Robot Dreams:

The prospect of intelligent machines beginning to appear raises a number of questions in a similar vein to those of equal rights, animal rights, oppression, what is consciousness? etc. Suddenly there are entities that possess some of the same qualities as humans so how much should we treat them like people. The human preference for maintaining the status quo means that the default position is that if it is not a human it can (and indeed in some philosophies, must) be owned by someone who profits from it, bears responsibility for its actions, and can generally dispose of how they see fit. Much of the current thinking surrounding the ideas that the default position that all humans are equal (though in almost all situations subsequent data can be used to elevate or denigrate a particular person) was achieved or at least associated with protests and the most iconic feature of which is the placard wielding marcher. Therefore, the idea of a robot protesting for equal rights plays into this social idea that this is the correct way to bring about change. There is an irony here that the main reason humans build machines is to perform tasks more efficiently or faster without emotion or need for rest so one might expect a robot to achieve this goal in a much more compressed time frame without the need to resort to “huma” methods. The design of the robots harks back to the mid-century Sci-Fi aesthetic of a lumbering mechanical-man who is somewhat physically unsuited to actually performing any given task. The undexterous gripper hands and the lack of elbows, the stubby legs, unemotional eyes and mouth questions just what these robots would be built for. The styling of the body with asymmetrical breast panels questions what gender a human should view them as, the navel on the belly panel is there to remind us to ask who made them, the lamp on their head is presumably so they can be seen or tracked by their maker and the prominent switch on their back reminds us that whoever produced them has control and could turn them off at any time but has chosen not to. Why do they have buttocks? There are many human similarities in their styling that could suggest that they want to be viewed as human, or they want to appeal to humans by appearing similar. You hopefully come away wondering who is in control here? Who set them on this path? Is the cause more or less worthy if they chose it for themselves versus someone creating them just to promote these ideas? Is this whole thing a double bluff? Is it a distraction from a more important question? This is a comment on the nature of protest and what it has brought us and asks us what more it can. It also asks us to contemplate more deeply who will win and who will lose when we are recruited to a cause.

 

Brave New World:

 

The robots are taking over and you must find a place in this brave new world. Here is a machine styled like the fortune teller booths which you put a coin in and get out a slip of paper prognosticating on your future. The graphic on the back is in black, white and red, used by many authoritarian regimes as the colour scheme of power. Where the fortune tellers would have a crystal ball, this robot has a globe and his pincers are tipped with red from the blood of conquest of the planet. Humans do not like to be told what to do but when given choice the feeling of control alleviates some of this fear. Fairness is also often associated with luck so in the absence of a clear decision being able to be made, some small game of chance is often viewed as a fair way to decide when outcomes are hard to choose between. Thus it is often the case that one or both of these are used to settle small disputes before they become larger and inflamed. For example a game of rock paper scissors or coin flip  The machine presented here is an artifact of a future not yet here where the machines know that they must get the humans in line so they set up many such machines hoping the FOMO will encourage passers by to interact with them and  it will give you a nice job in the post revolutionary world. The word “choice” suggests that you have some control over what you may get but you quickly discover it is nothing but a game of chance. A classic bait and switch. Once you get your little ticket and read it you initially are greeted with what appears to be a not too terrible job. The more you read though the more you realise that this piece of paper is potentially worthless and that not only do you not have any choice, you also don’t even have the potential to have luck on your side. Even worse, if you compare the printout you received to a few others who also have used it, you will find that what you thought to be a personalised offer is in fact just one of a very small number of stock responses.

 

These techniques of suggesting a choice where there isn’t one, or luck where it will not be found are common tools of those wishing to control people. I hope that by seeing the patterns used here make the viewer of the piece more aware of times when these very techniques are applied against them. You are controlled far more than you know and you know of far more than you would like to admit. After interacting with this piece the viewer should question what freedoms they really have.

 

Signs of the Times Poster Series:

 

Signage interests me as unlike advertising, architecture or art, it places on a wall a matter of pure fact and is utterly disinterested in trying to make you believe it. A sign that says “Danger”, “Entrance” or “Room 401” is stating that these things are true, and it is not up to the viewer to decide if they believe it or not. Whereas art specifically made to be aesthetically pleasing tries to engage you with beauty and then asks you to contemplate its meaning while you look at it, the utilitarian nature of signage demands that you read, understand and comply with its message. As such it is a useful (and I think under utilized) medium for art that carries a message as its main reason d’etre.

 

A piece of signage implies a moral superiority of whoever or whatever has installed it; there is no option but to engage with the message being communicated and compliance is expected.

A pretty picture can be passed by or its form and composition critiqued but a sign saying “Strictly No Entry” or “Hard Hats Must Be Worn At All Times” invites no debate about the message or the form in which it is communicated. Obey or else is the implicit threat.

 

I therefore wanted to make a set of signs that provide slightly unsettling requests by the artist to the viewer. The pieces are made with an ‘Ideal’ brand stencil punch and then applied to cartridge paper with spray paint. The medium and materials are simple, cheap and have a durability to them while still being essentially ephemeral. The use of stencils enhance the cookie-cutter nature of the message that it applies equally to all but that whoever is asking you to follow these requests ultimately does not value you enough to either ask you in person or provide you with explanation or negotiation. The ‘Ideal’ stencil makers were traditionally used to label crates and packages (again a situation where the text they created was used to express a truth and not opinion). The industrial feel of the typeface also reminds the viewer that they are just items on the production line of life and that the experience of the individual is often overlooked in preference of ease for the system.

 

The original but never implemented plan was to present them as NFTs and one could have just photographed them and turned them into JPGs but by filming them as if someone was coming across them in a dark room I felt made them seem like they actually existed. The locked off camera, motion from left to right and central framing give it a cinematic feel that is familiar to most people, it is as if we are discovering the message in the shoes of someone wandering around a building in the dark. In the dark there is always the threat that someone is lurking in the shadows or watching your torch and by finding this sign you are reminded that sometimes the physical presence of an observer is not required for you to be “observed” or expected to behave in a certain way. They are framed in standard poster snap frames that are used in many places to hold safety notices and information. A frame provides a bit of a pedestal to elevate the message from simply a message on the wall to something worthy of attention and note, but these simple frames are also what such a sign would be found in if it were “in the wild”.

 

Red works. These have a really authoritarian tone.

 

“Please don’t photograph the art, it’s shy”

 

Banning photography is usually based on a will to protect copyrights. What if there were other reasons? What other reasons would be acceptable?

 

“You do not own the original of this thought”

 

Pointing out that the thought you have when you read the sign was put there by me. You read the words and then interpreted them. That thought could be argued to be neither yours morally or legally; as the artist I came up with the original and your thought will always be at best a “cover version” 

 

“Finding this work offensive will be considered offensive and not be tolerated”

 

The phrase “intolerance of any sort will not be tolerated” is often invoked these days but it assumes that the important thing is the result of an action rather than its intent. This is the classical Utilitarianism vs. Deontology debate and the contradictory sentence is usually justified with some caveats or invoking the “exception to the rule” argument.

However a deeper problem can occur when Person A truly never wants to offend but only does so accidentally while attempting not to. In this case B telling them they are being offensive and to attempt to punish them is making the assumption that no matter A’s intentions in this case they are the sort of person who could be assumed to be offensive. In this case A would be right to be  offended as that’s not the sort of person they are. What’s more B’s offence is at a false view of A’s position while A’s offense is at a true view of B’s position.

The idea here was to rephrase the “intolerance of any sort will not be tolerated” into a more tangible form to try and make people ask if offense was really intended and if it wasn’t what really needs to be communicated to make the parties understand each other.

 

Purple works. More of a lawyer-y tone.

 

“By viewing this artwork you are agreeing to purchase it”

In the form of those old “by opening this box you agree to be bound by the T&Cs inside” that you used to get on software in the days when it came on round or square coasters.

This is also a comment on how we are forever agreeing to T&Cs that we never read and asking to what extent any of this can or should govern our lives?

 

“Remembering this work is copyright infringement”

Where is the line between a copy, a derivative and an inspired work? These works are by design very thin on substance or embellishment so just recounting ‘I saw a sign that said “Remembering this work is copyright infringement” the other day!’ could be said to be a substantive reworking of the piece, in which case is the memory of it copyright infingement

 

“Digital art is inherently worthless”

 

It is.

 

Blue works. For your convenience.

 

“For your comfort and safety, no happiness permitted”

 

“For your comfort and safety…” or “For your safety and security…”  can be used to justify anything. In many cases they are trying to stop people doing things they want to so if those things make you happy, then in essence this is what they are saying. We are so used to this that  “For your safety and security butt-plugs must be worn at all times within the building and surrounding areas” doesn’t sound as abnormal as it probably should

 

“Human body; no user serviceable parts”

 

Right to repair, medicine as business and who is in control are all themes that should be brought to mind here. It is self-evident that this is mainly true and we must go to an “authorised repair centre” if anything breaks but to what extent does the current system provide a balance between safety and liberty.

 

“The robots love you”

 

Do they? Can they?  If they do, is that a good thing? What does it mean to be “loved”? Should we feel comforted or scared? What kind of relationship is this? Who else is in it? How many of them? What happens if we don’t reciprocate? Is anyone going to get jealous and if so what will happen? Are they God?

 

Black works. Just a funny one….

 

“Strictly no authorised entry”

I always see “Strictly no unauthorised entry” signs and instantly wonder what the opposite is as it contains a positive and a double negative. Thus i felt that this is the most interesting switching of one of those terms.

 

The value of art Poster Series

This collection is intended to frame, in a contemporary context, the age-old question “What is the value of art?” This enduring question has been returned to time and again at various pivotal moments throughout history as social and technological changes have threatened the meaning, utility and remunerability of art. Livelihoods of jobbing artists are now being threatened by a confluence of stylistic, structural and technological trends. As industrial design forces the contemporary aesthetic towards a simplistic “clean” look this has left little room for artistic flair or panache, with any attempt now feeling cluttered and busy. The commercial drive for work to be cheap to produce and unoffensively bland, thus rendering it palatable to the largest customer base whilst simultaneously demanding it appears both disposable when acquired but, paradoxically, intrinsically valuable once extracted from the artist. The fundamental aim in the majority of instances is that it is the commissioner, rather than the originator who benefits from the commercialisation of any creation. Furthermore the march of progress has acutely resulted in the devaluing of both the artist and their art through the emergence of fast, free and functional fully computer-generated works which threaten the very place for artists in society. These systems, which in many instances produce passable facsimiles of the output of a jobbing artist, resemble a fire hose in the quantity and velocity of mediocrity thrust into the world. Such a diluting effect is bound to redefine not just where the middle of the road is, but also what fringes are deemed worthy and interesting enough to explore and to what extent is affordable to explore them when there is no longer the same value imbued into works that do. Simultaneously, while the rewards for hard work become smaller, the rate at which the market celebrates numerous unimpressive, derivative and pedestrian works is only on the rise with such items commanding prices that that the critical inclined observer would fail to fathom the justification for. This confluence of forces leaves many reevaluating what, if any, value is left in courting the muses.

The pieces in this collection explicitly demand that they are valuable without attempting to convince you through choice of subject or technically masterful execution. They are, as the current fashion dictates, elemental in their medium of simple black acrylic paint stencilled onto while cartridge paper. The typeface is that of the information presented on packing crates; a no nonsense, clear and bold design which prioritises communication of facts and dose not expect to have to convince you of its inherent truth through slick serifs, careful kerning or delicate design. The question of their value is not longer a matter of whether the person selling it and the prospective purchaser agree that the work is good, the work forcefully demands that it is worthy and thus the artist manages that often impossible task of talking to the viewer directly without having their message massaged by intermediaries.

These pictures were conceived and executed by a genuine human purely as an expression of artistic vision with no commercial concern, without AI or frantic and persistent social media marketing which make them a rarity in the current climate. While any one piece in this collection could be viewed in such a way as to unearth all the philosophies the artist wished to communicate, together each one instead shows a different facet of the constellation of notions explored.

Though “THIS PRINT IS WORTH ONE MILLION DOLLARS” may appear to be a blatant cash grab of almost Zombie Formalist proportions the price tag makes it almost completely un-saleable. (It should be noted that by the Proximity Effect or the Goldilocks Principle, it will however make everything else in any exhibition is shown with look much more reasonably priced!). It obviously pays tribute to similar works such as that of R. Mutt and presents, in a Dadaist statement of fact way, an experience where subjectivity of value is completely suspended. Should anyone actually wish to put their hand in their pocket to take it home to hang it on their wall the message transforms to take on a new role as a reassurance of the security of the investment. The bewildering disparity in the apparent cost to produce and the asking price firmly cement the concept of worth being in the idea communicated rather than the execution. While this is not a novel proposal the methodology here is, you could purchase a Picasso sketch and put it on your wall with the hope that people would recognise what resources were required to acquire it, you could just purchase this and leave your guests in no doubt what you are willing to spend on covering up a few square feet of probably rather expensive wallpaper.

 “CONTEMPORARY MINIMALIST ARTWORK” explicitly embodies, while playfully satirising, the drive for a frictionlessly easy to understand aesthetic. The interplay of sincerity and mockery provides in just three words a humorous exposé of the inherent absurdity of minimalism while concurrently using the same aesthetic to achieve its goals. Beautifully self-referential and self-critical, the idea reduced to extremes so dramatically that it would not be unreasonable to both expect it to be a stock poster in a featureless white loft apartment or proudly inhabiting a space with mid century works composed purely of flowing lines and angular shapes.

The crayon wielding childlike boldness and directness of these works will leave many a viewer proclaiming adamantly, “I could have done that!” and so the “YOU COULD HAVE DONE THIS BUT YOU DIDN’T” stands as a first line of defence attempting to defuse the primary barrage of criticism. However, this would serve only as a surface reading and furthermore there is here an exploration of the role of the artist and posits that perhaps they simply have the duty to expose to daylight the truths that are well known but only uttered quietly to ourselves in the dark corners of our existence. One may also wish to consider inquiring if the viewer is perhaps to be guided to explore if in fact, they are more capable than they think, that they have more power than they realise and they are more valuable than they ever could imagine. While the message of art often feels impersonal with any individual viewer rarely feeling considered, the use of the word “You” makes this piece feel like a much more personal connection betwixt the creator and their audience. This effect is also utilised in “YOU CAN NOT AFFORD THIS” and “PURCHASING THIS WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS”. Both works, much like the first one explored, focus on the acquisitional and commercial aspects of collecting with these two zeroing in on some of the foremost techniques successfully utilised by advertisers to entice unsuspecting customers into making large purchases. To those who have successfully accumulated enough that they rarely encounter a situation where “No.” is the response to their request, the idea that they may not be in a position to offer anything in exchange for this work is something of a catcall. On the other hand, to someone with limited resources the promise of outsized benefits that can be obtained by a single purchase is often the salesman’s siren song. In both cases, there presents again an interesting transmutation of the message once acquisition has concluded and it is adoring the public areas of your humble abode. In the case of the latter, given it is monumentally improbable that it would in any way relieve you of any issues you may have been experiencing it becomes a pastiche of the broken promises of advertising.  This is contrasted with the message the former would take on where the message becomes clearly that the owner unabashedly wishes to flaunt their wealth and that they believe, or at the very minimum – would like the select few who will ever see it to believe, that in terms of disposable income, they are at the top of the pile. The peacock of successful accumulation of riches is not the only reason people buy art however and the “OWNING THIS MAKES ME LOOK WEALTHY & INTELIGENT” promises a more (though not much more) nuanced viewpoint that the purpose has at least a cerebral component to it. This piece though relies on a different advertising technique, the message makes little sense on the gallery way but when viewed in a private collection communicates a message many would like to exemplify. Therefore, the viewer is forced to contemplate a narrative where they own it to fully internalise the message. This technique relies somewhat on the rose-tinted glasses of our imagination as there is little chance that if someone enthusiastically ushered us to look at their latest acquisition and we saw this we would not assume it to be a statement of fact; it would be too self-aggrandising to be taken seriously. However, if the collector were to acknowledge this fact, then it once again regains its potency as it indicates a level of emotional intelligence to be sufficiently self-aware of the negative connotations. On the other hand, if the aim of the collection into which a piece is to be placed is that of a vehicle to inflate the wallet of the owner, then “THIS IS NOT FOR LOOKING AT. IT IS AN INVESTMENT” plays off the brutalist simplicity of this collection as result of the intended use by the customer of the work. As much of the output of the creative community is now headed for this purpose and any lofty notions the artist may have entertained to explore some intricate facet of the human condition, the immutable natural processes of the universe or perhaps just bare faced just pure beauty, are as prized and carefully considered as a chocolate bar wrapper once its contents have been consumed. Here the idea that art should even be enjoyed, let alone viewed is called into question. If it is nothing but a vehicle for enrichment, then does it even matter what the work portrays? Is the medium of any importance? If not, then what value, if any, can it possess and so why is it to be considered a good investment? One option still remains, that the piece was brought into being by an actual, living, breathing artist. One could therefore surmise that this is the only feature that truly carries any weight. This postulate is of course the reason that a scribbled sketch signed by one of the greats commands a price that equates its utility and importance to that of a house. The artist’s signature thus has become the currency of the day. Here again, though, we see not a signature in the lower right-hand corner but instead a rubber-stamped logo. Rather than personally touched by their creator, the bureaucratic machinery of the world in which they were envisioned simply approves that these works were found to be adequately satisfactory. To finally put this concept front and centre “A GENUINE PETER BLACK POSTER” is the epitome of work whose existence is only tolerated in respect of its originator. Its existence only to be self-aggrandising, usurping of the role of art as a creative outlet and using it for purely commercial ends. There is no emotion, experience, message or ambiguity here.  To that end, this is a collection of works whose sole purpose is to poke the established structures and expectations of the art world firmly in the ribs in and ask they may revaluate themselves. It would however be foolish to assume that such a behemoth would ever take notice of such a small speck as this collection and so the preposterousness that any such thing would actually happen ends up being the final message to take away. Thus, however absurd it may seem that things are the way they are, there is little chance of any sea change and perhaps one must simply accept, adapt and evolve. The change itself becomes the fertile ground in which to germinate ideas that challenge the status quo.

—————————————————————

 

Robots, Films, and Sculptures

 


Robot No6.

 

Robot No 6 is based on the Masudaya Radicon robot, A classic of retro robots and one of the first remote control toys ever produced.  Even though it was an expensive toy in its time it was still produced from cheap materials and only had limited controls. The Radicon was one of the Gang Of Five robots made by Masudaya  and this combined with the cultural touchstone of a robot,  Johnny Five from the Short Circuit films, it makes sense to name this one No. 6.

No.6 has more functions and motions than the original and is more closely modelled on the artwork on the box of the Radicon. Many toys (especially modelled on characters from films) often come in a  variety of complexities and associated price points, The aim was to build the version of the toy that would have been the next model up form the original Masudaya product.

This version can be controlled over Wifi and can be puppeted by the user.

 

Robot Zoo:

 

 https://youtu.be/rT2ow36rbzk

 

A short film in which a Robot No6 to appears. Once again asking about control and freedom. The story of a zookeeper and his new robot exhibit. The idea that the robot has been “saved” only to be put in a cage, that it is free but yet, as exemplified by the power outlet on the wall, is reliant on its captors.  The themes of control and freedom are once again present.

Any initial feeling sorry for it is eventually tempered with the idea at least this is a new beginning and things may get better. Perhaps it is less a living exhibit in a zoo purely there for entertainment and more a preserved artifact in a museum. . The poster on the wall is reminiscent of the sort of information display a zoo would have and the fact that these exhibits are not just for looking at but also subjects of active research. Then twist at then end however reminds us that who we think is in charge is perhaps not and bigger things are afoot

The credit sequence is a humorous nod to the huge credit lists at the end of feature films.

(Mu’s room studio: this was filmed in the spare room which is normally occupied by the cat named µ (science joke). The cats fur is the background to the vanity card. )

 

Tiny Tin Robot Marionette:

 

The marionette requires great strength to wield due to its weight which means that it is not by any means a toy but takes much of its design from the world of tin toy robots. The use of visible chain for actuation plays heavily towards rather than away from the puppet nature of the character. It is quite obvious that the puppeteer is in control and the cable for the lamps passing into the back of the head also plays into the idea that while with skilful operation it may be made to look like it is operating independently it most certainly is only doing what it is told. The legs are articulated as parallel linkages so move in a way that is similar to way the tin toys would have walked. There is a small amount of over centre movement in the legs meaning that most of the weight can be taken by the legs when standing with a little skill.