Dalila Honorato

This article examines, analyses and compares the cinematic representation of three female protagonists (on three respective films) within their portrayed incestuous relationships. It also attempts to draw significant conclusions about their dynamic as female participating subjects in these affairs in a more inclusive way, one that takes into consideration their racial, gender, social and family characteristics. As incest itself is one of the strongest human taboos, various questions regarding the female portrait and position in such relationships arise: as incest constitutes the strongest social taboo of human civilization, is it similarly portrayed in cinema? Can incest be a female’s act of choice or is it just a male’s one? Are there any differences between male and female depictions of incestuous desire and sexual act? In which ways do potential differences, such as social status, class origin, racial and gender stereotypes, influence the protagonists of incestuous relationships? Which female motivations are involved in incestuous relationships?

Women in the field of art and science have an unquestionable presence worldwide that exceeds their visibility in the general visual art scene. When cataloguing women’s range of practices and exploring their agency in art and science, a new model of inclusivity and access to the public sphere for all individuals working in art emerges. First, these are contributions reflecting on projects being carried out by women in the broadest interpretation of the term – individuals who identify themselves as women, cisgender, non-cisgender, transgender, gender fluid and independent of their sex and gender. Second, these are contributions that reflect on research methodologies, collaboration strategies, knowledge sharing, as well as public vs. personal, embodiment and materiality.

In nature validation for physiological and emotional bonding becomes a mode for supporting social connectivity. Similarly, in the blockchain ecosystem, cryptographic validation becomes the substrate for all interactions. In the dialogue between human and artificial intelligence (AI) agents, between the real and the virtual, one can distinguish threads of physical or mental entanglements allowing different modes of participation. One could even suggest that in all types of realities there exist frameworks that are to some extent equivalent and act as validation mechanisms for behavioural interweaving. Relevant to our own experience as an Editorial Organism, in this issue of Technoetic Arts we explore modes of participation and collaboration through different lenses by including guest-edited sections and stand-alone articles.

Human–robot interaction (HRI) is the study focused on the relationship between humans and robots. HRI as a study combines elements from different fields such as computer science, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, psychology and sociology. With the advancement in the field of AI, HRI showed greater improvements and now, we have the first robot recognized as a citizen of a country: Sophia the robot. Sophia is a robot that has a humanoid form, first made her appearance in 2016 and, according to her creators, is a mix of technology, arts and robotics. Since then, Sophia has made a lot of appearances in different TV shows, given interviews and participated in commercials. Sophia also has her own social media accounts. Our study focuses on Sophia’s presence on social media and the ways she communicates with people and the rhetorics she makes use of. Hence, it studies the advances on HRI and the issues encountered in the field of communication. For our research, we used purposive sampling and content analysis in cases needed in order to study Sophia’s communication patterns and behaviour. At this point, we will delve into the communication with the AI aspect of HRI.