IVF (2020) captures the process of fertilization under a microscope, depicting a single sperm being injected into an egg through a central needle. The soft blue tones and precise positioning of the needle underscore the clinical and delicate nature of in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF has a history spanning over half a century: in 1959, the first successful IVF birth in a nonhuman mammal was achieved, and by 1978, the first human baby conceived through IVF was born. Medical advancements have since transformed IVF from a natural research method into a controlled clinical treatment. For two decades, the concept of using artificial intelligence-enhanced supercomputers for DNA editing in fertility treatment has been explored to determine which options are most likely to result in a live birth. This technology has now expanded beyond infertility treatments to include non-medical applications, such as genetic optimization and gender selection. In the context of global health crises and the commodification of genetic engineering, IVF raises questions about which conditions are deemed “screenable” and examines concerns surrounding genetic stratification and social inequity.

Q: What inspired you to create IVF?

Tan Mu: IVF was inspired by the scientific process of in vitro fertilization. My initial interest came from reflecting on fertility and egg freezing, but as I began researching further, I became aware of how genes can be selected and even edited. This led me to study both the technical procedures and the ethical questions surrounding them. In IVF clinics, high-quality sperm and eggs can be selected, and sperm banks often present detailed donor profiles that include education, physical traits, health history, and family genetics. These profiles resemble curated catalogs of idealized genetic attributes. This immediately reminded me of the film Gattaca and its vision of a genetically stratified society. I became deeply interested in how these technologies operate at a microscopic scale and in the tension between what is visible and invisible in the creation of life.

Q: You mentioned that IVF technology led you to reflect on genetic optimization. Could you elaborate on that?

Tan Mu: Much like plastic surgery, IVF technology was originally developed to address infertility and screen for genetic diseases. Over time, however, its scope has expanded beyond medical necessity to include forms of optimization, such as selecting embryos based on gender or specific genetic traits. Genetic screening is increasingly positioned as a consumer choice rather than solely a medical intervention. This shift raises serious ethical questions. Could genetic editing lead to greater social division or reinforce elitism through the creation of so-called designer babies? These technologies carry the risk of deepening inequality while reshaping how we define normality and value in human life. In my work, I try to give form to these tensions. While technology offers hope and possibility, it also challenges our ideas of equality, diversity, and the natural unpredictability of life.

Q: Many of your works portray technology as an extension of the body. How do microscope images from laboratories influence your perspective?

Tan Mu: Viewing life through a microscope opened up an entirely new world for me. The structures and patterns I observed at a cellular level resonated strongly with my thoughts about the origins and essence of life. From the forms of individual cells to the stages of embryonic development, I saw both immense potential and deep uncertainty. I translate these scientific images into abstract visual language, not to reproduce them directly, but to create a dialogue between science and art. These images prompt me to think about how technology shapes and intervenes in life at its most fundamental level, while also intensifying my sense of awe toward the fragility and complexity of existence.

Q: Could you talk about the colors and composition of this piece?

Tan Mu: In IVF, I primarily used cool blue tones to reflect the clinical calm and neutrality of laboratory environments, while also evoking the purity and vulnerability of life at its earliest stage. The composition contrasts vertical needle forms with rounded cellular shapes. The needle represents the precision and power of technological intervention, while the circular forms of the cells suggest softness, fragility, and potential. This contrast highlights the tension between technological control and natural life, inviting viewers to reflect on the reach and limits of scientific intervention.

I was also struck by the dramatic difference in scale between sperm and eggs. An egg is the largest single cell in the human body and can be seen with the naked eye, while sperm requires magnification to be visible. This scientific imbalance felt both visually and philosophically significant to me. In the painting, I wanted to amplify this disproportion, transforming it into a visual metaphor that speaks to power, vulnerability, and the asymmetries embedded in the creation of life.