# interventions

`INTERVENTION 1` -personal-

{% embed url="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PkJVj6a1IFDnHy2osMtHD_1fZtR-DLi/view?usp=share_link" %}

_Reflection_

I started this intervention with a vision that felt clear, but as I progressed, it became evident that things weren’t turning out as I had hoped. I think the main struggle for me was managing my time effectively, and as I delved deeper into the project, I realized that my excitement for it was fading. Despite gaining valuable academic insights and knowledge, elements that I genuinely want to keep pursuing, I found myself lacking motivation at times.

Looking back, I see that perhaps I misjudged the approach I took for this intervention. Instead of capturing the dynamic essence I wanted, I ended up with a straightforward overview of my research. This experience has taught me the importance of choosing methods that resonate with my interests and passions, as they can truly make a difference in how engaged I feel with the work. Moving forward, I want to find a way to align my projects more closely with what inspires me, hoping that I can create something more meaningful and impactful.&#x20;

`INTERVENTION 2`  - Vitti, Belen, Mohit-&#x20;

For our group intervention we  focused on the broad theme of the Anthropocene, specifically interspecies relationships. We initially joined a larger group whose common interests included policy/ethics, posthumanism, material experimentation, heritage, symbiosis, biomimicry, and speculative performance.&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://4047239452-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQy1vSyxxec0XICPNeLNP%2Fuploads%2FiOwLJzjPWDicaUU7ob9E%2FIMG_4144.jpeg?alt=media&#x26;token=ed28e4b6-e10a-4631-b26a-d70e05fcd83a" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="https://4047239452-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQy1vSyxxec0XICPNeLNP%2Fuploads%2F7XW4DT5rMB80rLlGDhrG%2FIMG_4146-2.jpeg?alt=media&#x26;token=0f340ef9-4df6-4fa1-bfcf-6410b29ebe5c" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>



Following an initial discussion, we split into two sub-groups; ours centered on the technical aspects of material development, the concept of symbiosis and circularity, and the communication between humans and non-humans, aiming to make technical and scientific relationships clear and accessible.

After a brainstorming session, we found a shared interest in the world of fungi, particularly the growth and process of mycelium and its interaction with humans, as well as its development without human interference, tied to the concept of past-present-future. Our objective was to cultivate four mycelium samples: one per person and one to grow in a natural environment free from human contamination or intervention. Once each sample had started growing without mold or contamination, it was assigned to a group member, who took care of it individually for one week, guided by their own research and perspectives.

The aim of this intervention is to explore the relationship between humans and non-human living beings, treating mycelium not just as a mere material but as a living entity in a growth phase, akin to a pet. Each participant documented the progress of their sample through short daily video updates, leading to a final interview styled like "Big Brother," where we answered a series of questions to reflect on the week, the methods used, and the condition of the mycelium. The concluding discussion among the three of us will allow for a comparison of our experiences, noting similarities and differences in our approaches and outcomes.

{% embed url="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FrjRNx2wfSJH4DiIQeVEgOH4YRm3hZb/view?usp=share_link" %}
intervention video
{% endembed %}

{% embed url="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ia7bFWSXNbKl9S5Ura-C1ibRAz_rMEcg/view?usp=share_link" %}
reflections
{% endembed %}

_personal insight:_

One particularly interesting aspect for me in this intervention is observing the different narratives that will emerge throughout the project. Our approach of documenting the process as if it were a reality show in the style of "Big Brother" provides a stimulating parallel. In programs like "Big Brother," the focus is on human interactions, empathy, and dynamics that are often superficial but manage to generate profound emotional and social resonance.

I find it fascinating to apply a similar narrative lens to our project, where the interaction is not only between humans, but between humans and non-humans, represented by the mycelium. This living being, which is often perceived and treated as inert material, becomes the center of a narrative that explores care, attention, and connection. I am interested in observing how our individual experiences will shape our storytelling and how that story will be crafted to highlight the importance of treating mycelium not just as a resource, but as a living entity with which to form a relationship.

This duality between a format that emphasizes human, emotional, and relational aspects and a narrative that explores human and non-human interaction opens up broader reflections: how do empathy and care develop toward a living being different from ourselves? How can we transfer a typically human narrative, with all its emotional weight, to an interspecies context? And most importantly, what implications does this approach have for the perception of mycelium as part of a complex, living ecosystem, rather than just as a simple material to be exploited?

_conclusion_

Through our three distinct approaches to engaging with the mycelium, the project revealed diverse narratives that speak to the broader questions I initially raised.&#x20;

Belen, with her focus on co-living, approached the mycelium as a relational being, exploring its interactions with other living entities—humans and animals—and reflecting on the passage of time through its daily growth. Her perspective highlights the potential for interspecies relationships to deepen our awareness of time and shared existence.

Mohit, on the other hand, embraced a poetic and artistic narrative, treating the mycelium as a child to be nurtured and carried into the world. By embedding empathy and care into their relationship, Mohit’s approach amplified the emotional weight of interspecies interaction, almost anthropomorphizing the mycelium to create a deeply personal connection.

As in my approach, I prioritized stability and an environment conducive to growth, particularly because this was my first experience with such a living material. For me, the mycelium became a personal project—a relationship built on observation and care, yet kept somewhat distant from external interactions. I approached it as something private, a connection that didn’t need to be shared or mediated by outside influences. This perspective shaped my actions: I cared for it attentively, but in a way that was introspective and exclusive, treating it less as a collaborative project and more as a quiet dialogue between us.

The duality between human emotional narratives and human-non-human interactions reveals that empathy and care toward a living being different from ourselves develop through intentional engagement and perception. Each of our approaches demonstrated a unique way of fostering this connection: Belen’s exploration of co-living emphasized interdependence and relational dynamics, Mohit’s poetic narrative anthropomorphized the mycelium to foster emotional resonance, and my introspective approach highlighted care as a quiet, personal practice. This diversity shows that empathy toward non-human entities arises not from a single framework but from the willingness to recognize them as active participants in a shared experience. Transferring a human narrative into an interspecies context involves rethinking the boundaries of relationality. Mohit’s portrayal of the mycelium as a child humanized it, creating a relatable emotional framework. In contrast, Belen’s focus on interspecies interaction emphasized the distinct, yet interconnected, nature of the mycelium. My own approach, treating it as a partner in a private relationship, suggests that human narratives can also accommodate silence and individuality, rather than imposing overt emotional constructs. Together, these approaches illustrate the flexibility of human narratives when extended to non-human beings. Most importantly, these varied perspectives challenge the perception of mycelium as merely a material resource.



`INTERVENTION 2`  - Vitti, Belen, Andrea,Kevin,Max-&#x20;

For this second group intervention, I decided to continue working with mycelium. Within our group, we brought together diverse interdisciplinary skills, which led us to explore how we could combine our expertise in areas such as mycelium, waste materials, technology, and narration.

We started by compiling a list of materials that are easily accessible within a domestic or student environment: sawdust, cardboard, fabric, coffee grounds and a mixture of coffee grounds and sawdust . After sourcing the materials, we prepared them and introduced the mycelium. Simultaneously, we designed and constructed containers with one transparent side to allow us to observe the growth process. These containers were also designed with three holes at the base, enabling us to insert sensors of our choice.

Our goal is to evaluate whether mycelium can grow effectively on the selected materials. Additionally, by using sensors to monitor humidity and temperature, we aim to collect data that will enhance our understanding and provide valuable insights for further exploration.

{% embed url="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcceqieC9Jm1YHeIFSJnq-W6HqEKTQNF/view?usp=share_link" %}



