The above presentation shows the evolution of my work in relation to the notion of digital afterlife. It shows my influences, and hopefully illustrates my developing practice. Please note there are some moderately flashing images at the end.
This was the third time I had presented my PechaKucha (a presentation format using 20 slides shown for 20 seconds each, it means ‘chit chat’ in Japanese), each time to a different audience. I was intrigued to discover what my MFA cohort would make of it given that we have had some fairly deep conversations in the past about the nature of my work and where digital practice, or what I am calling aesthetic entanglements, might be taking us as artists and human beings.
I feel fortunate in that I had already presented to a couple of face to face audiences (albeit with slightly amended versions) previously. It is not quite the same doing it virtually as the opportunity for discussion is more limited. That said I am grateful to everyone for some thoughtful and incisive questions and comments, as always.
Why are you interested in digital afterlife and this area of work?
This is perhaps the easiest of the questions to answer and it combines personal curiosity and life events. Two years ago, I reached the same age as my Dad was when he died. He died suddenly of a heart attack and without warning. It left my Mum bereft and took a long time for the family as a whole to adapt, there was no denying it was a significant life event. His death was some thirty years ago now. In contemplating my digital existence, I started to explore the potential difference between my own death and that of my Dad in terms of the traces we leave behind. This has also been influenced by the research I have done around the changing nature of family album practices in the digital era.
The other motivation is a genuine curiosity about post-digital art and the theoretical frameworks that are developing to aid understanding of this work, like the New Aesthetic (Bridle, 2012) and Neomateriality (Paul, 2015). I am generally optimistic about the potential of technology but appreciate it is not without its implications and we should be alert to them. I am conscious that most of us are not well-versed in the language of the machines despite their pervasive presence in our lives. I am definitely averse to having to learn coding. Most people I talk to about their digital assets are not aware of the need to let others know their wishes about their digital presence after their death.
What is that digital offers you, why digital?
As a digital immigrant I am fascinated by how it has become so completely embedded in our lives in what feels like a relatively short space of time. My childhood and undergraduate degree were digital free. I recall when I worked in my first small community gallery, we were still using Lettraset and Tippex to prepare posters for the printer. Lead times were extensive and most communication was by letter or phone. Now the channels have exponentially increased, the speed of work has increased, and, in my experience, this has had an impact on our social, political, economic and cultural practices.
In my creative work I see the digital aspect as both speeding up and slowing down my practice. On the one hand I can make pieces quickly with multiple iterations. On the other my practice has become deeply entangled moving in and out of digitality, often manifesting in physical objects. Digital can help me make quick sketches or maquettes, it can also be where I create the final piece after days of manipulating and developing. It also makes me think more about dissemination and distribution.
What about the energy needed to run digital – its environmental impact?
I think this was suggesting that digital may change in future because of the energy it requires. My instinct is that now the Genie is out of the bottle it’s not going to be put back. Yes, it has environmental impact, but this comes back to the power structure of the network and that there are some very large vested interests in maintaining the infrastructure. If anything, the current situation with Covid-19 has embedded it even more. I also think alternative energy sources will continue to grow.
The environmental aspect that concerns me is also part of the argument against the notion of immateriality in that is not just an energy consumption issue. It is far wider than that in terms of mining the base materials, exploiting low paid workers, devastating landscapes and so on. It may be something I explore in future projects and it is certainly not something I wish to ignore.
Are you colluding?
I guess the honest answer is yes and no.
Yes, I am:
- Using the network and platforms that I am highlighting in my work
- Creating with digital tools
- Exploring machine learning and evolving digital practices
- Staying ‘on grid’
- A citizen of a nation state, and I have a digital footprint that is well established (I feel I have little choice about it most of the time)
No, because I am:
- Endeavouring to increase my awareness of where digital practices are changing wider social and cultural practices and not just accepting it without question
- Disseminating these issues on a wider basis – holding up the mirror where I can
- Working across artforms and materialities – digital is not my only practice
This is a complex question and one I will contemplate further, in many ways I don’t feel I am colluding any more than anyone else who has an email account, a Facebook profile or online banking. This is now part of living in the network.
What about authorship and who owns what?
While I see it as a collaborative approach when I am using GANs or other AI, I think of the decisions on when and where to stop and start as being mine, I also have the initiating idea. I am therefore the author. This does partly inspire my subject matter though; in that I fully anticipate authorship may well change after my death.
Are you truly invested – does the artist having the final say?
As mentioned above I do have a say in the process, most often at the beginning and the end. Dependent on the software that I am using I also have the ‘undo’ option and can take myself back to an earlier phase if I need to, something that perhaps sits ironically with my subject matter – at some point there will not be an undo option! I also see there being an element of serendipity in the work. I don’t always know what the machine is going to do and often the results surprise me, I can however, make a decision as to whether I incorporate and/or save the final outcome.
What about consciousness and Imagination – not in the computer, not having original thought – is there an issue of digital imagination? Surely the domain of the artist is imagination?
It was the question about computers having imagination that really captured my attention during the session. Partly, because I think that there’s an element of me that doesn’t understand the issue. It reminded me of some of our post-human discussions as a group and our tendency towards anthropocentrism. I think this is a fascinating area to pursue and want to do more reading around computers having the capacity to think and imagine. It reminded me of a fantastic Gregory Bateson quote too:
“But as for why I tell a lot of stories, there’s a joke about that. There was once a man who had a computer, and he asked it, ‘Do you compute that you will ever be able to think like a human being?’ And after assorted grindings and beepings, a slip of paper came out of the computer that said, ‘That reminds me of a story . . .’ ” (Bateson, 2002)
The work seems experimental and uncontrollable
This is an issue that has been mentioned before and I think stems from a perception of ceding control of the direction of the work to other forces. This is something I generally relish, and to be honest I don’t necessarily feel that in control when I am painting or collaging! Plenty of artists speak of being told what to do by their artwork. It is true I think of the computer as more than a tool now, there is a strange sense of collaboration, which may in turn be more about my lack of knowledge of the inner workings of computing than the computer being a conscious actor. As mentioned, before I do have some control over the process in terms of the initial ideas, the elements I use and when to start and stop. I can often undo (dependent on the programme), and I can certainly delete or choose not to save. In some way I feel I have more freedom working digitally than I do with works on paper or canvas. In many ways it also goes to the core of my work which is about exploring notions of my digital afterlife. A domain over which I will have no control unless angels really can connect with social media (apparently this is a growing belief)!
AI robotic portrait drawing – Oxford.
One of the group also recommended some work being done at Oxford University in terms of robotic creativity and AI. It is extraordinary to see this robotic artist at work, and I am aware there are other artists (human) working with robots as part of their own practice. At the moment I am less drawn to the robotic side, but this may of course change as the work progresses.
This feedback and the various questions give me so much to think about and is incredibly helpful in terms of getting a sense of how others might perceive my work. I am fascinated by the questions it threw up for the group, which have given me scope for more research – like the notions of imagination, consciousness and creativity. Some weighty topics to address!
Afterword
In having a follow up tutorial with Lee Maelzer, we had a useful discussion about the still life work included in the presentation. Others had also commented on them in previous sessions, with it being described as luscious and beautiful. I talked about my work moving on, but Lee’s perspective was interesting in being mindful of not just stopping something because we are accomplished at it or we feel we have done it. This observation has given me a lot to reflect on because doing the PechaKucha reminded me how much I love doing still life and would be very happy to revisit it. I have already started researching those contemporary still life artists that inspired me again (a new book by Olivia Parker has just arrived!) to think about how I might take it to a new level.
References
BATESON, G. 2002. Mind and Nature, Glasgow, Fontana/Collins.
BRIDLE, J. 2012. A New Aesthetic for the digital age [Online]. YouTube. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z84EDsnpb4U [Accessed 1/2/20].
PAUL, C. 2015. From Immateriality to Neomateriality: art and the conditions of digital materiality. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art.