About

Illustration by Carcazan

Towards a New Collective Manifesto

La(S)imo: So, we left off at the need for a New Collective Manifesto — it seems to deserve the uppercase.  There is a chance, as usual, that we do not have the same vision for that manifesto. Yet, I believe we share a strong starting point with Lorenzo Ceccotti’s manifesto calling to protect our art and data from AI companies

(C)arcazan: Yes, NCM… I mean we already have a start with Lorenzo Ceccotti’s extraordinary effort but this is a new era for art where artists are facing new threats to their rights guised as aesthetic freedoms and so we need to set out what this era demands for being able to protect our work and ethos.

S: I signed this morning and posted my public invite to sign. Thoughts?

C: Me too. His manifesto is a great start and very particularised to AI art technically… I don’t mind having a manifesto which also states some wider more overarching reminders. For example I believe true art is what you create with your hands as powered by your mind and emotional purpose… Our ‘mani’ in manifesto — the hands (in Italian) (as distinct from pushing a button and entering prompt words).

S: I might already be on the ramifications of the success (I hope) of the petition. The need for retraining the AI engines and getting rid of the databases and datasets that make use of private data and copyrighted material.  But yes, alongside a strong regulatory framework, there is the Ethics of artistic production. And indeed, that shall be left unaddressed by the domain of law.

S: As well as the captioning of the AI-generated contents. Here I slightly disagree from Lorenzo’s proposal to caption whether something is “original”. There is nothing inherently original in any AI-generated outcome (unless by “original” we mean generated through public/non-copyrighted datasets, though I would still disagree on the label). I think the output should always be captioned with artistic references and credits.

C: Maybe he means where it originated and whether it used anyone else’s work in order to produce itself… We shouldn’t confuse influence with scraping and that’s the core distinction here. I may be influenced by Etienne Delessert’s work but I don’t scrape (or lift) it on order to produce my image and then call my image ‘original’..

S: Correct, but you would still indicate him in your references or biography. Or probably mention him in an interview or bio. With AI, all is lost after uncredited use.  And besides, what is “influence” in an algorithm? What is the smallest amount of style that qualifies as influence without becoming plagiarism?

C: That’s the issue, there is no influence for an algorithm, there’s just what is programmed so intention overtakes it. The NCM start as you say with the need for regulation and guidelines but they respond to the issue.. when the Dada manifestos were formulated they didn’t happen because someone said you can’t use a toilet to make art.. they wanted to say what they felt about who they are in their era. And I think we need to be doing the same: this is what art is /artists are in the digital era..

S: On second thoughts, I think we could define the boundaries of “original” and “influence”.  Original: any work that is solely using datasets of a certain kind, e.g. scientific images of flowers, animals, etc. See, I think the distinction between “original” and “making used of copyrighted contents” will add an interesting twist to this discussion. Images included in the encyclopaedia Britannica may be copyrighted, though not necessarily be artworks.

C: In an age where everything is so digitally complex, why can’t we just take a rebellious stance of simplicity? The NCM is simply: manifesto. A reminder that to manifest is to show – well, that’s covered, but what is being shown is the core question; and manifesto has the answer in it. Mani (something created by le mani, the hands), ‘fest’ whose etymological roots lie in “festival” or “feast”, something that leads you to say “o” at the end of it because I (the personal human I, not AI!) is at the centre of it.

S: I see that we are drifting away from the topic of regulations.  I don’t know about your personal etymology… But to the core topic — what should be domain of the manifesto and what of the regulations?

C: Well, that’s creative difference — I interpret a meaning from personal research and you abide by the research. It’s what makes us, us. I don’t think we should confuse regulations with the need for a new manifesto.

S: I think there is likely to be some overlapping in the area of influence. For instance, let’s say I, the AI engine, draw using the scientific images of Christmas cacti (not by chance, I guess…) and a map of the city of London. Nothing else. That would be original.  Then, let’s say I consider an artist’s creative work with maps. The geometry of composition, but not the content itself. That could qualify as influence.  NOW. That should be both domain of the regulations (for the algorithm) and the manifesto (for the human artist to draw the line of intellectual property in ethical terms).  And I think we need this, irrespective of the AI entropy.  And of course, we need something about the meaning making. At heart of the production.  What else?

C: OK firstly AI doesn’t draw, it generates. Small but important gripe of mine. Secondly, you can’t regulate for influence, you can only regulate for plagiarism and/or issues arising from failing to obtain consent to use/lift work as your own. Thirdly, regulation is how states and countries set rules for what can be either a crime or legally pursuable; we know that sometimes law and morality don’t overlap and that usually laws come about reactively (because something has gone wrong or because a gap in protecting rights has manifested itself). Lastly, the new manifesto I’m talking about is an aesthetic one born of the need to not just protect artists’ rights but at its core to restate who we are in this time: this new manifesto comes from the aesthetic heart. Arguably, it also reacts to the era we are in, but as a way of self-declaration so the feeling comes through in our work.

S: Well, I disagree. You can regulate anything that you consider relevant. And to me, defining the boundaries of influence and plagiarism (which in turn triggers the need for crediting/captioning) is key.  Furthermore, you keep calling the manifesto “aesthetic”. But the process behind it (to quote you, powered by your mind and emotional purpose) is detached from aesthetics. In fact, at least in theory, two identical outcomes could come from a process with or without sense of purpose.

C: How so?

S: Matter of fact, a beautiful drawing (aesthetics) may be produced without heart or purpose.

C: Hard to say without speaking to the artist about how they came up with the ‘beautiful drawing’.. What I did say about the process actually related to what I consider “true art” to be, then I reflected on to the hands reference in the word manifesto (‘true art is what you create with your hands as powered by your mind and emotional purpose… Our ‘mani’ in manifesto — the hands (in Italian)’).  How can a NCM be drafted? What would the first line be? For me, it would be: “1. Art by consent 2. Hands powered by human mind and emotion  3. There is no art in artificial… something like that

S: Look. Either this manifesto is individual — hence, you own its definition and content — or it is the response of a collective need, and therefore, you should be open to negotiating its definition and scope. Do we agree?  You clearly feel strongly about that personal etymology, but the matter at stake here is the collective statement, the shared values. Where do Carcazan’s public manifesto (and its pressing need to define “true art”) and the artists’ collective manifesto meet?

C: Maybe I am looking at it this way round – that a collective is a group of people or bodies who share a common purpose, or an action done by a group… maybe the NCM is the sum of its parts? Does that even make sense? Like, we all have our personal manifestos but the underlying core actually chime?

S: Look, the way I see it, a molecule is not the sum of its atoms. The chemical and physical properties of the ingredients differ from those of the compound — their stability and potential energy, too. For a collective manifesto to be born, the shared needs of the authors and intended audience/signatories must be identified.  So, I suggest that the NCM asks itself: what is my purpose? And who is my audience?

S: It seems that our job here is not done yet. To be continued?

C: This has been a differently charged exchange — I know it comes from passion and love for the topic and the need to state our causes, and that’s healthy as long as some fundamentals don’t get damaged in the exercise of argument. Is that how the opposing views on AI operate? Maybe we should also have a look at “Dealing with Debate — Or Argument for Argument’s Sake?” Let’s see what next week brings…