Notes

An Ode to Foundarion This morning feels different. It seems harder to go for a run, an energy pulls me back to our castle. As our time comes to a close, this sense of concern rises, of not spending enough time examining our miraculous castle. I’m reminded of that early poem, the one I laughed at, the hurry and wait one, the chocolates that were running out. Had I tasted each one fully? As I stand staring at the constant beauty that surrounds me every morning then did it matter if not all my chocolates were enjoyed to it’s fullest? My runs every morning, the silence that comes with separation was part of this experience of living at the Grillemont Castle. When again will I run in such peace? The sadness settles in as every moment, every colour becomes more dense, more saturated. Our readings were back in the same room where we started 10 days ago, where we first felt nervous, surprised, and said hello. Where we accepted our stories will not have Heroes. Where 10days felt like a lifetime knowing the amount of work that was going to pile up. And now we sit again, as friends this time where we can argue and have emotions, wherein our deep internal layers we know no matter what happens someone will listen and be connected. It’s ok to just be. I don’t remember the last time I was given that space to just be. To be told, please take time and enjoy life, I’m here to support you to have this enjoyment. That my internal struggles will be heard without interruption through readings of all sorts. Yes so much can be done better throughout this residency, “to up the game” but how unique and valuable to be told to be still. I know I needed this. To stand still, and not move my arms too much amongst nature pure without replicates of bird sounds and painted colours for the purpose of intensity. That slowing down was the purpose for once. Technology, AI will always be separate conversations that I will need more time to study. But in the meantime I will enjoy the little things, the one on one moments, looking into each other’s eyes, our human mistakes, listening without comment, being upset, lying on the grass, watching clouds, no standardization…. Authentic serendipity (as one friend put it) ;p

Our last full day here at Culturistan. We began our discussion, as usual, with a poem. Today it was “If” by Rudyard Kipling. As with the Khalil Gibran poem earlier in the week, the discussion quickly concerned itself with authorship and contemporary meaning of empire and patriarchy rather than discussing the ideas presented in the writing. This seems to be something unavoidable in a time when we can Google the history of any author or artist and base our feelings and opinions on who they are instead of what they have created. And after this experience, I am certain it is by no means a binary topic. But this could be a reason as to why we are so easily willing to give up artistic human capabilities to machines and A.I. Are we so disillusioned by the actions of some of our Icons and Idols, both historically and contemporary, that we accept an unfeeling completely programmed source as safer? Since we can’t enjoy the music of a fallen pop star anymore, why not just let a machine do it? This leads us to the other articles for today that dealt specifically with A.I. and it’s an influence on pop music. There have been many articles written on the topic of A.I. generated music but few seem to be written by actual musicians who make a living solely as a musician, such as myself. And as with most musicians, the discussion about the credibility or authenticity of machine created music happened long ago. We’ve had no choice but to accept for decades now the fact that machines have dominated all genres of music. But we also know it started as much less of an aesthetic choice… it was financial. When Napster was demanded to actually pay for the music it was sharing it broke the company and framed the idea of music being free by creating a misinformed and false narrative of evil record companies and the music business overall. Now a decade later we’re having the discussion of musicians even being necessary at all to create music. It’s a tiresome dialog to have with those whose lives are not affected by the financial reality of a musician’s work being taken over by machines. I’m also sure it’s a tiresome dialog for someone who just wants to listen to music for free to hear about how difficult it is being a musician. And here we are. There was still a time when we felt duped as an audience if performance wasn’t real and in the moment. The classic case of Milli Vanilli having their Grammy taken back in 1990 when it was found out they were lip-synching in concert and were not the…

Experiencing I am grateful that the guests I have chosen make me feel confident. I can tell they will take care of the space, and everything inside it, as much as they can. We have modified some organization of the objects, we have closed some windows and opened others, we have reorganized some rooms but the most important thing is that the essence is always and always will be the one that I feel comfortable with. There are some places that I show some but not others, there are some objects that I share with some but not with others and there are spaces that only belong to me. The important thing is to be living an experience. To experience a new moment, a moment in which all the foundations, the history, the scars, and the patches come together to inhabit this space that we live right now. A moment of pure authenticity, of pure reality. “…She would no longer walk her way, but fly.”– Growing Blind by Rainer Maria Rilke

Masterpieces of Mediocrity What happens when everyone transmits, leaving nobody to receive?Impossible to attain that elusive zone of substance, in between ta’arof and bullshit How did we go from a debate over authenticity To a culture clash over technology? From setting straight mis-summariesTo sucking up debate’s oxygen With talk of safe spaces, shimmering vistas of offense, personal hurtTrauma, therapy, respect, patriarchy Appeasement. #MeTwoPalpitating lakes of loss, resentment, misdirection Oh for a drought!

Today we read a number of articles about the replication, imitation, or creation of art including “Growing Blind” by Rilke, where Ahmad prompted the group to ask how we show up in spaces. We also spoke about how art reproduction may or may not ruin the way we experience spaces. My personal reaction is that yes, it does ruin the experience because often there is a visceral feeling in time and space that an artist brings to a piece of art that is generally missing if we experience a replica. More to the point, there is a difference between being told something is a replica verse holding back the truth about replicas or lying outright. Outside of the readings, I had some other reflections about day 8 of Culturistan. Oftentimes when I find myself in the middle of nowhere on a retreat or in the mountains, it is because I am intentionally attempting to relax, nourish myself, and turn towards my inner world. It hit me that I’ve never quite experienced something like what we’ve been experiencing over the last 8 days; the juxtaposition between the serene environment setting and the daily requirements of the often volatile discussions and real-time improvisation with diverse colleagues.

Art is knowledge. If this is true, then the absence of this knowledge is something which is done poorly, something that does not have art. Today we discussed readings surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in art making, regardless of whether works of art emulate authenticity or originality is not as much a concern for me as much as the larger issue- how do we value people, artists, creators, and craftsmen versus the products and the commodified heritages which are ultimately generated? As a second-generation dance artist and dance researcher, I have learned to channel not only bliss but also my anger to fuel my writing, dance work, and speech. Where do we place our values as a society? Who are the gate-keepers and who gets to decide what and who is of value and what and who is not? Cross-culturally speaking societies can learn a great deal from each other by removing ethnocentric rubrics for assessment prescribed by their own cultural norms or socially acceptable behaviors. Governmental systems are very aware of the power of art and culture and its unifying effect on the societies they spring from. Some examples of government’s uses of targeted violence to eradicate people and societies through their cultural practices include: the United States government’s homogenization of Native American culture through cultural assimilation re-education camps, the English government’s outlawing of Irish harp playing, the catholic church’s burning of indigenous ‘Sami’ drums in Sweden, the Greek government’s outlawing of Rebetika music and the Cambodian government’s targeted genocide of classical Khmer dancers. How important are cultural traditions and intangible heritage to our collective humanity? Are these art practices worth preserving and developing or should we create new ones?

The readings today continue to exercise us. For or against, it’s difficult to find common ground for all but the first one, ‘Growing Blind’ by Rainer Maria Rilke. We note the discrepancy between title and text. In the text itself, references to being blind are oblique. The unique skill of the individual there is to sing, which has nothing to do with her eye. And that once she had surmounted ‘some height or bridge…/She would no longer walk her way, but fly.’ Is this us? At this point in time, this week? Are we growing blind, too? Each of us great at singing our own songs, but less great at other things, equally necessary, perhaps? Is this about well-roundedness or valuing something unique to us? Ahmad asks what can we do to fly. I wonder if we put art/ists on a pedestal, but don’t necessarily value them. Some of us tell (and some of us remember without telling) stories of singers and dancers, or artists and academics brought out for entertainment, but not truly allowed to participate or remunerated where it matters. Is value related to authenticity? Is money the only quantifiable measure of value? Ahmad asks gently, but provocatively, ‘Who here feels that they are being paid what they deserve?’ Only two of us raise our hands. To the great surprise of the rest of us. I wonder why we are surprised. The second reading, ‘Has the Incredible Accuracy of Art Reproduction Ruined the Way we Experience Masterpieces?’ by Noah Charney, brought out some interesting contrasts. As a whole, we seemed more comfortable about the idea of a replica of the Chauvet cave than a perfect 3D-digital copy of Vincent van Gogh’s ‘Almond Blossom’ from the Relievo Collection. Is scarcity or exclusivity part of the awe we feel for the original? And what about apprenticeship, a kind of medieval franchising, where ‘[t]he mark of a good assistant was his ability to paint in a way that was indistinguishable from the master’s style, so that the finished painting, sculpture or decorative object would appear to have been created by a single artist.’ How much inauthenticity (or fakery – again, as with masks vs costumes, what words we use lead us, consciously or unconsciously to very different ways of thinking and being) can we take? Are we more or less accepting of a museum display if we know it’s fake? Does it matter if we don’t know? What if the object is an AI copy? And passes the Turing test (think Blade Runner)? We go back to some of our discussions from the previous day. There is, also, the issue of the democratization of culture. Replicas, digital copies, ‘fakes’, can function…

Losing language There is much talk on AI, and it’s influence on the arts, specifically to music and paintings. A great focus seems to be inaccuracy and deleting mistakes, to perfect sound and shades of color. But wasn’t the beauty of paintings the people behind its mistakes and the beauty of sound the mixed vibrations mastered by fingers? When did we say as a collective it’s ok to reproduce Rembrandt without him being present? How did we accept that’s it’s ok for the creator to lose the influences before the Art is formed. “…Then we may be left with the body, but risk the loss of the most important thing to those who truly know and love art and history: the soul.” – Noah Charney, Zocalo Greg introduced us to the history of drums and their language of rhythm. The various percussions where through hand pressures forms high and low wave frequencies that have now mainly been transferred through digital. No one is arguing that the digital sounds should go but when did we decide that the drummer should not be on stage, that the audience who is paying to see Live music should hear various stitched together playbacks? I guess what saddens me the most is not the advent of technology but, the loss of hearing a true live concert where nothing is pre-recorded, and how the painters are competing with computers in art spaces just because viewers can’t tell the difference between a human painting or machines. Maybe I’m still old school. I accept that for the preservation of Persepolis or the Chauvet cave or the Mona Lisa is best to have replicates but as mentioned in Day 7, allow me to be a part of my own decisions of what’s best for me. I enjoy human mistakes, like the LIVE 8 concert in the UK where you can hear the breathing and breaks and the improv. There is an authenticity in live mistakes, in highs and lows. Maybe I can say there is a value that can be gained or added. Isn’t there value in the human process to reach or earn their achievements, an authentic journey in discovery? Would it not be a shame for the new generation to not go through the experience? I sometimes feel with certain quick accessibility we can lose its value. If we only have heard drums from a digital machine in an enclosed space and not experienced the various tablas in nature around a fire topped by the screams of sparrows – wouldn’t the value of those tablas be lost? Should we not discuss how our choices can have an effect? Reality is not always based on Truth, – as…

Is authenticity an inherent human quality? Does any other thing in nature concern itself with being authentic? The concept of authenticity then seems to be solely a human intellectual concept of more concern today because we now have to quantify who we are and what we do in relation to computers and machines. We started our discussion with a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke titled “Growing Blind”. The poem’s narrator faces a misjudgment of a seemingly shy and meek woman who was actually a singer preparing for a performance: “Restrained, like one who must be calm and cool Because she soon will sing before a crowd; Upon her happy eyes, without a cloud The light fell from outside, as on a pool.“She followed slowly, hesitating, shy, As if some height or bridge must still be passed, And yet – as if, when that was done, at last She would no longer walk her way, but fly.” An authentic artist must first face their own vulnerability before ever presenting it to an audience. How do we program vulnerability, insecurity, and doubt into an algorithm, as these are inherent qualities of the artistic process? In the larger context of how this poem relates to why we’re here, the title “Growing Blind” then becomes a warning of what we may be doing as humans in relation to A.I. and art. The next five readings of the day were about A.I. creating paintings in the style of Rembrandt; an A.I. program that signed it’s “art” Algorithm. The fact that we spend millions of dollars to create these programs to recreate something that humans had already created hundreds of years and then discuss its authenticity is where I get lost. The article titled “Inside ‘The Next Rembrandt’: How JWT Got a Computer to Paint Like the Old Master” by Tim Nudd talks about a computer that painted a new Rembrandt painting. The whole thing just seems absurd. Imagine those millions and millions of dollars used to create a “new Rembrandt” going to art programs for young artists instead of an algorithm to create one work of “art”.  I think humans have shown without question that we got the art thing covered! After the unveiling of the portrait by JWT Amsterdams creative director Bas Korsten, some felt it was indistinguishable from a ‘real’ Rembrandt. But the end of the article seems to agree with the view of most artists, stating that one human, in particular, would find the whole thing a bit farcical: “I think Rembrandt would laugh himself silly,” Korsten says, “if he saw there were a team of 20 people, really clever people, working for 18 months and this is what they come up…

Today we read the article “Can Machines Create Art”. What do we mean when we say something is art? What do we mean when we say something is creative? There is a truth to giving something time to reveal itself. Today, we reflected on these questions and the differences between the creative process of art versus the outcome of art which is the manifestation or result of a process. Because machines have entered our world and increasingly been put to use by creating new pieces of art or imitating historical pieces of art, we’re left with a moral dilemma — how can we judge and assign value to this new artistic creation? Is the genius assigned to the creation process or to the result? We spoke about our definitions of both creativity and art and because there is a spectrum of different definitions of each, we all have varying opinions of what creation and art mean. However, I generally agree with the idea that art is creating something out of nothing – and that can be done by both a human and a machine. In dissecting this question, I am left with two more questions, which change my answer to the earlier questions. 1) What is the value of art towards the collective? 2) What is our organizing principle around our purpose as humans and how does art fit into that purpose?