This scientific fact raises profound philosophical questions about the nature of identity and individuality. As French philosopher Paul Ricoeur notes in his book Oneself as Another (1992), personal identity is constructed through a complex interaction between sameness and otherness, between continuity and change. What does it mean to be a unique individual when we share almost all of our biological being with the rest of humanity?
Digital mockup
To bring J.Doe to life — a hybrid entity that embodies the very concept of identity — the artist worked with anonymous DNA sequences provided by the NIH GenBank and combined them to create a single genetic profile. By creating a fictional being from anonymous genetic fragments, she draws attention to the contingent and constructed nature of personal identity. From this unique genetic profile, she selected certain physical traits to train an artificial intelligence (AI) system and generate the 99.9 possible individuals sharing the same characteristics.
This process evokes the ideas of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze on difference and repetition. For Deleuze, identity is not a fixed or stable essence but rather an effect of constant differences and variations. By generating multiple permutations of J.Doe through AI, Englebert makes visible the fluid and plural nature of identity, even within the seemingly narrow limits of the 0.1% genetic variation.
These images are derived from the information encoded in J.Doe’s DNA sequence, encompassing a range of traits such as facial morphology, eye color, hair tone, among others. This process recalls the ideas of American artist and philosopher Donna Haraway on the “cyborg” nature of identity in the technological age. For Haraway, we are all “chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism,” our identities inextricably intertwined with the technologies that surround and shape us.
“Generated Photos,” the AI that generated the 99 possible faces of J.Doe from the DNA samples.
The 99 possible faces of J.Doe generated with AI from the analysis of the anonymous DNA samples.
The purpose of this work is to materialize the diversity of this imaginary character within the seemingly small 0.1% that distinguishes it from others. Yet in doing so, the artist also raises broader questions about the nature of identity in the era of genetic information and artificial intelligence. As German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk argues in his book Rules for the Human Zoo (1999), advances in biotechnology and genetics are challenging our traditional notions of what it means to be human. What implications does it have for our understanding of identity that we can now decode, manipulate, and even create life at the genetic level?
At the same time, the proliferation of AI-generated representations of J.Doe raises unsettling questions about the relationship between identity and technology in the digital age. As philosopher Slavoj Žižek warns, we live in an era of “decentered subjectivity,” in which our identities are increasingly fragmented and multiplied through our interactions with screens and networks. What does it mean to be an individual when our sense of self is constantly mediated and shaped by algorithms and digital avatars?
By visualizing the multiple permutations of J.Doe, the work confronts us with the paradoxical nature of our individuality — the fact that we are at once singular and profoundly interconnected, both biologically and technologically. At a time when the old boundaries between the natural and the artificial, the real and the virtual, are rapidly dissolving, this work offers a timely and provocative meditation on the future of human identity. By confronting us with the fluid multiplicity of J.Doe, “99.9% or 0.1%” challenges us to rethink what we believe we know about ourselves and our place in a world in transformation.
Some of the AI-generated faces from the DNA samples applied to different formats.
Digital mockup
It is in society that individuals usually acquire their memories. It is also in society that they recall, recognize, and locate their memories… It is in this sense that there exists a collective memory and social frameworks for memory; it is to the extent that our individual thought is situated within these frameworks and participates in this memory that it is capable of the act of recollection.
Maurice Halbwachs
In “Collective Identity”, the artist explores the relationships between personal identity, memory, and artificial intelligence through the lens of English philosopher John Locke. As Locke argued in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), “we are the same person insofar as we are conscious of past and future thoughts and actions in the same way that we are conscious of present thoughts and actions.” For Locke, personal identity is based on the continuity of consciousness over time — a concatenation of memories which, directed toward the past, gives rise to memory.
Throughout this series, Englebert works on the construction and deconstruction of identity, exploring the ways in which our sense of self is shaped by both internal and external forces. Through processes of transformation and juxtaposition, she seeks to regenerate the abstract identity of J.Doe, a character who represents all of us and none of us simultaneously.
The theory of “collective memory” proposed by French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs is a fundamental pillar in the conceptualization of “Collective Identity”. In his works Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (1925) and La mémoire collective (1950), Halbwachs argues that memory is not purely an individual phenomenon, but is profoundly shaped by the social frameworks in which it occurs.
A key concept in Halbwachs’ theory is the idea that collective memory is a reconstruction of the past in light of the present concerns of the group. Memories are not exact reproductions of past experiences, but are reconstructed and transformed to fit current frames of reference. This implies that collective memory is selective and malleable, and that different groups can have different recollections of the same events.
Screenshot of the form sent to different people to contribute a memory.
In “Collective Identity”, Englebert draws directly on these ideas to create a portrait of J.Doe through the collection and recomposition of collective memories. By requesting anonymous memories via an online form, she leverages the power of digital technologies to create a new type of social framework for memory. The individuals contributing their memories may not know one another, but through their participation in this project, they become members of a temporary community united by their shared act of recollection.
Next, she trains an artificial intelligence system to process the collected data and translate it into a chatbot, creating a digital embodiment of J.Doe’s collective memory. By interacting with the J.Doe chatbot, participants can access these memories—and thus their identity—through an online dialogue that recounts their life in infinite detail.
AI plays a crucial role in this process, acting as a kind of “collective memory machine.” By analyzing and synthesizing the diverse contributed memories, the AI is able to identify patterns, themes, and recurring narratives. In a sense, it carries out the same type of reconstruction and transformation of memories that Halbwachs attributes to social frameworks of memory. It weaves a multitude of individual voices into a single collective narrative—a composite portrait of J.Doe.
J.Doe’s voice, generated through AI tools from anonymous voices collected over several months, adds another layer of complexity to the work. By giving J.Doe a synthetic, collective voice, the artist draws attention to the ways technology is destabilizing our traditional notions of individuality and autonomy.
Screenshot of a chat with J.Doe
Through the interactive installation, the artist invites the viewer to engage in a conversation with our collective and anonymous self simultaneously. In front of a screen displaying the chat, a lectern with a keyboard is positioned, inviting the audience to pose their own questions to J.Doe.
“Collective Identity” raises profound questions about the nature of identity and memory in the digital age. By weaving together Locke’s ideas on the continuity of consciousness with the technical possibilities of AI and large-scale data collection, the work invites reflection on the ways in which technology is transforming our understanding of what it means to be human.
Digital mockup
In “J.Doe diaries”, identity is shaped through his intimate diaries, where fragments of his memory intertwine. These diaries become the repository of J.Doe’s identity, the place where his sense of self is constructed and preserved through the act of writing. As French philosopher Jacques Derrida notes in his work Of Grammatology (1967), writing is not merely a representation of speech or thought but a way to externalize and materialize consciousness, creating a lasting trace of the self in the world.
To create these intimate diaries, Englebert draws on memories collected through the work “Collective Identity”, where anonymous memories are gathered via an online form. These shared memories become the raw material for constructing J.Doe’s identity, reflecting social psychologist Maurice Halbwachs’ idea that individual memory is always framed and shaped by social and collective contexts.
However, instead of simply compiling these memories into a linear narrative, she uses artificial intelligence to generate the diaries in a random and unexpected manner. This creative process is inspired by the Surrealist techniques of automatic writing, popularized by André Breton and other avant-garde artists in the early 20th century. Automatic writing sought to access the unconscious and free expression from the constraints of reason and logic, allowing words and images to flow spontaneously and uncensored.
By applying AI algorithms to the collected memories, the artist seeks to create a form of “digital automatic writing,” where the machine becomes a collaborator in the creative process. This approach evokes the ideas of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze on “machinic thought,” the notion that technology is not merely a tool but a generative force capable of producing new forms of subjectivity and creativity.
Digital mockup of one of the diaries
The resulting diaries are presented as physical artifacts, tangible objects embodying J.Doe’s fragmented and reconstructed identity. Each diary is unique, an amalgamation of personal memories, AI-generated reflections, and dreamlike associations woven into a non-linear and sometimes disorienting narrative. By reading these diaries, the viewer becomes a voyeur, a witness to J.Doe’s intimate consciousness, but also an active participant in interpreting and co-creating his identity.
By presenting J.Doe’s diaries as objects open to interpretation, the audience is invited to engage in this co-creation process, projecting their own memories and associations onto the AI-generated fragments. In this way, J.Doe’s identity becomes shared territory, an intersubjective space where the individual and the collective, the human and the machinic, meet and intertwine.
The work raises questions about the nature of identity and memory in the digital age. At a time when our lives are increasingly mediated by algorithms and databases, what does it mean to construct and preserve a sense of self? If our memories can be externalized, recombined, and generated by machines, how does this affect our understanding of individuality and authenticity?
At the same time, it suggests new possibilities for creativity and expression in the age of AI. By collaborating with machines in the creative process, we may access new forms of introspection and self-understanding, discovering aspects of ourselves that were previously hidden or unexplored.
“J.Doe Diaries” sits at the intersection of art, technology, and philosophy, inviting deep reflection on the human condition in a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. As French poet Paul Valéry wrote: “We must expect great innovations that will transform the entire set of artistic techniques, thereby affecting invention itself, perhaps even wonderfully modifying the very notion of art.” In this interactive artwork, this transformation can be seen in action.
It also relates to the ideas of Italian writer Italo Calvino on “combinatorial literature.” In his book Six Memos for the Next Millennium (1988), Calvino envisions a future in which machines can produce literature through the algorithmic combination of pre-existing elements. For Calvino, this combinatorial literature would not signify the death of human creativity but rather its liberation from the limitations of the individual mind. J.Doe’s AI-generated diaries can be seen as an early example of this literature of the future, where authorship becomes a process of selection and reconfiguration of machine-generated fragments.
Some of the possible faces of J.Doe applied to the formats alongside his intimate diary page.
“The singularity of each being is not something added from outside to the reality of the with, but rather that which makes it possible as such. There is no with — no we, no ensemble, not even society — without the singularity of each one. Conversely, there is no singularity without a with, without a community of singularities”
Jean-Luc Nancy
"Who is J.Doe?" at Affair #3 in Galerías Larreta, August 2025
This interactive installation was presented at Affair #3, Galerías Larreta in August 2025. "Who is J.Doe?" invites the viewer to play the role of an “Amateur God”, bringing to life a fictional and plural subject: J. Doe. It invites participation in a unique artistic experiment that questions the boundaries between the individual and the collective, the biological and the digital.
Based on a unique genetic profile created by the artist by combining 23 anonymous DNA profiles provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, an AI generated 99 distinct faces that this being could have — highlighting the near-identical genetic makeup we share as humanity. These faces are a fundamental part of every work in this series. Go to “99.9% or 0,1%.”
Through an interactive application, the audience can select facial fragments from these 99 versions and add parts of their own faces to collectively construct the identity of J. Doe, a fictional and plural character who is everyone and no one at once. In this way, identity becomes fluid, multiple, and shared.
By encouraging participants to engage in a role-playing exercise as creators, the work evokes the theories of “relational art” proposed by French critic Nicolas Bourriaud. For Bourriaud, contemporary art is defined by a shift toward participation, interactivity, and the creation of social situations. Instead of producing autonomous objects, relational artists seek to generate contexts where people can connect, communicate, and co-create.
This relational impulse materializes through a special application inspired by the world of video games — a deliberate choice. Video games have played a crucial role in accelerating the development of artificial intelligence, serving as testing grounds for machine learning algorithms and autonomous decision-making systems. By situating the creation of J. Doe within a video game context, the work draws attention to the growing entanglement of human identity and technological systems.
The outcome of this collaborative creative process is a being that embodies both anonymity and collectivity. J. Doe emerges as a mosaic of faces — a composite singularity that challenges traditional notions of individuality and authorship. This gesture recalls literary theorist Roland Barthes’ concept of the “death of the author” — the idea that the meaning of a work is not determined by the intentions of a single creator, but rather arises from the interaction between text, viewer, and cultural context.
At the same time, the work raises profound — and perhaps unsettling — questions about the implications of genetic manipulation and the engineering of the human body. By allowing participants to freely mix and match facial traits, "I Am Feasible" evokes ethical debates surrounding technologies such as CRISPR and gene editing. If it were possible to design human beings from scratch, selecting desirable features and eliminating the undesirable, would this lead to greater equality — or merely to a homogenization of identities? The work thus functions as a provocative thought experiment, a speculation on the possible futures of human identity in an age of accelerated technological transformation.
The notion of “plural singularity” proposed by Jean-Luc Nancy is central to understanding the work and its exploration of collective identity. In his book Being Singular Plural (1996), Nancy develops an ontology that challenges the traditional conception of being as autonomous and self-sufficient. Instead, he argues that existence is always co-existence — that we are fundamentally interwoven with others in a network of relations that precedes and constitutes our individuality.
In "I Am Feasible", this idea is made tangible through the participatory process of constructing J. Doe’s face. Each participant contributes a singular fragment of their own features, but these fragments do not remain isolated or autonomous. Instead, they combine and interlace into a new composite singularity — a face that is both familiar and strange, one’s own and another’s. Through this process, the work makes visible the fundamentally relational nature of identity — the way each I is always inhabited and shaped by a multitude of others.
Yet, the work also suggests some of the tensions and ambiguities inherent to the notion of plural singularity. By creating a composite face that resembles none of the individuals who contributed to it, it raises the question of whether co-existence necessarily entails a certain loss or dissolution of individuality. Do we become mere interchangeable fragments within a larger mosaic, or do we retain an irreducible singularity even in our exposure to others?
By inviting visitors to participate in the creation of a new face, a new being, the work challenges us to confront both the possibilities and the limits of our plural singularity in a technologically mediated world. It invites us to consider how we might embrace our fundamentally relational and participatory nature, while still striving for a sense of singular agency and individuality.