The process of creating living computers with Michael Sedbon

In this interview Michael Sedbon is talking about the making of Cryptographic Beings installation. The conversation explores the difference between working with biology and engineered digital technology, prototyping and learning.

Subscribe using your favourite podcast player or RSS

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts   |  Spotify   |  Amazon Music  |   Android   |   Instagram   |   RSS

Highlights

• (0:00:00) The control you have over biology

• (0:01:08) Introduction to the Crypto Being installation

• (0:02:51) The slow movement of the algae in the installation

• (0:04:35) The idea for the piece and the behaviour of the algae

• (0:06:23) Michael shifting perceptions through studying life science

• (0:08:26) The process of creating the installation

• (0:11:59) The challenges of working with living organisms

• (0:14:51) The prototype nature of the installation

• (0:16:26) Comparing commercial design work to artistic work

• (0:19:21) Getting started in living computation or computation

About Michael Sedbon

Michael Sedbon is a Paris-based artist, and life science researcher. Michael’s work investigates the convergence of digital technologies with non-human intelligence, exploring the impact on societies and environments. He constructs bio-computers, investigating the interface between biology and computer science. Michael has received notable recognition, including the Bio Arts and Design Award, the Falling Walls Art and Science Breakthrough, and was shortlisted for the Lumen Prize​. His work has been exhibited globally, and he has participated in esteemed residencies​​. Michael holds a masters in interaction design and is studying synthetic and system biology.

Links from the podcast

• Learn more about Cryptographic

• Visit Michael Sedbon’s website

• Connect with Michael Sedbon on Instagram

 

Transcripts of this intervew with Michael Sedbon

What is a living computer and how can algae be used to store data?

Robin Petterd: What's the experience of Cryptographic Beings like for someone?

Michael Sedbon: Well, first, thanks for having me. So, this installation is a three-metre-high tower composed of five stacked levels. On each of these levels, there’s a row of six bits made of marmo—which are algae balls—sitting inside glass vessels.

Michael Sedbon: These algae balls have a special property. When exposed to light, they photosynthesise and produce tiny gas vesicles that are visible to the naked eye. When enough gas vesicles accumulate, the algae float; otherwise, they sink. So, they essentially have two states—high or low. Like anything with two states that you can control and read, you can use it to store digital information.

Michael Sedbon: This installation is a storage device, much like a hard drive or USB stick. But instead of using silicon-based transistors, it stores data in biological media. You can read more on my website.

Michael Sedbon: What it’s like to experience it: it’s a robotic installation made up of this tower, surrounded by robot arms that move around. On these arms are lights that can be turned on or off to stimulate the algae.

How is computational time different from biological or natural time in installations?

Robin Petterd: There’s something really beautiful about those very slow algae moving up and down. It must be the slowest storage system on the planet.

Michael Sedbon: I haven’t made a comparative study, but yes, it’s pretty slow—about half an hour to change a single bit. The robot, though, moves at a human speed, so there's plenty of motion. The experience of the work itself doesn’t occur at the speed of the algae but it definitely makes a statement.

Michael Sedbon: The installation contrasts with the usual narrative around digital technology being instantaneous and unlimited. Here, using a biobased medium introduces constraints—like time and space. The speed limitations are defined by the biological system’s capacity for information processing. How fast can a cell or organism respond to environmental inputs? What’s the phenotypic response time?

How does synthetic biology influence media art practice?

Robin Petterd: It made me think about the different times we experience—computational time is fast, body time is slower, and nature time is different again. Did the idea for this piece come first, or was it driven by the behaviour of the organism?

Michael Sedbon: It’s a bit of both. The idea of working with this organism came from a residency I did in 2019 at the HAI (Hybrid Art Initiative) Univers, in collaboration with Rin, a researcher. She introduced me to this algae and explained how it floated when exposed to light. That stuck with me.

Michael Sedbon: Then, in 2022, I joined a workshop organised by Hakeem, a researcher in human-biological-computer interaction, particularly DNA storage. People often talk about storage on living media, but DNA itself isn’t alive—it’s a molecule essential for life, but it doesn’t behave like an organism. I wanted to explore what a truly living computer or storage system would look like. That’s when I remembered the algae.

Michael Sedbon: So, the question became: what does a living computer look like? What constraints do you face when your medium is alive?

Robin Petterd: So the idea was seeded in a science collaboration a while ago. And you’re currently studying life sciences—has that changed how you work or think about your practice?

Michael Sedbon: Before I started studying life sciences, I described my work as building bio-computers—living computers that manipulate organisms through hardware and software. I was interested in exploring the culture around computation and biology.

Michael Sedbon: But over time, I wanted to jump the fence, so to speak—to not just be the artist-in-residence, but to be in the lab. So I started studying synthetic biology, which is essentially applying engineering principles to biology. The idea is that if you can build a system from scratch, you understand it.

Michael Sedbon: So, where I once focused more on cultural observation, now I’m leaning into an engineering perspective. I’m asking what technologies can emerge from biology and what that changes. That pulls me closer to design—where the use of technology leads to new kinds of processes and products.

How do artists debug and prototype with biological media?

Robin Petterd: Yeah, I’ve seen something similar in my own path. Engineering is essentially a design practice. Here’s a problem, let’s explore it, often mathematically, like artists or designers working with technology. What was your process for making this piece?

Michael Sedbon: I make all my installations myself. I started with a rough idea and began by researching literature. There’s a lab in the UK—the Unconventional Computing Lab, led by Andrew Adamatzky—that works with this organism in the context of biocomputing. I read their methods and started prototyping.

Michael Sedbon: That meant just putting algae in a vase, adding light, placing a camera, and timing their responses. Initially, it didn’t work—I hadn’t fed them properly. Then I realised their behaviour followed a circadian rhythm, so they only respond at certain times of day.

Michael Sedbon: You basically have to debug the biology. That’s the hardest part—understanding what you can’t control.

Michael Sedbon: Once I grasped the biological requirements, I moved to the robotics. That part is straightforward—3D design, sourcing parts, assembling, coding—and then shipping the final piece for exhibition.

What are the challenges of using living organisms in interactive installations?

Robin Petterd: I love that phrase—“debugging the organism.” A lot of work like this never gets beyond the prototype stage. What pushed you to exhibit it?

Michael Sedbon: I still see this as a prototype. It looks finished, but I couldn’t scale it—make 100 of them and use them to store useful data.

Michael Sedbon: But part of the point is asking: if you make a living computer, what shape does it take? How much of it should resemble traditional computers? I wanted to explore that.

Robin Petterd: You also do commercial interaction design work. How does that compare?

Michael Sedbon: Commercial work is client-driven. Creatively, it’s very different. In commercial design, the emphasis might be on shininess, attractiveness—things that capture attention. In my art, the priority is how well the work tells a story or conveys meaning.

Michael Sedbon: The criteria for quality are different. In art, it’s about narrative power. In commercial work, it’s about visual impact or branding. Both are valid, just different.

Robin Petterd: And as artists, we spend absurd amounts of time perfecting something—time we wouldn’t afford in paid work.

Michael Sedbon: Absolutely. One of the biggest challenges in this work is control. With biology, you don’t have the same control as with mechanical systems. The installation might glitch. Not all algae will respond as expected.

Michael Sedbon: But I think that’s part of the beauty—embracing that unpredictability.

Robin Petterd: It’s almost more like how human memory works—imperfect, but meaningful.

Michael Sedbon: True, although human memory can be extremely precise. Think of a pianist who hasn’t played in years but can still perform a piece flawlessly. Biology can be precise—but we often don’t understand how.

Michael Sedbon: That’s the challenge. With engineered systems, we understand every component. With biology, we’re learning top-down, bit by bit. That’s why biohybrid systems are unreliable—we’re missing parts of the picture. But in nature, systems often work reliably because they’re complete and evolved.

Robin Petterd: That leads into my last question. If someone wants to start working with living computation, where should they begin?

Michael Sedbon: At one point, I wanted to make a starter pack—a database of organisms, papers, and tools. I never had time, but maybe one day.

Michael Sedbon: Practically, start by learning to code. Learn some electronics. Buy organisms online and try manipulating them. Learning to read scientific papers really helped me, even before I had a science background. Don’t be afraid of that—it’s a learning curve, just like coding.

Robin Petterd: I remember the first paper a scientist gave me—it was a steep learning curve. I eventually understood it by translating it through my own practice. But it helped to grasp their language.

Michael Sedbon: Science is hard—there’s a lot to know. But it’s accessible. Everything is on the internet. You can Google your way through it, just like coding.