Thijs Biersteker
Portrait of the Artist, courtesy of the Studio.
World-renowned artist Thijs Biersteker creates data-driven artworks that turn scientific research into emotional, immersive experiences—aiming to make environmental science reach heads of state and the hearts of the public.
He has collaborated with UNESCO, WHO, and LVMH, exhibited at Fondation Cartier (FR), the Barbican centre (UK), COP, and Montreux Jazz Festival (CH), and spoken at the UN and TED. As the founder of the Woven Foundation, he helps to bridge science and emotion to reshape how critical research enters culture and policy.
AMBER HANSON: Your installations share a clean, clinical, almost fictional aesthetic; recognisable, but also slightly alien. How intentional is that language of design? What is its purpose as a tool for enhancing or unsettling our relationships with technology?
THIJS BIERSTEKER: A lot of the work is placed in nature, I think having an aesthetic that does not compete with the beauty of nature and feels the scientific side of it emphasises the scientific angle of the works me and my team make. I don't focus on our relationship with technology, as I focus on our relationship between biodiversity and society.
Xylemia by Thijs Biersteker. Images by the Artist.
AH: Your work often turns human materials (plastic, smoke, trash) into objects of empathy. Do you believe that objects can inherently evoke feeling, or is it the context and aesthetic framing that activates emotional response?
TB: I see it as my “job” as an artist to communicate the scientific findings into something relatable, understandable and emotional, as this is the only way the facts become actionable. If we look at the current problems in our world, the planetary crisis and the biodiversity challenges - we can be really clear. The science is clear, the solutions are here. Only the shift of us as societies is not. I think by adding empathy, the emotions to science it will help people imagine and take action. Science needs all the help it can get at this pivotal moment in time, and art is extremely equipped to be adding the feelings to the facts.
AH: In Plastic Reflectic, you sourced 601 pieces of ocean plastic. Did the physical process of collecting and handling that waste change your understanding of the issue in any way?
TB: No. At that moment I was a partner at Better Future Factory and we turned plastic waste into products. So I was well equipped to have that conversation back in 2014. Now we are 10 years in and I still see the same challenges and more research coming out of the impact of microplastics. Maybe it's time to make another version of this again :)
AH: Wither visualises the deforestation of the Amazon in real time. What metrics or reactions do you use to evaluate its success potentially within public response, institutional uptake, emotional resonance for example?
TB: I think the artist's answer would be different than that of me and the people we work here with at the Foundation. We are working on growing our impact measurement, but with the mixture between policy maker engagement, public engagement, visitors, online views and visibility and press uptake - we can easily say that we are really good in giving the research the reach it deserves into the policy making and public engagement side.
Wither by Thijs Biersteker in collaboration with Unesco. Images by the artist.
AH: How do you weigh the personal or political power of live data and historical records as speculative future projections in your work? Does one hold more urgency or impact for you as an artist?
TB: What I like in a lot of the models we get from scientists is that they show pathways.
They give back a bit of agency over the future, and in a time when we feel powerless, showing options is powerful.
It gives people agency. It does not force opinion but shows you the path.
Like we did with the performance showing the scenarios for the glaciers. How we as society can take a different direction, but we as a person can have influence. Our part to play, our agency
AH: Within developments in AI, neural sensing and responsive materials, are there any specific technologies you're watching, or resisting right now?
TB: To me, it's all about the message. Technology is like paint, it's a tool to emphasise the message I want to bring. I think we like to use the best tools available to bring the message across in the most accessible and imaginable way. I think artists that use technology itself as their tools are a marketing-tool for that technology.
AI as a concept of intelligence and the way we interact with something smarter than us is interesting. I’m really happy I did not get into all the requests for making NFT’s, you can really see the type of artists that took that to cash without consciousness (or style).
AH: Has there been a time when the technology behind one of your works failed or behaved unpredictably? How has that affected the outcome or reshaped works?
TB: When we launched Econtiniuum together with Stefano Mancuso, an AI driven piece that took the data from his Lab about how two trees communicated, rebuilding root communication using AI, and brought collaboration to life. In the 12m, 2 root sculpture made of recycled plastics and projections, you can see how they share nutrients in real time which sends warning signals, keeping each other strong and healthy as one. When you were breathing in the room the c02 levels influenced the work, making you a part of it. A day before the opening we went into the space and the whole work was flickering and pulsing, nothing we programmed or was in the data. After hours of searching the cleaner came in and mumbled that they chemically cleaned the carpet for the opening, upsetting the sensors the AI work with. It showed me that it was alive, and it was the same for the people that needed to turn off the work at night, who told me that they had troubles with this as they felt such a lively connection to it throughout the day.
AH: Your installations engage viewers sensorially. What strategies, movement, scale, sound, spatial design do you rely on most to produce emotional response and reflection in your audience? Is there a sensory beginning go-to for design.
TB: I think we use them all. I think we do whatever’s needed to get the message across. From smell, to experience design, to spatial design, to sounds, to interactive soundscapes, to sensors—everything that creates a way to take away as many boundaries as possible and create as much accessibility as possible. I think the wonder and the imagination we bring to these hard topics is a great way to engage with them. I’m not limited to any one form. We specialise in finding the most pivotal role in breaking down the hard questions and the urgent decisions that need to be answered these days.
AH: Much of your work deals with environmental urgency. How do you balance emotional intensity to avoid overwhelming or alienating your audience while still communicating the gravity of the issue?
TB: I think we live in a world where we are getting numbed by all the numbers, where every heat record sounds like a broken record, and where the facts become so overwhelming they’re unimaginable. And if something’s unimaginable, it becomes unactionable. So what we do is attract people with aesthetics, beauty, and art - inviting them into the conversation. We show them the data and reveal what drives these works on a deeper level, whilst also educating them. Finding that balance is essential, not only as an artist but also as a science communicator. Walking that line answers the overwhelming effect of relentless research, misinformation, and eco-anxiety, especially among youth. In the studio, we’ve shifted toward hope-related works that show what’s working in the world. We use beauty not for its own sake, but as a strategic invitation. Much like flowers, which use beauty to attract pollinators and ensure the spread of their DNA and seeds. This strategy has proven effective at conferences like COP and Biodiversity Climate Conferences, where policymakers and change makers see science visually backed by art.
AH: Your work often transforms complex scientific research and large data sets into visual experiences. How do you navigate the fine line between staying true to the data and taking creative liberties? When is it necessary to allow ambiguity into the process?
TB: 80% of my work is doing exactly that. Collaborating with scientists to pinpoint where the science is exactly correct and where we can spark the imagination so people can feel the facts in a relatable, understandable and personal way. We’ve managed to achieve this beautifully over the years. In fact, some of our works are featured concurrently in publications as varied as Donald Duck Magazine, a kids’ magazine, and New Scientist. The requests for this form of collaboration keep coming because of the big urgency, and frankly, our vision has exceeded our workload capacity.
We’re even launching the Woven Foundation, a dedicated platform designed to bridge the gap between the sciences and the arts. The Foundation’s mission is to train scientists, artists, and organisations to collaborate in innovative ways, ensuring that scientific research is communicated in a deeply relatable, emotional, and impactful manner. Through educational workshops, mentorship programs, and collaborative projects, the Woven Foundation not only reinforces our guiding principles but also actively builds a community where data and creativity intertwine seamlessly. We are distinct in the field, walking the line between scientific certainty and creative freedom is vital.
Artists that delve into speculation or fantasy in science collaboration risk confusing people, and science is here to convince us with solid facts. Our guiding principles help scientists communicate their research in an emotional, beautiful, and personal way.
AH: If you had to choose between using live data, historical data, or speculative future data in your work, which would you prioritise?
TB: What we do now is work a lot with the socioeconomic pathways. The projections from the scientists we collaborate with outline potential roads, pathways we can still take, and that gives people agency. It’s crucial to show that there are options to choose from. We work with pathways based on present and past data that allow the calculation of different scenarios: what if we keep using fossil fuels? what if we do nothing? and what if we follow a sustainable path?
This is a powerful way to show people that options exist. We’ve embedded this approach in works like Econario and in our beautiful new project based on glaciers, developed in collaboration with Matthias Hoes and Heidi Stevere (Glaciers Work). We even showcased a concert based on these socioeconomic pathways a few weeks ago.
AH: Are there any upcoming scientific or technological breakthroughs that you’re particularly eager to incorporate into your installations?
TB: We have started to work on planetary boundaries and system changes a lot. It is a framework that gives us an understanding of how our planet is right now and how it behaves, so it's crucially important. And at the same time, we are featuring a tour. We're starting a tour built on the works of scientists that do projects that actually show the progress we want to make based on all the biodiversity goals that are out there. It's basically showing people glimpses of hope that the projects that actually are working and give us a glimpse of where we are going right now if we follow science and how beautiful that world can be. So it's almost a demonstration of what is working right now in the scientific field and how that can guide us towards a new place, a place as beautiful if we follow science.