Not long after I started working with printed screen shots from Sascha Bregenhorn’s (IG here), generative art website, Artifactor, I went down a generative art rabbit hole.
I do feel that the “it’s here to stay so we might as well go with it” take on generative AI is a bit disingenuous. There are many forces at play in tech “innovation” and we actually aren’t obligated to follow along. I know some artists that make fantastic use of generative models and working in consort with technology can open up loads of possibilities but it also comes with a responsibility to understand what’s connected with the work.
With much collage work, there is already an aspect of sampling and repurposing other people’s work inherent to the process — though some people collage only with materials they make themselves. There’s the same responsibility in that analog work where an artist has to ask, are the original photos or “found” art in my collage doing all the work. I think about this often when I see work that makes heavy use of photos of people from books or magazines — it feels too shallow to me to just decorate around the work of a photographer and also use an image of a person and change its context. It’s complicated and there’s no clear right or wrong.
With AI the aspects that bother me more is the beyond arms length connection to the original work used by the model to generate an image. In some cases, the model might generate based on thousands of sources and the image reference is mostly gone but in other cases the source material might be more finite and the model can only know to duplicate the data that it has access to.
The other aspect for me is the ecological impact of using these tools. Many contemporary processes are reliant on water, power, and raw material uses that are a net negative for our planet. Again we have some responsibility to make choices as artists and humans within this system. Generative AI again takes that concern and multiplies the impact in a mostly invisible way. The millisecond magic responsiveness of an AI model is possible through its programming of course but also through a massive amount of water and power used with every prompt. The environmental impact for what seems like a throwaway digital act brings with it a giant set of responsibilities.
So artists should explore and use new tools but like the responsible use of toxic chemicals and materials in conventional art and the conscious use of other people’s artistic output as inspiration or source materials, digital processes require the same degree of honest intention.
Thanks for an extremely thoughtful reply. I went into this with caution and trepidation. I am many things, but an 'intellectual' is not one of them. I tried to tread lightly and carefully. I'm a luddite with a technological interest, but too ignorant to offer anything useful. I'm "a cavemen painting fire", as Claire Silver might say. I'm a maker. I'm curious. That's all I am and all I can do really. In that regard, I shy away from calling anything disingenuous, as this would suppose that I have direct access to someone's true intentions. Most days I wouldn't even be willing to say I understand my own intentions much less someone else's, lol. Also given how much of my collage work is photo-centric I may very well be amongst those 'shallow' makers problematizing the conversation. I certainly don't intend to muddy already murky waters, but again I'm curious and I have questions, and the only thing I know to do is to search and experiment and try things, with the hope that maybe I'll discover something. I suppose I could do this without announcing it, or making it public, but something about that I think would be more disingenuous of me. Learning out loud is the center of my creative process. Sharing the process with honesty and transparency is the cornerstone of what I try to do. I don't have any conclusions. Only more questions. Only curiosity. And, as I always remind myself, the only thing I know is that I know nothing. Thanks again!
Thanks so much! Far too kind! I do my best to recognize teh limitations of my knowledge and understanding, especially when it pertains to something so complex and with such far reaching implications as this subject. It can be so difficult to know if one is exploring responsibly, but I suppose it starts with simple transparency. Thanks again!
Glad to know you are dabbling with AI, making experiments, and incorporating it into your work. Openness, curiosity, inquiry— all good! I’ve been doing the same thing, Duane. It’s here to stay. why not see how it works with your creative practice? If anything, it’s still part of learning and it can be fun too!
Thanks Stella! So glad to see you back by the way. Loved your recent photos! I think you're right. AI, regardless of our feelings about it or what it could mean, isn't going anywhere. We can't do anything to reverse it's entrance into culture. I'm not sure there's anyway we can even really subdue it's presence. But perhaps, we can play a part in what it becomes. Perhaps, there is a way to participate in shaping it into something more creative and interesting. Built into every creative endeavor is the spirit of 'why not?'. So let's see...
I like that mindset, Duane— playing a part of how it evolves. I’ve been experimenting with AI since last year and I’m just engaging my curiosity, seeing where it goes! By the way, congratulations are in order. I saw your name pop up on the Contemporary Collage Magazine IG feed. So cool!! So happy for you. 👏👏👏
Thank you Stella! The CCM shortlist really took me by surprise. I wasn’t originally planning to submit, but was cajoled into it by a friend and fellow artist. I’m not even sure i know how to process it, lol. Thanks again!
Well deserved, Duane! Your collages inspire me when I’m in my abstract/typography mode. Keep doing what you’re doing— the fruits of your endeavors are such a surprise indeed.
That means the world to me! The feeling is mutual! The way you explore the world and your surroundings with your photography, has inspired me to take my camera out more often. To look at things more closely. To notice more intently. Planning on trying to incorporate more of those images into some collage work as well.
Thank you for commenting on here, Stella. It prompted me to check out your Substack and your website. Oooooh yes, I'm going to love exploring your art. 🎉
Thank you, Martin! That’s wonderful to hear. I so appreciate it! I’m met some lovely photographers, artists, and writers here on Substack. I find the connections are more genuine and this is a good place to foster community. I’ll check out your newsletter as well.
It is very difficult to understand AI and its uses in daily life, whether it will be beneficial or not. I don't understand it either. The works you have created with various layers of digital, AI and analog are a good start to try and the results are spectacular.
Thank you so much! i really appreciate it! It’s such a complicated subject and there’s so many complex things involved with it, and I can’t pretend that I get it. But, i think it’s important to try to understand, at least in some small way.
With collage starting with curation in many ways, I'm glad that genAI has brought me to the collage scene. Over the moon in a life-changing way.
I love how we ask and experiment in totally different directions. You're moving toward exploring AI from collage, while I'm moving toward collage from AI. And that's clearly the most simplistic description that doesn't do either of our journeys justice.
I think that’s what I love the most about collage. No matter how you get to it, no matter what angle you come at it from, the implicit message is the same. Everything connects.
I am curious about your process here and how you felt using material that was generated in this way. Did it matter to you as an artist? Would it make any difference to the viewer?
I guess it might depend on the meaning of each fragment in the collage. Is the fragment entirely textural, aesthetic, simply a material that the viewer alone can give meaning to? In which case as the creator are you simply putting those fragments in a context that might direct them somehow?
Or does the source of the fragments you work with, and how you cut them up and interpret them, give meaning to your work? Does it matter to you?
Incredible questions here David! I tried to go into this with an open curiosity and a kind of scientific objectivity. My goal wasn't to come to any conclusions or to form any judgments, but rather to witness, to watch, to observe, to experiment, and, perhaps more than anything else, to play.
I suppose in some ways it's not vastly different than my normal approach. As a collage-maker I look for source material images in books and magazines indiscriminately. I don't care where they come from, I'm simply searching for something interesting; colors, textures, shapes, anything that sparks my desire to make. In that regard, what has been difficult to adjust to is participating in the creation of the source material in a more imaginative way. It's an interesting mix of randomness and discernment. A culmination of chance and taste.
Would it make a difference to viewer? It's hard to say. I suppose that might be a better question for you. Does knowing how parts of the pieces were generated effect the way you experience them? This is something I'd definitely be interesting in finding out.
We're meaning making creatures. we can't help it. It's what we do. But I try to separate my process of making from the process of making meaning. Everything is always autobiographical in some form anyway. When I'm making collage I don't think about what it means. I try to be more intuitive. I try to trust the work. I trust that it knows more than me. I try to let it do the guiding, and then, when it's finished, I start to ponder what might mean. I try to create things in such a way that the meaning is, itself, a collage that can be constructed from the materials on display.
This might be the part that most intrigues me, the meanings that viewer create in response to the things I make.
Does it matter to the viewer? Well i thought about this and I think it only becomes a factor when there is something specificially highlighting the source, whether that be AI or anything else, that knowledge adds a context which the viewer simply cant factor out once it is know. Then it becomes something that is about that context and the viewer has to confront that and decide how they want to appreciate it. That seems to be the real dynamic there..
I thought also about this in a different context, how much do we care that something is made through natural process or man made.. thinking of natural and lab made diamonds. Does it matter? If one is not trained enough to identify a lab made diamond and might never know the beauty of it is practically the same, perhaps.
Anyway its fascinating and I greatly appreciate how it is more about your practice and process than the thing or the meaning of the resulting artefact.
This is a really interesting take on this! I really appreciate you sharing it with me!
You brought up a concept that intrigues me: natural vs. man-made. There's a great book by Timothy Morton called Ecology Without Nature. Large amounts of it are over my head, so I won't pretend to have grasped it with any real command of the subject. But, his thesis seems to be that the biggest threat to ecology is the belief in capital-N, 'Nature'. The idea that 'Nature' is somewhere 'out-there'. A place or position that you can be outside of. In other words, he problematizes the nature/culture dichotomy by suggesting that it's a false binary. There is no 'outside-of-nature'. Perhaps I'm taking the thought too far, but I can't help but wonder if this applies to the natural vs. man-made. Is this also binary? Is something man-made 'un-natural'? Can anything be 'un-natural'? How far down does the premise go? i don't have answers but I can't help but wonder.
I like yours best. Especially the last ones! I’ve tried AI a few times in the past with varying degrees of success. There’s definitely an art to writing a good prompt, and I’m not even close to mastering that. My son and I collaborated and made a giant building-size mushroom appear to suddenly burst through the pavement in the middle of Times Square. Pure fun!
Thanks Ann! It does seem pretty hit or miss. It’s almost like you have to relearn it everyday. Just when I think I’m getting the hang of it, it throws me into some unknown territory. The thing I’m struggling with is figuring out what is actually usable material in my work, or figuring out what kinds of images I should be making for my purposes. I usually don’t get a say in this part of the process, I just sift through books and magazines and figure out how to use what’s there. Sometimes I find myself getting into the weeds of generating very specific images and I’m not sure that’s actually helpful. Especially, when ‘randomness’ was the intended purpose, lol. The image you and your son made sounds awesome, I’m sure that was really fun to do with him!
“Just when I think I’m getting the hang of it, it throws me into some unknown territory.” Ah-ha! That might help to push an edge—possibly gain insight?
“The thing I’m struggling with is figuring out what is actually usable material in my work, or figuring out what kinds of images I should be making for my purposes.”
Or maybe just hold it all lightly and wait for that *click* when it comes for no discernible reason :)
Some of it’s inherent ‘weirdness’ has definitely been welcomed. It’s given me things that i would have never thought to ask or look for, which is more or less why I wanted to start dabbling with it. i wanted to find source material that i wouldn’t find any other way, and i wanted to see how or if it would effect the way I work and the things I make.
That ‘click’ is an interesting thing for me. I usually find in the process of working rather than ahead of time. It’s very rare that I can look at an image and know what I want to do with it or how I’ll use it. I just know that something about it interests me. Usually its all a matter of discovery. With that being said it’s I’ve come across so many interesting images that’s difficult to decide which ones to print. It’s not a bad problem to have I suppose, lol.
I do feel that the “it’s here to stay so we might as well go with it” take on generative AI is a bit disingenuous. There are many forces at play in tech “innovation” and we actually aren’t obligated to follow along. I know some artists that make fantastic use of generative models and working in consort with technology can open up loads of possibilities but it also comes with a responsibility to understand what’s connected with the work.
With much collage work, there is already an aspect of sampling and repurposing other people’s work inherent to the process — though some people collage only with materials they make themselves. There’s the same responsibility in that analog work where an artist has to ask, are the original photos or “found” art in my collage doing all the work. I think about this often when I see work that makes heavy use of photos of people from books or magazines — it feels too shallow to me to just decorate around the work of a photographer and also use an image of a person and change its context. It’s complicated and there’s no clear right or wrong.
With AI the aspects that bother me more is the beyond arms length connection to the original work used by the model to generate an image. In some cases, the model might generate based on thousands of sources and the image reference is mostly gone but in other cases the source material might be more finite and the model can only know to duplicate the data that it has access to.
The other aspect for me is the ecological impact of using these tools. Many contemporary processes are reliant on water, power, and raw material uses that are a net negative for our planet. Again we have some responsibility to make choices as artists and humans within this system. Generative AI again takes that concern and multiplies the impact in a mostly invisible way. The millisecond magic responsiveness of an AI model is possible through its programming of course but also through a massive amount of water and power used with every prompt. The environmental impact for what seems like a throwaway digital act brings with it a giant set of responsibilities.
So artists should explore and use new tools but like the responsible use of toxic chemicals and materials in conventional art and the conscious use of other people’s artistic output as inspiration or source materials, digital processes require the same degree of honest intention.
Thanks for an extremely thoughtful reply. I went into this with caution and trepidation. I am many things, but an 'intellectual' is not one of them. I tried to tread lightly and carefully. I'm a luddite with a technological interest, but too ignorant to offer anything useful. I'm "a cavemen painting fire", as Claire Silver might say. I'm a maker. I'm curious. That's all I am and all I can do really. In that regard, I shy away from calling anything disingenuous, as this would suppose that I have direct access to someone's true intentions. Most days I wouldn't even be willing to say I understand my own intentions much less someone else's, lol. Also given how much of my collage work is photo-centric I may very well be amongst those 'shallow' makers problematizing the conversation. I certainly don't intend to muddy already murky waters, but again I'm curious and I have questions, and the only thing I know to do is to search and experiment and try things, with the hope that maybe I'll discover something. I suppose I could do this without announcing it, or making it public, but something about that I think would be more disingenuous of me. Learning out loud is the center of my creative process. Sharing the process with honesty and transparency is the cornerstone of what I try to do. I don't have any conclusions. Only more questions. Only curiosity. And, as I always remind myself, the only thing I know is that I know nothing. Thanks again!
You’re plenty intellectual Duane and definitely not someone I would call shallow in your approach at all. I embrace the curiosity and exploration!
Thanks so much! Far too kind! I do my best to recognize teh limitations of my knowledge and understanding, especially when it pertains to something so complex and with such far reaching implications as this subject. It can be so difficult to know if one is exploring responsibly, but I suppose it starts with simple transparency. Thanks again!
Glad to know you are dabbling with AI, making experiments, and incorporating it into your work. Openness, curiosity, inquiry— all good! I’ve been doing the same thing, Duane. It’s here to stay. why not see how it works with your creative practice? If anything, it’s still part of learning and it can be fun too!
Thanks Stella! So glad to see you back by the way. Loved your recent photos! I think you're right. AI, regardless of our feelings about it or what it could mean, isn't going anywhere. We can't do anything to reverse it's entrance into culture. I'm not sure there's anyway we can even really subdue it's presence. But perhaps, we can play a part in what it becomes. Perhaps, there is a way to participate in shaping it into something more creative and interesting. Built into every creative endeavor is the spirit of 'why not?'. So let's see...
I like that mindset, Duane— playing a part of how it evolves. I’ve been experimenting with AI since last year and I’m just engaging my curiosity, seeing where it goes! By the way, congratulations are in order. I saw your name pop up on the Contemporary Collage Magazine IG feed. So cool!! So happy for you. 👏👏👏
Thank you Stella! The CCM shortlist really took me by surprise. I wasn’t originally planning to submit, but was cajoled into it by a friend and fellow artist. I’m not even sure i know how to process it, lol. Thanks again!
Well deserved, Duane! Your collages inspire me when I’m in my abstract/typography mode. Keep doing what you’re doing— the fruits of your endeavors are such a surprise indeed.
That means the world to me! The feeling is mutual! The way you explore the world and your surroundings with your photography, has inspired me to take my camera out more often. To look at things more closely. To notice more intently. Planning on trying to incorporate more of those images into some collage work as well.
Thank you for commenting on here, Stella. It prompted me to check out your Substack and your website. Oooooh yes, I'm going to love exploring your art. 🎉
Thank you, Martin! That’s wonderful to hear. I so appreciate it! I’m met some lovely photographers, artists, and writers here on Substack. I find the connections are more genuine and this is a good place to foster community. I’ll check out your newsletter as well.
246 / 5.000
It is very difficult to understand AI and its uses in daily life, whether it will be beneficial or not. I don't understand it either. The works you have created with various layers of digital, AI and analog are a good start to try and the results are spectacular.
Thank you so much! i really appreciate it! It’s such a complicated subject and there’s so many complex things involved with it, and I can’t pretend that I get it. But, i think it’s important to try to understand, at least in some small way.
With collage starting with curation in many ways, I'm glad that genAI has brought me to the collage scene. Over the moon in a life-changing way.
I love how we ask and experiment in totally different directions. You're moving toward exploring AI from collage, while I'm moving toward collage from AI. And that's clearly the most simplistic description that doesn't do either of our journeys justice.
I think that’s what I love the most about collage. No matter how you get to it, no matter what angle you come at it from, the implicit message is the same. Everything connects.
I am curious about your process here and how you felt using material that was generated in this way. Did it matter to you as an artist? Would it make any difference to the viewer?
I guess it might depend on the meaning of each fragment in the collage. Is the fragment entirely textural, aesthetic, simply a material that the viewer alone can give meaning to? In which case as the creator are you simply putting those fragments in a context that might direct them somehow?
Or does the source of the fragments you work with, and how you cut them up and interpret them, give meaning to your work? Does it matter to you?
Incredible questions here David! I tried to go into this with an open curiosity and a kind of scientific objectivity. My goal wasn't to come to any conclusions or to form any judgments, but rather to witness, to watch, to observe, to experiment, and, perhaps more than anything else, to play.
I suppose in some ways it's not vastly different than my normal approach. As a collage-maker I look for source material images in books and magazines indiscriminately. I don't care where they come from, I'm simply searching for something interesting; colors, textures, shapes, anything that sparks my desire to make. In that regard, what has been difficult to adjust to is participating in the creation of the source material in a more imaginative way. It's an interesting mix of randomness and discernment. A culmination of chance and taste.
Would it make a difference to viewer? It's hard to say. I suppose that might be a better question for you. Does knowing how parts of the pieces were generated effect the way you experience them? This is something I'd definitely be interesting in finding out.
We're meaning making creatures. we can't help it. It's what we do. But I try to separate my process of making from the process of making meaning. Everything is always autobiographical in some form anyway. When I'm making collage I don't think about what it means. I try to be more intuitive. I try to trust the work. I trust that it knows more than me. I try to let it do the guiding, and then, when it's finished, I start to ponder what might mean. I try to create things in such a way that the meaning is, itself, a collage that can be constructed from the materials on display.
This might be the part that most intrigues me, the meanings that viewer create in response to the things I make.
Thanks again for such amazing questions!
Does it matter to the viewer? Well i thought about this and I think it only becomes a factor when there is something specificially highlighting the source, whether that be AI or anything else, that knowledge adds a context which the viewer simply cant factor out once it is know. Then it becomes something that is about that context and the viewer has to confront that and decide how they want to appreciate it. That seems to be the real dynamic there..
I thought also about this in a different context, how much do we care that something is made through natural process or man made.. thinking of natural and lab made diamonds. Does it matter? If one is not trained enough to identify a lab made diamond and might never know the beauty of it is practically the same, perhaps.
Anyway its fascinating and I greatly appreciate how it is more about your practice and process than the thing or the meaning of the resulting artefact.
Amazing insights, thank you.
This is a really interesting take on this! I really appreciate you sharing it with me!
You brought up a concept that intrigues me: natural vs. man-made. There's a great book by Timothy Morton called Ecology Without Nature. Large amounts of it are over my head, so I won't pretend to have grasped it with any real command of the subject. But, his thesis seems to be that the biggest threat to ecology is the belief in capital-N, 'Nature'. The idea that 'Nature' is somewhere 'out-there'. A place or position that you can be outside of. In other words, he problematizes the nature/culture dichotomy by suggesting that it's a false binary. There is no 'outside-of-nature'. Perhaps I'm taking the thought too far, but I can't help but wonder if this applies to the natural vs. man-made. Is this also binary? Is something man-made 'un-natural'? Can anything be 'un-natural'? How far down does the premise go? i don't have answers but I can't help but wonder.
🤔 you've got my mind going on this Duane! It's a rabbit hole indeed but a really fascinating concept.
Thanks for getting me pondering!
I like yours best. Especially the last ones! I’ve tried AI a few times in the past with varying degrees of success. There’s definitely an art to writing a good prompt, and I’m not even close to mastering that. My son and I collaborated and made a giant building-size mushroom appear to suddenly burst through the pavement in the middle of Times Square. Pure fun!
Thanks Ann! It does seem pretty hit or miss. It’s almost like you have to relearn it everyday. Just when I think I’m getting the hang of it, it throws me into some unknown territory. The thing I’m struggling with is figuring out what is actually usable material in my work, or figuring out what kinds of images I should be making for my purposes. I usually don’t get a say in this part of the process, I just sift through books and magazines and figure out how to use what’s there. Sometimes I find myself getting into the weeds of generating very specific images and I’m not sure that’s actually helpful. Especially, when ‘randomness’ was the intended purpose, lol. The image you and your son made sounds awesome, I’m sure that was really fun to do with him!
“Just when I think I’m getting the hang of it, it throws me into some unknown territory.” Ah-ha! That might help to push an edge—possibly gain insight?
“The thing I’m struggling with is figuring out what is actually usable material in my work, or figuring out what kinds of images I should be making for my purposes.”
Or maybe just hold it all lightly and wait for that *click* when it comes for no discernible reason :)
Some of it’s inherent ‘weirdness’ has definitely been welcomed. It’s given me things that i would have never thought to ask or look for, which is more or less why I wanted to start dabbling with it. i wanted to find source material that i wouldn’t find any other way, and i wanted to see how or if it would effect the way I work and the things I make.
That ‘click’ is an interesting thing for me. I usually find in the process of working rather than ahead of time. It’s very rare that I can look at an image and know what I want to do with it or how I’ll use it. I just know that something about it interests me. Usually its all a matter of discovery. With that being said it’s I’ve come across so many interesting images that’s difficult to decide which ones to print. It’s not a bad problem to have I suppose, lol.
Yeah a very nice problem—makes one ask some good questions :)
So. Many. Questions. lol