Is the signal used for communication between organisms a symbol? Where is the boundary of the symbol? Since the emergence of the "semiotic turn in biology" in the West in the 1990s, the transmission of the information at the animal, plant, and even cell has been regarded as the proper scope of semiotic research: semiotics has thus established a "global" research horizon. When we look at the categories of modern art from such a global perspective, especially the establishment of distinct and independent concepts in certain art fields, it is possible to break down barriers and boundaries and rebuild an integrated and broad vision for today’s art.

Western biological art was born in the context of the rapid development of biotechnology. It is true that as a way of disseminating for disclosing science and technology and clarifying ideas, it has so far performed outstandingly the philosophical function of art after "The End of Art". However, did biological art emerge suddenly under the coercion of technology? Before it emerges from history, does it have a hidden "prehistory". In other words, are there so many "hidden-bio-artists" and "hidden-bio-art creations" in biological art just like there are so many "hidden-semiologists" in semiotics? Does the boundary of the object in biological art coincide with the boundary of the symbol? How to reconstruct the history, categories, and concepts of biological art from the perspective of semiotics? This lecture "Semiotics that Break Boundaries: The Boundaries and Ethics of Biological Art" is devoted to discussing these issues.