For this intervention, I was able to engage 9 individuals that practice visual arts in some capacity.
These individuals range in age from 22 years to 39 years.
2 participants identify as Female,
3 as Non-Binary and
4 participants identify as some degree of Gender non-conforming.
2 participants are engaged in full time employment in visual arts ,
3 make supplementary income through visual arts, and
4 participants engage in it as a hobby.
Below is a break down of the forms of art identified in their practice.
I further enquired if they had ever used or engaged with generative AI. Out of the 9 respondents, 5 had engaged in the use of generative AI in some capacity.
Further, I wanted to understand their views on the technology before I moved to the next stage of the intervention. As such, I think they were unaware that the intervention had already started.
Below are the responses to the question: Please tell us a bit about your current views on generative AI.
Outside of my research, I have volunteered to work on the MA Applied imagination Festival as part of the class committee. The festival will be taking place in the beginning of December 2024 and will showcase the work of our cohort. I am excited to participate and will have some of my time divided between the two projects.
I also attended my cousin’s wedding in India this July. This was the first marriage in my immediate family and it gave me to opportunity to travel to my state in India, which I had not visited since childhood. The trip was marked by celebration, but also took me back to where I come from. It was truly humbling as I recounted my journey from Bihar/Jharkhand to Delhi, Mumbai and now London. They seem like worlds apart, not only because of the physical distance between them, but also the stark difference between the development of a major global city in the west and a rural town in one of the poorest states of India. This has been a great opportunity for me to reflect on my journey so far, and my individual voice in the larger world. I found a great many visual and cultural artefacts that I realised have shaped my aesthetics and world view. These were perhaps locked away somewhere in my mind, till I saw them again and could make the connection.
Finally, my tenancy at the student accommodation at UAL halls is also coming to an end in august and I will have to find alternative accommodation. This will surely be time consuming, as it is my first time house hunting in London, but I am hoping it goes by smoothly.
Byung-Chul Han’s work “Hyperculture” is an eye opening piece of literature published in 2005. The book contains a series of short articles discussing ideas of globalisation, the internet and our existence as humans in a post modern and hyperconnected reality. The text, written at a time when the ideas of globalisation were popular and just before the 2008 financial crisis was to arrive, weaves a dream of society as an unbound and unrestricted space through which people navigate as a connected tribe. Some ideas that held great promise, such as, an open and free international marketplace, global citizens and a decentralised internet, have lost takers over the years. We have seen a very different reality emerge since the publishing of this book. The rise of nationalism, regional protectionism and fall of the World trade organisation by the same nations that once championed it, has lead to a very different economic reality. On the Internet as well, intimate and independently created spaces have shrunk in favour of large social media sites that have created cookie cutter profiles of individuals. But I do not believe these to be evidence of the failure of the global experiment.
Many aspects discussed, such as that of the global wanderer or hyper culture tourist, as discussed in the chapter ‘the eros of interconnectedness’ still hold true today. Han discusses how we live in an age where we are disconnected from the regional. The internet allows us to be global travellers and by interacting with other people’s lives, we become tourists looking at them. I would argue that this still largely hold true, it’s just different than what had been imagined. We are no longer truly venturing into the spaces and lives of other people from around the world, but are observing it through the lens of social media and its algorithms and layouts. In the later chapter “Hyperlogue”, there is an understanding of how this may come to pass. I wonder if Han knew how close to the truth he was stepping. The loss of the free internet in favour of a consumer driven model is recognised through the changing of language associated with it. Han points to the use of terminology and its changing nature over time. In the early days of the internet, we used the term ‘surfing the internet’ creating an image of nautical exploration and free movement. The more popular term now is ‘browsing the internet’, evoking images of a consumer act. He points throughout the book towards Microsoft, and its role in creating this language. Think ‘internet explorer’ and ‘windows’. Today however, most people do not have a digital footprint outside of social media.
The way we are interacting with AI today is also uncharted and exploratory. Outside of the boxed AI such as Chat GPT and Midjourney, there is a desire for more open source models. Humans, I believe will instinctually seek out the kind of freedom promised by hyperculturism and that is reflected in the novel users of AI technology. If my reading of this text tells me anything, it is that predictions and outcome are often very different. If history is a testament, the technology moving forward will be surrounded by those who desire to restrict or regionalise it.
I posted a shout out for visual artists to participate in the “Wall of Memories: Lost and found” intervention. I had initially planned to do a physical wall, but as I have been travelling and interest came from various parts of the world, I decided to replicate it as a digital wall instead.
The sign up sheet was a google form. [screen shots below] Sent out over the weekend of 12th July to 15th July, I wanted to give adequate time for participants to sign up.
Following the sign up, I sent out communication in the form of an email and followed up via the social media links provided. This included the explanation and instructions for participating in the intervention. [screenshot below]
As I am moving forward with my research, I would also like to see how it connects with the work I have done outside of it during my months at CSM. The main projects that come to mind are the ones I have posted on my blog.
Diary of Uncertainties: In my diary of uncertainties, I looked at 3 key uncertainties- play, cultural objects and viewership. I find that with such little information on my current research subject, I have no other way to investigate it outside of playing with it to see what outcomes are produced. There is also a sense that AI is a shared cultural phenomenon that people connect with, its relevance being a point of intrigue. Moving forward, my research is rather unpredictable and each step informs the next.
European Press Prize: When I was investigating stories, the adoption of AI powered editing softwares was what I looked into. Initially when I was looking into the phenomenon, it was a cause of concern for me. Since then however, there is a growing sense of a more complex story. Does it matter that these images have been altered? And is it necessarily a negative from the perspective of the user? While the current technology is basic and informed by societal expectations, the future of this technology can be much wider than we imagine now. I feel any comment on this phenomenon without testing is unlikely to be helpful. It is also strongly connected to my current project based on curating one’s identity.
Tales from Gehenna: My multimedia art project that was selected for the Art Business society’s exhibition at UAL, was an exploration of expressing difficult emotions through painting and sculpture. I was also looking at aspects on imagining the afterlife or at least the impressions of one through form, colour and spaces. Perhaps AI tools can be used to create alternate realities in the future. Could other emerging technologies such as augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR) be utilised alongside generative AI to create new and immersive worlds that reflect, free or even heal their visitors? Can AI create an afterlife or even make us immortal? These subjects are at the back of my mind even now, I hope I can create space to explore them.
As I look back at my research topic, I find much has changed from where I started. I have been reading ‘Hyperculture’ by Byung-Chul Han (originally published in 2005) and ‘Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths and metaphors’ by Mark Stefik (originally published in 1997). Both these books were published at the early stages of the Internet and globalisation and talk about the cultural impact it may have moving forward. Some of the text is dated and reflects on both the caution and optimism promised in the earlier years of the internet’s development. We have however since seen the world take a drastic and unexpected departure from the models we started out with. This is not to say that the underlying reality predicted has changed, rather manifested itself in unique and unexpected ways. I will be posting full reflections on these texts as I finish them in their entirety.
Moving back to where I come from, when I started researching this topic, my introduction was of the idea of technology corrupting and replacing human work and expression. Since then I have questioned how many people truly are being affected in this way. From what I can observe, the largest impact is on small digital artists, and while there is merit to their claims of large technology companies utilising their work without proper permissions, the argument has not stood legal ground. The current framework we see legally is that one cannot copyright images or text solely generated by AI. Different countries are still figuring out the limits of this argument. As for copyright infringement, copying someone’s style cannot be considered as theft as one cannot copyright “a style”. It has widely been accepted that AI is a tool and cannot generate art without the intervention of a human.
The AI craze has also been shown to be relatively hyped. Journalist and tech critic, Ed Zitron states some concerning points in his talk with Adam Conover on the rise of Gen AI. Some of the talking points they discuss in this podcast include, How will these systems be monetised? What, if any use is there beyond being interesting? How Intelligent really is AI? And How does the new technology differ from what we’ve seen before. There are some real questions on the viability and future of this “Silicon Valley” project. The ideas extend to discuss the point of diminishing returns on training models and how much improvement will we really be able to see in the future. Aside from the issues discussed, there is a general shared sense across the stakeholders – artists, scientists, investors and critics, that the technology is here to stay. It is also widely regarded more relevant compared to something like NFTs, which was essentially a speculative market based on blockchain technology. Though blockchain technology has been adopted in many aspects of digital security, its popularity with everyday users has fallen out of fashion. This scenario is unlikely as there are visible and tangible uses that seem obvious at first glance when it comes to generative AI.
Overall, there is merit to this technology but it’s future direction will be impossible to reliably predict at such an early stage, but that is what makes the subject so interesting to speculate and test.
Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin among thousands of British artists used to train AI software, Midjourney; by James Tapper for The Observer; Published on 21st January 2024; Accessed on 10th May 2024.
What is an “Author”? – Copyright Authorship of AI Art through a philosophical lens; by Mackenzie Caldwell for Houston Law Review; Vol. 61, Issue 2, 2023; Published on 11th December 2023; Accessed on 1st June 2024.
Are there memories for which people don’t have photographs?
Have there been moments in our lives that we wish we had captured but didn’t?
Or did evidence of those moments get lost to time?
Can we take the stories from our memories and recreate them?
Will this feel good or bad? Is this scary or pleasing?
Can we change the way we look at our past?
These are some of the questions I was asking when planning an intervention. How can emerging technologies in generative AI help us recreate and curate memories to help shape our outlook on the self?
To answer these questions, I have envisioned a Wall of Memories: Lost and Found.
The participants will be asked to write down a memory that they cherish but have no photographs of. Something from their past that is important to them. They will then place this memory randomly on a wall. The wall will then become a wall of lost memories. I will then replace these texts with AI generated images of their description and allow people to come back and see it.
Did they notice what was written around them before? Or will they notice it better in images. Will their image help them better connect with their memory? How will this affect their view on the past and on the future of technology?
My journey to the Tate Modern in London was dedicated to see Yoko Ono’s exhibition: Music of the Mind. I often find museums and exhibition centres to be places of inspiration. My mum had had a chance to visit this exhibition and was moved by it. Aspects of the showcased works intrigued me to check it out for myself. What I realised was that Yoko Ono had a fairly interventionist approach to her art. But then again, one can argue that all art is interventionist in nature.
One of the works that inspired me was ADD COLOUR (REFUGEE BOAT). In an all white room lies and all white boat. Visitors are asked to take the blue, white or purple markers provided and write messages of hope on the white space. Visitors have slowly filled up the space turning it into shades of blue. It is meant for the participant to reflect on the plights of refugees braving the ocean to arrive into Europe, the urgent crisis of stateless people and the impact of collective action. I feel there is something poetic albeit sad about this. I couldn’t help but feel it was a metaphor for the many who are claimed by the sea when attempting this perilous journey, similar to the blue that claims the white space. Our writing and drawings, a prayer of hope to those that have failed to cross the vast waters.
On observing the piece, I could see that the most dense area of colours were those at hand and eye level, slowly tapering up and down. There was almost no marks above a certain height where no one could reach. The floor and boat also covered in ink. There was ink on top of ink as large spaces wore away. There were also spaces that no one could reach on the underside of the boat. Upon exiting, I could also observe the ink that has managed to escape the room through the shoes of some participants, in someways it is a metaphor for the art spilling out of its designated space and into the outside world.
The second large piece of work was – The personal is political: My mom is beautiful. Participants were asked to write messages and notes about the memory of their mothers, while a video played of Ono doing a hauntingly beautiful musical performance. This room too was filled to the brim with varied text in unique handwritings. Notes placed one on top of the others, high and low. I wonder what it would’ve looked like at the starting moments and how the very first notes have long been covered up.
I find the approach of these works to be extremely inspiring on how to approach the idea of imagination and engage audiences. My aim to utilise Yoko Ono’s work to inspire my approach towards intervention techniques as well, or at least give it a start point to diverge from.
I’ve been tinkering with Tensor.art, an image generating platform. My first impression of this platform was that it was a new type of website that I was visiting. Harking back to the early 2000’s when the internet was a less centralised space. Over the last decade, the majority of time I have spent online has been on either social media platforms, search engines or games. This was very different from those. The success of chatGPT may lie in the fact that it is a new kind of use of the digital spaces we visit, one that is more active rather than passive.
Tensor has many things to offer its visitors. Here is the landing page. The many options availabe for explorations include the ability to create your own images by using the large library of tools and models available. One can also train their own LoRA (low rank adaption) a form of base trained models to provide context or style that you may be looking to create. It also allows the use multiple LLMs (large language models) such as stable diffusion, flux as well as those independently created by enthusiasts. One can choose from a wide variety of tools and models due to the open source nature of the platform
Here, I am giving an example of the image generator. I wanted to create an image of a boy riding a bicycle through a forest. I kept the prompt simple to demonstrate how using different LoRAs changed the image created through the same prompt.
I started with a base of Indian woman and combined it with different LoRAs. The images varied based on the second input. Some models worked better with each other while others can interfere with each other to create an output.
Different models can be assigned prompt weights that decide how much of each model is considered in the final outcome. In case of prompt weight being too high, the website will suggest changes for use.
There are lots of modest to choose from and it can be a good tool to create a vary array of images. Here are some examples where the models worked against the prompt to create some hilarious results.
I spent the last week playing with Tensor AI, a free image generating AI website. I was made aware of this through an AI artist whom I interviewed. They spoke on the subject of not having digital art skills but having the desire to create works of their favourite characters through the use of Gen AI tools. My earlier assumptions were that a generative model of AI required text input that were descriptive and would generate a close enough image to what is desired in a “generic” AI style. My experience this week has taught me that AI generated art is harder than it first appears, especially if you are trying to achieve a specific output. Tensor AI had a large number of base models that have been developed to cater to different styles and different characteristics models. It is a large part of model training that has been done by individuals or groups and can be used to build up from. To generate images, one has to build upon these models and spend time experimenting on how different text prompts translate into images and how different prompts interact with one another. I see this field of art evolving into a specialised field, similar to the use of digital design software’s such as Adobe or Corel. While it makes the creation of images faster, the training that is required for individual creators does take time, interest and engagement. It also requires research to create different styles of work. The same prompts may translate very differently on different models. If you spend a lot of time getting comfortable with the use of one, it may be difficult to shift to a new base model. I therefore, see artists specialising in a unique style that they have developed through the combination of the generative models that they have chosen and expertise with the use of prompts learnt through experience.
Playing with AI models (part 2)
This week has made me experience something new. I personally may not shift entirely to using generative AI tools for my creative practice, but I can see it’s appeal. I was able to create a vast amount of image option, even though they were not meant for any end use. The anticipation of each new image being generated; what was going to pop up? An entirely unique and new visual piece was exciting, almost titillating. There was a sense that this was not an image I found on the internet but created using a software and will not be seen by anyone else. A private work of art (using that term loosely) that was spat out by the technology god, only for my eyes. I can imagine that people who create AI images must be experiencing a similar sense of purpose as they sit for hours testing prompts and perfecting a range of images. Though works of art created by AI cannot be copyrighted, they must feel a sense of ownership over their work. Many of these creators may have felt that they missed the ship on the digital art movement, but now have their own little boat to ride upon behind it.
