Interview by Ben Vickers
Serpentine Gallery, Ignota Books, Curator
of Federico’s upcoming project Boar
BV To begin, I want to start with the making of this book, it is a charting and collection of works you have made since your teens, 33 years of work – what was the impetus for its creation – and in making it what have you learnt about how your practice has evolved?
FD To me, a comprehensive archive means not only peace of mind and order, but also an overview of the structure that I’ve created. It also shows dead ends that could be perceived as a waste of time. At the same time, the process of preparation of this book has reassured me it was all meaningful. Looking back, I know now that the Sembion and Outside Itself periods were crucial, making me realise they were related and form the basis of my current thinking about immateriality and artificial intelligence.
BV Throughout these 33 years of making it is apparent that processes of industrial manufacturing and the introduction of computation logics have woven a critical path in your practice, long before the introduction of such concerns into the lexicon of contemporary art – what was it that drew you initially to these processes and developments?
FD Basically, it was me being anxious about the world around me that I cannot transform and work with using my body which is limited by its sensitivity and its precision. However, I am also aware of this limitation having its advantages. The complexity of the world is so profound that, without significant limitations, our bodies would have to cease to exist. Since 1990s, I have been using digital tools and software allowing me to emulate the physical world. During this period, I was searching for technologies that would be capable of transferring the data objects I created from the simulated world into the physical one. I started using 3D print, stereolithography, SLS rapid prototyping, robots, virtual reality, or HMD helmets. These technologies were, above all, associated with the automobile and aircraft industry and as such very far from the world of art.
BV In 2011 you asserted a manifesto of the “non-human made”, a rumination on the advent of a machinic creativity – in 2021 it feels we are on the cusp of that possibility, with the acceleration of AI produced artworks that struggle to locate an easily identifiable human author – within this what is your aspiration for machine creativity? And with recent developments how do you reflect on this manifesto now?
FD In 2008–2011, when I was preparing a project for MASS MoCA and Outside Itself for the Venice Biennale, I was focused on creating virtual territories. Anyone who entered and subsequently interacted with them, determined the form of the data sculpture, the data object where it was not entirely clear who the author was. To give you an idea: a visitor entering the Venice Arsenale was confronted with robots which, on the basis of an algorithm, created a tangible structure in real time. The confrontation with the work of the installed robots produced tension and uncertainty in the viewers as to who the real creator was, and that was very important to me. Getting back to the present times, we can perceive and see similar processes within the society – in the space I call super-territory. With the help of artificial intelligence, we are trying to transfer the systems of the management of society into a parallel virtual world. The decentralised blockchain is a visible example of that.
BV In an early work Generatrix, it appears you are at an early stage of wrestling with the potential feedback loops that machine vision will produce, and our relationship to the machine, seeing ourselves abstracted through its responses. In making this work Generatrix, what did you learn about machine vision that would inform future works?
FD Generatrix was about creating a certain membrane that reflected human emotions in real time. Within the installation, a visitor expressed himself or herself through voice and movement. No commercial software allowing this was available at that time. Generatrix was produced using the C++ programming language and Fourier transform. From today’s perspective, the appearance of the project may seem pretty naïve since many types of this software already exist a can be easily downloaded. For me, however, this was a moment of great importance – I was, for the very first time, confronted with machine learning that would not exist without input data.
BV You followed this work with Mnemeg – moving beyond abstraction – in this work the machine emerges as an entity, another intelligence, what influenced this move – to what degree did science fiction play in your imagination in constructing this work?
FD The most significant aspect of this work were the information sources. Figuratively speaking, I was interested in binary sperms and binary food. Radio waves passing through a specific room of the Espace EDF Electra in Paris where Mnemeg was installed were scanned and used as data, as a source for 3D projection of the body of Mnemeg. The scanned waves determined the manner in which the virtual body or, more precisely, the virtual 3D object morphed and moved. I did not derive from any sci-fi model in this case. I was truly interested in the source of information feed.
BV And why after its making did you move away from an anthropomorphic vision for artificial intelligence?
FD While working on the Mnemeg project, I wasn’t very happy as a person. I was unfulfilled with what I was doing and felt the society and people didn’t quite understand me. I was torn between the desire to create in the virtual world using artificial intelligence and the desire to be in the physical world and focus on more comprehensible rather than abstract or biomorphic work.
Mnemeg is one of those projects I am least satisfied with. In retrospect, the representation of an anthropomorphic virtual body seems inappropriate and incorrect to me. I chose the representation of a body because I wanted people to be able to understand my thoughts better. But soon after that I returned to abstraction.
BV Soon after making this work, you turned to a more disembodied expression of machine interaction – again following the feedback loop logic between human and machine in your work Sembion – here the voices of visitors to the gallery are captured, processed and rendered into physical form. I cannot help but think of Terence McKenna’s description of the DMT experience, and the interaction with machine elves, through a language expressed in objects, But for you, what was it that sparked this idea of transmutation of human voice into physical form?
FD I am really happy you are asking about this. Questions like this are very important to me. In this period, I was interested in Terence McKenna, Ervin Laszlo, Fritjof Capra and others, and was thinking about morphogenetic fields a lot. Sembion is about the translation of a form into our language. Using reverse methodology, I wanted to create a language that could act as biomorphic or morphogenetic, yet based on the analysis of our own language. Syntactic analysis is transformed into shapes but here the process is reversed – the shape produces the language. It’s an abstract shape that is connected to our voice, to our words. While working on Sembion, I collaborated with Connexor, a Finnish company that helped me prepare a very precise analyser. And that was the source for metablobs and the metablob algorithm. Words as such, unless we are able to translate them, are abstract. Every character of the alphabet, unless we know it, is abstract. My intention was to create an abstract ornament that has a meaning. And words were in the background of Sembion.
BV As in the works previously discussed. The feedback loop between human and machine returns again and again in your later works. Efekt, LacrimAU, Geometric Death Frequency-141, Outside Itself. These works produce in and of themselves information, data, about the potential of new types of relationships – what did these works teach you that you did not know before, and what were the feedback loops that emerged for you in the making of each work?
FD The projects you mentioned inspired me in a manner that was entirely new to me and not inherent in my human thinking up to then. It was the case, for instance, of the search for essential oil composites in LacrimAU where personalised scents were made using an olfactory information. In Shanghai, we used sensors to identify siblings for whom an automated pipetting station subsequently prepared the same scent based on the EEG waves. I was very surprised by this and, as a result, became convinced that I was heading the right direction and that technological tools are truly helping us in finding new perspectives. So, it’s not simply about using a tool to create something but about the tool giving you a feedback impulse.
BV Over the intervening years, it appears that a new element or material logic entered your practice, the introduction of a narrative dimension, Sakura was the first of these works, the creation of a fictional corporation. What spurred this new direction?
FD In the Sakura, Muscoxen, Intuit and BIG LIGHT projects, I decided to make use of promotional spots as a means of representation, even though those were fictitious companies. At that time, I was interested in the language of manipulative engineering all societies in developed countries use. I considered it important to learn about these systems and to understand the world around me through them.
BV As your work evolves in later iterations, a new mode of complexity emerges, whereby narrative, human interaction and machine manifestations fragment, they appear aside one another – but they are not necessarily literally connected to produce a holistic software system – this is perhaps best represented in the work You Welded the Ornament of the Times – what triggered this shift in your approach?
FD Let’s look at the development of my works. With Generatrix it was a simple membrane that represents me as a human, a body. After that, Mnemeg, which was about information supply nurturing an artificial organism. With Sembion it was about translating shape and abstract form into words. With the Chinese project called You Welded the Ornament of the Times, I thought it was important and interesting to record human activities that are disappearing in the society. It was fascinating to work with the theories of Siegfried Kracauer and Elias Canetti who speak about the ornament of the mass, about the ornament of labour. It is an image of society that is mechanical (Chinese-Beijing society), trying to violate people so that they function mechanically as much as possible in the totalitarian regime. To understand the whole system, the depiction of the ornament of labour through these technologies seemed ideal to me. For robotic paintings, that were made on the walls at CAFA Museum, I used the traditional ink and silk. At the same time, it was intended as a kind of a free manifestation of the disappearing services of Beijing’s rickshaw, bicycle and motorbike repairers. That was perhaps the reason the exhibition was closed by the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda the day after the opening and modified afterwards.
BV We have chartered a particular path through your practice as it has evolved over decades, a path that begins to make sense when we arrive at your work BIG LIGHT, a fictional corporation that places weight on the sacredness of our emerging relationship with new technologies. It is to my mind a vision of what is likely to unfold over the next century, as technological development begins to more evidently show itself as an epistemological project, and we begin to consciously change ourselves with our technology. Can you tell me about this project and how it may have recalibrated your practice and your approach to making art? Are you consciously making new tools that are capable of transforming yourself?
FD In BIG LIGHT, we tried to supress me as a person and creator, we tried to introduce this project as a presentation of the BIG LIGHT Foundation. We really put in maximum effort to make it look convincing. I am currently working on a new project with a team of programmers and we are trying to analyse my movements in detail in order to find what is characteristic of me when I draw or paint. In fact, I believe that touch, the pressure of hands on a material form the historical basis for the emergence of language. At the same time, we expect that the neural network system analysing the movements will produce images close to my character. That wouldn’t be so special after all. Using Plutchik’s wheel of emotions, we analyse individual words in a communication (either between two people or in a community) that we subsequently transform into an image. Why I’m talking about this – BIG LIGHT is a foundation that is trying to change the society and to do so it uses different tools showing complexity that transcends human perception (senses). Through the tools used in BIG LIGHT I am learning about society and the way it works. It’s not merely a representation, I myself am learning from it and evolving through it.
BV To close; The human and machine relationship will be a defining factor of at least the next century, if not more. If your artwork was to make a single intervention to change or transform the evolution of this relationship. What would your hope for that single change be?
FD Change should primarily be about understanding. People communicate and express themselves in Japanese, Chinese, English, all words are translated and we try to understand each other. There are, however, limits that can cause complications. I would be truly interested in creating an image that may be abstract but when translated it shows the emotions hidden in words. When translating an abstract image and its lines, AI will make the words appear. Therefore, it is a translation of shape into words. That means an emotional map expressing a certain feeling should help in bringing people together and understanding each other. I would be happy if this reaches a level that is hard to communicate with words.
Interview by Ben Vickers