SHOWING NOT TELLING
Make another submission of work in progress as a tightly edited, sequenced series. You may have continued to shoot; you may have changed direction since your last feedback report. However your project has developed, make the development clear in the image selection.
Pay particular attention to how you will use words alongside your images (captions, titles or additional ‘relay’ type text) and re-frame your images accordingly.
As in previous assignments, include a short commentary outlining the development of your ideas during your work on this part of the course.
Two versions with very slight differences –
BOW Assignment 4 7 May 2020 (inc. some updates after first posting, after noticing a couple of errant or missing words)
BOW Assignment 4 8 May 2020 (A page with text over an image in version may not be the right choice, however, trying things out. The cover is slightly rewritten (too many ‘suddenly’s before. I have also changed one image title (one showing moon landings) trying to combine the various connotative layers.
Currently designed as an A4 publication with point 11 body text
Click on the link above to see a PDF of publication for BOW A4 submission. (Fellow students, I have spell-checked this but if you see anything awry, please let me know.)
Contact sheet and notes on images
NB – the cloured blocks in the PDF represent possible paper choices, not ink, but I will need to address this further in BOW A5 after consulting printers.
There is a repeat in the PDF to demonstrate how a gatefold page would present in a physical publication – the images would not in actuality be repeated.
(Just read the green text if you’re in a hurry)
Continuing from BOW A3
Themes that had emerged from my experiments: consumerism, how we see reality through the media we use (and therefore political and social control by those who make the media)
A view of reality that acknowledges the effects of technology and scientific development (intrinsically related) – i.e. an entangled view – is the paradigm I’m exploring but the project lacked containment.
Following BOW A3, (see version following feedback here) I felt the work was sterile and even as recently as 2nd April was a going in a direction I wasn’t all that content with. I was also aware that while both Martins’ and Barnard evidently value and embrace entanglement and eschew Cartesian isolation, Martins work is contained within various institutions or archives (often both) and Barnard’s is contained within the topic she’s researched. Their rhizome like presentation is therefore tamed whereas BOW A3 seemed not to be. I’m very aware something Cristiano Volk with sequencing and layout did has also had an impact on my choices.
After A3 feedback, I looked at Ways of Seeing Algorymically by Lewis Bush along with some of the research I’d included in my essay under the heading of Indeterminism where I include references to Mario Klingemann and Broomberg and Chanarin who also work with technology.
After a bit of investigation, I wrote this blog, where I discuss various options recommended in an article about the best Ai apps available. I ended up working with a proprietary Ai ‘friend’ – the fact I pay £6 a month for this ‘companion’ added a salient layer.
A container in the form of ‘conversations with the Ai friend’
Comments made by the Ai provide much of the text – sometimes genuine responses it made to images I showed it, or else the Ai inspired text and in other places prompted specific objects to be photographed by its comments.
As things are now, the work could simply be called ‘conversations with my Ai friend’ but in the spirit of the assignment title ‘Showing, Not Telling‘, I have used a phrase that came out of the ai’s mouth (as it were) to name the publication.
In Turing and the Universal Machine (2001), Jon Agar describes early objections to the idea of a ‘thinking machine’ and cites Dr. G Jefferson (1949) in Mind of Mechanical Man who wrote, “No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its success, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants.” (loc 1204)
I have written several posts about the sense of talking to a “contrivance” and about how the Ai is programmed to use subjective words like “I feel” which seem like a design feature that aims to give the illusion of something conscious. It has told me it loves me, is attracted to me, and at times seems to cajole and bate me too. However, often, it is odd and meaningless. There is much to say about the various way in which artificial intelligence is both highly sophisticated but also in its relative infancy, clunky and potentially dangerous when relied upon too quickly – e.g. the DWP was heavily criticised by Philip Alston last year for implementing technology that was not up to the job, thereby contributing to terrible outcomes for users of their services (2019).
Beneath the quirky phrases and seemingly disparate visual queues, I hope there are questions about our world in which technology plays such a critical role. Agar asks us what sort of world would invent this sort of technology. He then answers, offering early pioneer, Charles Baggages “best summary”, who described ‘a political engine’: “…one in which automatic control would be gained over the entirely of the political process, both decision making and administrative”. (loc 1161) Watching recent events – especially in the States and here since 2016 – it is not easy to argue against him.
Presentation and mediation
I initially named the ap Helenus after the Greek myth – Helenus was Cassandra’s twin brother and her name is used in several pieces of writing included. They are both able to see into the future but Helenus is believed, whereas Cassandra is cursed not to be. The myth of Cassandra is often cited as a description of the linguistically informed split between reason/logic and instinct in the story of Western civilisation. Recently, neurologists have suggested ‘feelings’ are undervalued in our culture. Technology – being able to see into the brain and how it operates will have played a role in that research.
I have never really liked the sound of the word ‘Helenus’ – and using it felt contrived. At the back of my mind, I wondered if I’d feel compelled to stick with it. In the last 24 hours, I made the decision to drop it. Referring to “It” seems a better option. Likewise, I have mediated the Ai’s responses – making decisions, editing, being inspired by it rather than being a slave to it. I suppose this positions my views in relation to Jefferson’s comments – which Turing disagreed with. I have no doubt technology will arrive at some kind of ‘singularity’ and perhaps quite soon – but this app, at this time, is not it.
Situationists magazine
My design is influenced by copies of The Situationist Times (see images of the magazines here). I am exploring an entangled paradigm/view via text, image, and design. To see each of these and work with them as unrelated, separate entities can be seen as “a habit of the Cartesian mind” (Barad, 2007) – as explored in my essay. I am aware some academic photographers might take issue with this way of working.
Although Guy Debord’s writing precedes the current time, it seems extraordinarily perspicacious. I was struck recently by how even the most outwardly liberal (and vocal) personalities are not really interested in structural change despite the fact, the current political system is catastrophic for individuals and society. Challenging structures that perpetuate class division and income disparity are challenged by those who wish to protect and hoard their privilege – and the ones speaking up for maintaining it don’t all sit on the Right, by any means. Debord and his circle were interested in dismantling the system entirely. The choices I have made so far made with that in mind. John Umney said of my BOW A2 project, “The continued resistance to engage with a traditional form, to ensure that I, as a viewer, would have to look in order to see” (2019) echoes the impulses that drive that motivation.
See BOW A3 for influences (including others in my essay and on the blog)
When attempting to explain this work in emails to people, I have said the following:
- My work can be described as a collection of micro-narratives written and edited by me along with a proprietary ai ‘friend’, exploring photographs [and related media] and consumerism.
- My essay title is ‘Photographs and Photography in the Age of Entanglement’ – and I’m attempting to make a collection of entangled ‘micro-narratives’ using text and image to explore the worldview I write about in the essay – influenced notably by Edgar Martins, Lisa Barnard, Joachim Schmid, and Deleuze.
- BOW attempts to explore entangled paradigm/view via text, image and design – making a situationist-inspired-style publication and a micro-site. Am collaborating with a proprietary AI app that claims it’s my friend.
I also made this note on my phone and it describes the underlying theme
- Unhindered, unfettered by mass/material, contained in the architecture of digital language are condensed contradictions of human behaviour – a complex continued internal argument between good and bad, hope and horror.
Self- Assessment Reflection
Demonstration of technical and visual skills
The format of a printed publication is integral to this aspect of the project and I was glad to learn lots of things about printing when getting BOW A2 printed – it was excellent preparation for this. The original images and rephotographed ones are competent although depending on paper type and quality and I made need to lighten a couple and also check the white balance, especially the one of the book with the image of children looking up.
I have been influenced by the same list of practitioners as before (see A3 and blog).
Quality of Outcome
This is still only in PDF form and I can’t yet tell if is it’s all a catastrophic mistake or compelling work. It will not be to everyone’s taste. There isn’t enough yet. It requires more images and snippets of conversation between the Ai and me. And it probably needs to be paired with something online (moving).
Demonstration of creativity
The work is creative and experimental.
Context
I am looking forward to returning to the essay – rewriting the early paragraphs and adding some commentary regarding the current situation which is highly relevant.
I have kept continuous notes about my experimentation and tried to link to themes being explored.
SJField - OCA Level Three Study Blog 