Specialist Studio Practise Written Summative Evaluation

 

BA (Hons) Art & Design Specialist Studio Practise Written Summative Evaluation

Project overview & intentions

As I stated in my project proposal, I was resolved to talk more about AI via my work this year. I think the issue of AI interests me innately because I am interested in using art as excavation to unpick the brittle ideologies that so often define us humans. I like having conversation about that sort of stuff, it fosters deeper understanding, connection and offers a path for us all to build something together that’s honest and beautiful for that. I also feel a compulsion, and indeed a duty (without wanting to sound too much like a Bruce Wayne twat) to respond to political issues as an artist. These things are constantly rolling around my heart and my heart and creating helps. I hope the conversation I offer as a result helps others in some way too.

Delving into this project challenged and reformed my attitudes towards AI as much as it revealed and refined my creative process. Reading my proposal back in preparation to write this summative evaluation was illuminating in myriad ways. I already had self-awareness about my busy brain instinct to over intellectualize a brief and pre-plan from the outset. My compassionate and constructive response to this predisposition is that the initial structure I create gives me something to kick back against and test. It is a starting point and a launch pad, but one that my experimentation inevitably distances me from. And I am ok with this, especially now I understand that process better.  Yet, despite being happy with my resolved pieces, I do feel quite bad about the bandages I didn’t use yet. Funny that. I will come back to them I’m sure; they carry too much weight for me to ignore.

AI is such a polarizing issue, and one that scratches at a complicated human itch. What is it to be conscious? What are we and what would something that we made in our image come to be? This dialogue between creator and created is time old; I know this better now as a parent than I ever did before. Ultimately isn’t the goal of every parent that our progeny would be better than us as parents. Yet we still seem so deeply unnerved by AI. Does this speak of a lack of trust in self, both individual and collective? Whatever the answer to that question is, AI is arguably one of the biggest psyche mirrors presented to date. The conversation becomes more complicated when we consider the deployment of this developing technology in our late stag capitalist, colonialist, patriarchal and ecocidal society. A lot of the below sentiment, taken from my original proposal, still rings true for me:

“AI challenges one of the core principles of art: the idea of the artist as author. AI models are built by training on vast datasets of existing artworks, often without consent, meaning that all AI image is actually a reconfiguration of thousands of past works. In this sense, AI art exposes a paradox: it is capable of infinite variation, but not true originality, because it can only remix what already exists. Conversely, this pokes at the myth of the new, which falls apart when held up against the overwhelming prevalence of collective creativity throughout history. AI systems currently profit from the unpaid labour of artists while threatening to replace them in creative industries: a behaviour that mirrors the colonial and capitalist models prevalent in society. Blurring the boundaries between inspiration and plagiarism, this tech raises philosophical, economic and ethical issues. Many artists feel that the algorithm replacing the hands in this way erodes essential parts of the creative process; like intuition and error. Others embrace AI as a collaborator, utilising it as a tool for critical dialogue, exposing fears, biases and reflecting collective psyche. The truth is, as with most things, there is no binary answer. Creating work that holds both pro and anti-AI conversation in parallel allows me to articulate this, walking around my own current best understanding in a 360 way, exploring the complication inherit in the issue.”

I feel that I did manage to meet my original statement of intent, to offer a nuanced bridge, communicating the complex and issues that surround this technology, and in turn the humans that created it. For me, it has echoes of conversations that I have had about breeding, if you avoid the experience entirely then you don’t have a foot in the game. If I wish for a better world, then I must participate in its architecture. And I honestly found the process of this project really rich and growing as an artist, which I am grateful for.

 

Development of ideas

My initial experiments focused a lot on art doll sketching, researching and sourcing possible materials and testing. Plus acquiring a separates stack facilitating mix tape making. I had originally conceived that my mix tape and Walkman would sit inside the cavity of whatever doll I created, but when I started digging at what “doll” is and feels like for me, I realised that it wasn’t personal or intimate enough; that no matter what my design, a doll is by its very nature lifeless and a kind of object that we project onto; my research into Hans Bellmer reinforce this sense. 

I started to experiment with the idea of creating furniture and/or textile installation that my audience could sit in or on, which felt like it met my desire for facilitating connection more fully. My research into contemporary makers like Aunty Beast and Melissa Monroe led me to the (new to me) field of rug making and machine tufting. True to brief, I began collaborating with AI (largely Google Imagen 4.0) to create a rug design that would occupy both wall and floor space, providing a resting spot for audience to be and to listen to my sonic love letter if they chose. I set to researching the technique, sourcing equipment, including finding an ethical wool source (buying remnants from a maker in the commercial carpet making sector), experimenting and testing using the tufting gun and constructing a fairly gigantic tufting frame in my new studio in Sherwood. After a steep learning curve, my piece I Cannot Be Killed By Conventional Weapons came to be. I am pleased with it and have fallen a bit in love with tufting. Gladly, the rug is going to be on show in various galleries until November this year now. This first large rug piece encompassed the counterpoint conversation I had been striving for; because it involved both collaboration with as well as exclusion of AI. 

So too it was with the sculptural pieces I created, which included human making as well as AI collaboration. Pushing doll sketches I created back and forth between 2D (Google Imagen 4.0) and 3D (Meshy) programs, reworking them and then repeating the process, yielded some interesting results. Some of these I refined and then printed with biodegradable PLA using a 3D printer I loaned; and so the Guardian of Whimsy #1 & #2 and Sheila #1 & #2 came to be. 

I had little to no experience in any of these processes either before the project and I learnt a great deal through my experimentation and making. My last doll was made just by my hands, offering a complete counterpoint to any AI involvement. I experimented with a lot of different ideas and created several textile test pieces to develop my initial inspiration. 

My work led me to problem solving how to create a textile covering pattern for a sculptural base I made using wire, paper, card and gaffa tape. I then covered this with a layer of masking tape which I drew onto, creating sections of the pattern using a marker pen. I then carefully cut and removed each piece of the pattern layer from the sculptural base, making sure to annotate them all in detail so I would understand how to put the puzzle back together again during sewing. I decided to use a cotton jersey fabric because of its robustness and stretch. This was a textural decision, so that the textile layer would have a sense of warmth and softness that would clash in dialogue with the comical and off form. And also a practical one, because I needed a fabric with some given in it to make sure it fit neatly over the form. I cut the pattern template pieces and then sewed them together using an over locker to make sure they were securely attached to one another.  

This bent my brain a bit because the whole thing had to be sewn in a mirror way, as I wanted the seams on the inside, but I got there in the end. I don’t think that my brain naturally lends itself to 3D work and so this was a valuable opportunity to push that aspect of my practice. While sewing it all together, I intermittently covered the base with the sewn sections and soon realised that there was a delightful outcome of an error I had made. I had cut the pattern pieces too generously and this resulted in a vulva form coming together in the crotch of my sculpture. Hooray for on-going critical evaluation combined with beautiful oops because it absolutely added to the piece. After some faffing with the title, I settled on Toy Cunt for this reason.

All of the test pieces I made for the textile sculpture didn’t feel correct. They pushed it into a more craft direction and I wanted more bite and paradox. So I looked to the other materials I had already and decided to create a flat Perspex head that would hover above the body, hung by fishing line. I had some cream Perspex left over from my year 1 sculpture and engraved and cut the face of one of my doll sketches using the laser printer. The result was really strong and I was proud to have pushed through various experimental iterations to create a strong resolved piece.

 

Research & Content

I detailed this in my blog more thoroughly but I was inspired by several artists during this project including Aunty Beast, Melissa Monroe and Denise Rudolf Frank.

 

Materials, Media & Experimentation

As above, I used a wide range of media intuitively in both traditional and experimental ways throughout this project. This included 3D printing, rug making, 3D sculpture, textile sculpture, laser cutting and engraving as well as mixed media painting.

 

Feedback & Independent Practise

I received lots of independent feedback during and outside of our arranged studio practice reflection sessions. I found this valuable, I appreciated the opportunity to talk around my work and listen to others perspectives. I feel like this is an essential part of the creative process and one of the reasons I felt so compelled to secure an external studio before I graduated; to continue the community reflection, support and cross pollination.

 

Final Outcomes & Presentation

My final outcomes included a diverse body of strong resolved work that work both independently and as a collective. My work deviated a lot from its origin place and that’s ok. I followed the work where it needed to go and my trust in that process paid off.

I decided to convert the back room of the studio into a temporary gallery space to display my outcomes. This was an exercise in experimenting with curation as much as it was an effort to share and reflect on my work to date; with both peers and tutors. It wasn’t until I saw it all in the space together that I realised how cohesive it was, and how there were multiple points of relationship and connectivity in the work. For example, my paintings strongly influenced my palate and composition choices for my 3D sculptures.

My voice was clear throughout and I felt glad to see this developing while still communicating core issues that I connect with as a feminist transgressive ambitious artist.

 

Reflection & Future Development

I asked a question in my PPF: why do I focus on concept led work when my abstract painting is also such a strong aspect of my creative output? I understand now that the two are inextricably linked. When I experienced any creative block or frustration with pushing forward with the more concept led pieces of my specialist studio practise, I leaned into painting. And even though at the time that felt like a standalone action, I can see now how that action directly fed into my other works; whether it be palate, tone or form. It reinforces my trust in myself as an artist who works intuitively and encourages me to trust in my process, even if it doesn’t make sense at the time.

My other main reflection is that my ambition needs to be more realistically reflected in my timelines. If I am to experiment with new disciplines and make large scale work, I need to factor this into my anticipated timelines, especially when there are external deadlines involved.

I really enjoyed experimenting with 3D printing and want to try and scale up my work in this area for my next project. One of my tutors said something interesting which was that it is nice to see a physical product from an artistic AI collaboration and I agree.

Throughout my studio practise and written work in this final year I have explored how AI can be disruptive and destructive, and admit that this poses a considerable ethical dilemma when considering it as a collaborator moving forwards. But I have also offered solid argument for its place in the tool kit of the feminist artist, because it can be intelligently corrupted to illustrate, subvert and supersede the bias and flaws of the systems it operates within. There is immense power in collective action and the potential for individuals to make a significant impact on society. It has been widely referenced in discussions about social change and activism, highlighting the importance of small, dedicated groups in driving progress: artists firmly included in that role. I will leave you with this famous powerful quote by the American anthropologist and author Margaret Mead.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."