Categories
reflection unit 3

A workshop in London

9th September 2024

Traditional Indigo tie-n-dye workshop practiced by the Bai minority of china.

Workshop at Yi Craft, London with Yiran, for Chengyi Lin.

I was invited to participate in an interactive workshop by Lin on the 9th of September. The workshop was organised by Yiran of YiCraft in NW London and consisted of a brief history of the traditional indigo tie-dye craft of the Bai minority followed by a practical demonstration. Yiran explained that she was a part of this ethnic minority in China. The workshop was set in her beautiful studio, adorned with many examples of Chinese ethnic crafts and prominently featured indigo dyed textiles using multiple traditional techniques including batik and screen print. Large panels of indigo dyed textile floated above our heads and draped the walls. Traditional costumes of the Bai tribe decorated the mannequins scattered around the periphery of the room and soft Tibetan chant music played at an ambient volume. We sipped some freshly brewed tea as Yiran told us the history and relevance of the Bai tribe traditions and how it was related to other textile traditions ranging from Japan, South-east and South Asia and into parts of Africa. These regions shared some practices but had their own history and traditions when it came to colour and design. It was a fascinating peek into an ancient tradition that we were today going to participate in. The history and story telling was a large part of appreciating the workshop. As we sipped our tea, it was evident that this was not going to be a simple tie-dye workshop, but one where we intimately connected with Yiran’s culture. It was clear that she had a deep connection and love for where she came from. Her understanding of the history made us look at the humble blue dye with fresh eyes. She had succeeded in not just sharing her heritage with us, but inviting us into the region of China that the Bai tribe inhabited. To me, I felt a profound connection with the people who lived across the border of my country of India. We had been divided politically for over 70 years, by the borders of the modern nation states of India and China, but we shared a unique link for thousands of years before that. A link that was as ancient as human trade in textile knowledge and as deep blue as the stains of indigo that we were about to oppress on our pieces of cloth.

As we sat and meticulously put needle to thread, to squeeze, scrunch and tie our plain white pieces of fabric together into distorted yet promising forms, the Tibetan chants played in the background. The Tibetan plateau lay to her west, and to my north. A sense of meditative calm had overcome us all. With this practice of sharing of tradition, I felt a bond that on a casual day would have gone completely unseen. Here, ten thousand miles away from our home countries, on a small island off the coast of a different continent, neighbours found themselves. I felt a deep appreciation for the preservation work Yiran is doing here in London. The stories of a people, the land they come from and the beauty that inspires them, their hopes and dreams from centuries ago, preserved and shared so graciously with me. As we sat there, Yiran shared pictures of the mountains in her village, the water that reflected the gentle blue sky in the early morning, a picture that almost seemed dyed by indigo itself. To say this experience was anything less than spiritual, would be an understatement. 

Categories
Expert reflection Secondary Research unit 3

Further correspondence | Experts

As I share my intervention outcomes, my collaboration with Marta Abba saw an introduction from Italian AI artist Francesco D’Isa. His work explores AI data, errors and kitsch. Following is an except from my response to his email on the nature of misinformations and it’s association with vested interest and power:

As I discuss some of my findings on past images and AI, I’d like to put forward some examples I found on this subject, so as to build on the discussion-

Radio: 

The infamous 1938 incident of a halloween special on the book ‘War of the worlds’ preformed by Orson Welles created a mass panic in America. This was a radio show and the public had taken the portrayal of the fictional radio show to be an actual news broadcast. The public had not expected the radio, the main source of information at the time to be broadcasting a fictional show. Today, it is unlikely anyone would it so seriously. Despite many such shows being produced and broadcast, eg. Dragons : Fantasy made real (2004) on the Discovery channel and Doomsday 2012 (2007) on the History channel, it has not cause a similar reaction or panic.

Article documenting the 1938 incident:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/infamous-war-worlds-radio-broadcast-was-magnificent-fluke-180955180/

VFX and CGI:

Visual effects in films have seen a steady increase in usage and technical expertise, but so has the discernment of the audience. Visual effects considered exceptional a few years ago, now are seen as cringe or clearly unbelievable. The exposure and increase of VFX usage has led to a more discerning audience that now distinguishes between good and bad visual effects.

On the flip side, we have CGI, or computer generated graphics. At one point, CGI struggled to fully generate believable worlds. There was a term that was described this challenge for a long time- the uncanny valley. As recently as 2019, we had debated on the subject with the lion king remake garnering much criticism for its depiction of photorealistic animals juxtaposed with human speech and mouth movement. But there have been examples of pushing past this with movies such as Alita: Battle Angel’s protagonist and Gollum from Peter Jackson’s Lord of the rings being complete CGI characters created through motion capture to great acclaim.

Photoshop:

I found many articles and disclaimers dated back to 2011 with a very similar tone (as being used for AI images today) towards photoshopped images. Allow me to attach two such below- one from the guardian on their policy and the second, a student project (by Stephanie Coffaney) at the California Polytechnic state University. This can be taken as evidence that this was a relevant and serious discussion around the late 2000’s and early 2010’s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/04/picture-manipulation-news-imagery-photoshop

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19153916.pdf

Specificity and Historical images:

Currently, AI struggles to generate believable outputs for individual people. My work on recreating past memories of artists (as a form of curating Identity) points to this shortcoming. Outside of famous celebrities and world leaders, it is very hard for AI to easily produce a specific person. The training data is also very limited for spaces and concepts that may be nuanced or regional to the individual. What is easy to produce for AI, are images of generic with well documented concepts. The details are what it really struggles with. Despite this, generative AI is producing photorealistic images of the past, and this is made easier due to the nature of old photographs. The images being in black and white, blurred in areas and having damage accumulated over time can make it incredibly difficult for a common person to distinguish them. Here, the nature of what is expected is being used in the favour of AI’s limitations. It would be a lot harder for AI to generate a believable image in colour with realistic detail from today’s era. But if asked to generate a picture in an old and damaged style of a past time, it plays to the strength of AI’s randomisation.

The problem with historical images is that they can also be difficult to fact check. Many stories and their related images are lost to time, or buried so deep in the archives that it would be a difficult and time consuming task to resurrect it. Many images have never been published and put away in boxes and corners, yet to discovered. Authenticating such images would be hard if only a digital copy is available. This make the possibility of historical images’ authentication lie in a grey area. Some AI generated images may be falsely flagged as real due to close similarities with other archived images, while some genuine images may be flagged as fake if there is no other evidence to corroborate its authenticity.

Refelctions of digital colourist, Marina Amaral on AI images:

https://marinaamaral.substack.com/p/ai-is-creating-fake-historical-photos#:~:text=And%20trust%20me%2C%20these%20generated,indistinguishable%20from%20the%20real%20ones.

Categories
Intervention reflection unit 3

Wall of Memories | Reflections

How was the experience for participants remembering a fond memory?

All the participants of my intervention respond with a sense of nostalgia. The process of remembering a “fond” memory seemed challenging for them. The responses show that it was a challenging task that took time for them to complete. This shows that perhaps the real challenge for visual artists curating their personal identities is digging deep and finding pivotal points that shaped their lives and practice. This is a new aspect I had not considered completely. I hope to find a way to prompt a better way of finding what defines each individual and if there can be a process that can help better develop this “recall”.

How did participants feel seeing their individual memories as images?

The participants seemed divided on the enhancing effects I had expected this process to have. Which each of them rightly pointed out that the image was not a perfect replica of their memories, there was some understanding that when working with generative AI, it is more about providing physical descriptions rather than the mood a memory may evoke. While this was something I had explained to the participants, it is a learning that emotions cannot be infused in an AI image.

The image wall had me using LoRas that matched the participants as I tried to enhance their original memories as prompts. The wall included two images – an initial image and a final image. While two participant responses show their disappointment with the final images, i.e. not close enough or below expectations, there were others that stated that aspects of their memories became more vivid in their mind as they saw the generated image. There is evidence from these interactions that some people can build up an old memory using iterated images over time. In some sense, this also lets me think that there may be a possibility to bring forth the past and look at it again.

How did participants feel about their memories being one amongst many?

From the feedback, it appears that seeing other people’s memories along side their own, the participants were drawn into a community mindset. One participant attests to going back and reading other people’s notes. Despite a variety of emotions reported- overwhelming, joy, nostalgia, connection, surprise, etc. the common theme is can gather is that doing such an exercise with more people has a positive impact on the participants. This may be because they are on in the centre of the stage, but sharing it with others. Connection between all these different age groups and media users is also an unexpected outcome. Participants aged 39 and 24 feeling connected over a wall of AI generated images is a unique outcome and demonstrates a unique ability of this technology to bring together different generations.

Did AI images change the way any of the participants remembered their life?

All participants reported no change in the way they remembered their individual memories. These are clearly important parts of their lives and so are remembered strongly. I would like to be able to do justice and help a few of the participants develop more on the possibility of truly bringing the image closer to what is being seen in the eye of their minds.

Did any participants change the way they view AI application?

Participants did not find the outcome convincing enough to instigate a change in their already held views on generative AI. This is due to many factors, some of which include the participants already being supportive of generative AI technology, and other participants viewing it as a tool. For those who had negative associations of generative AI, the outcome may have reinforced their views.

Reflections from participants and possible changes moving forward.

The feedback strongly indicates that the participants were engaged with the idea of generative AI recreating memory. The feedback evidenced there to exist genuine curiosity and thinking on the part of different participants on the defining of themselves and the future role of this technology. I was certain that this would be far from a perfect intervention when working with such a difficult topic. I was however, hoping to gauge the interest and curiosity artists would feel when interacting with my intervention. In this case, while much was lacking in terms of presenting the “perfect” replica of the participant’s memories or identity, there was success in garnering genuine curiosity and expectation from a technology that until a few months ago, I thought was the enemy of visual artists.

Moving forward, I would like to expand this into a process rather than a simple installation. The back and forth on feedback and recollection, I find, is an important part of curating one’s personal identity. The task is not as simple as putting in text prompts into a magic machine, but is learning how to utilise a new tool for reflecting the personal. Understanding, what is the personal and how memories, artefacts and other aspects play into shaping it. Through the last few months, I have unlearnt many biases, uncovered many questions and reflected on many possibilities for my project. I feel the answers lie beyond the horizon, and may never be truly absolute, but a framework is beginning to appear close.

Categories
Intervention unit 3

Wall of Memories | Feedback

The Wall of Memories intervention saw its conclusion in early September. Following is the intervention feedback gathered as well as the project interactions at a glance.