Illustration by Carcazan
A New Collective Manifesto
(C)arcazan: Another week, another thought… We agreed a New Collective Manifesto (NCM) was needed, and it was clear there was different energies around discussing that. It’s too heavy to leave it in last week, how do you think a NCM could even begin to be formulated?
La(S)imo: Since each artist has their own manifesto and process, I am trying to wrap my mind around what should be in it. For instance, I think everyone should commit to meaning making.
C: Hhmm… When it comes to AI art there are appear to be three ways of thinking: those for, those against, and those who don’t really say either but think it of it positively like Julien Posture in his article where he says that AI art can only use past ideas whereas artists use the future (in a nutshell). Making seems to be at the heart of it all… But also perspectives: our perspective on our role as artists?
S: I feel that the NCM should simply be a manifesto for a new ecosystem — where AI may be used in the creative process — without taking a position in favour or against it. An ethical manifesto, I might add. On our role, on our promise. Regardless of how we get there, but with a renewed commitment to respecting collaboration and intellectual property.
C: I thought of the NCM as re-asserting artists’ roles and ethos in the digital age in a more general way; I didn’t think it needs to say when or how it’s ok to use AI or whether AI should be used as a tool, but almost a step before the AI use discussion: in this era where what “art” is and what “artists” are seem to be redefined by the use of AI in image production, what do we as human artists say we are in this new context, and what do we stand for?
S: I agree. So what are we?
C: What would a NCM look like for LaSimo?
S: I might be biased here, but I think that every piece of production — no matter how complex or in which form — should aim to itch. My personal manifesto promises storytelling for positive (social) change, and that may not be shared by others. But offering new angles (on anything, really — nothing is too trivial or small to be interesting), illuminating hidden corners, inviting new thoughts should be a shared commitment. I would say, this is what we are. As for what we stand for, well, that could be trickier. Standing for freedom of expression as an absolute is a mine field. Like with tolerance. Intolerant with the intolerant. But also more sensitivity. You cannot wish to speak to the world but not care about different readings for the same message.
C: A minefield, indeed. And the courts and commentators will always be polemicized about what that actually means — but I think of people like Tania Bruguera whose searing galvanising manifesto was born out of her strained circumstances where she felt the need to reassert what art is, who artists are, and what rights we have… even if it meant regulation was formulated around it. Art is culture and we export it through our manual expression cultivated from our brains, emotions and experiences — art is the oxygen of culture, which is why I am concerned unregulated AI ‘art’ will become the carbon dioxide overload for culture. So with that as a catalyst, maybe a first line could be “what do you want say through your work which you don’t have to scrape from others’ work like AI would have to?” Or is that too diggy?
S: That is inflammatory and accusatory.
C: I did ask — What do you suggest?
S: We should be defining a manifesto on assumption that Lorenzo’s demands are met, no? The thing is, through my direct and indirect contact with other artists (and non-artists too, in fact), I find new inspiration. And that is not scraping.
C: A very good point, LaSimo… We did speak about how influence and scraping are different. I think that a NCM could stand whether AI regulation exists or not, and whether Lorenzo’s manifesto is part of that regulation — because it starts with us as the human originator. Maybe I am thinking more in terms of that old quote, “I am not a number, I am a person!”
S: Uuuh. I like this! In fact, the NCM should underlie, not overlie his. Major breakthrough. With that in mind… the manifesto should not define the what, or the how, but the why, and the honesty. Values, maybe?
C: It should ask though… It should make the artist ask themselves questions and then the artists answers those questions with their work and the mode of conveying that work
S: What if the NCM were a set of questions?
C: Nice.
S: No answers, but pillars of doubt.
C: Pillars of itch!
S: I was about to say that!
C: Pillars of itch which regulation can subsequently or concurrently contain to ensure fairness.
S: Now, THIS tastes like Truth must. Shall we try to define three questions? And then ask others to contribute itching questions?
C: I have my theoretical cheesegrater at the ready! Shall we do three each and then choose three to put out there?
S: Intrigued… I might be taking this too far, but I almost feel that my questions are the same that guide my writing. First, what causes you pain, shame, fear?
C: Everyone starts somewhere, and it’s usually in their empirical heart. My first: What does the mode of your delivery add to the point of your work?
S: My #2: Can you dress pain with joy?
C: Mine: There’s a powercut — how would you draw in the dark?
S: Shouldn’t we choose universal questions? No assumption that everyone has all the senses?
C: Well, I see pictures before I draw them… anyone who dreams is technically an artists too.. it just depends if they want to crystallise it into physicality and if so, what they use to do so…
S: Which is fine. But doesn’t powercut/literal darkness exclude the visually impaired from the dialogue?
C: Ok. There’s no access to your laptop — how would you draw/create?
S: Interesting. I would extend to no access to technology. I have grown to rely on internet too much.
C: ME TOO! But then those who rely on supportive equipment for learning or their disability are cut out too…
S: Right…
C: Assistive technology is a big deal in social care. So maybe just change the word “technology”. Or change the word “laptop” to “digital drawing tools or devices/software”.
S: Yes. Ok. There’s no access to non-essential technology — how would you draw/create? Non-essential in literal terms… to be clarified somehow.
C: But then people will object that their laptop is essential — I would! Ok, let’s just go with “There’s no access to your digital drawing tools or software — how would you draw/create?”
S: I like the question — the equivalent of #1, but applied to process. So I keep internet? I really wanted to be challenged…
C: Include internet. My last question: How do you make your own tears cry?
S: Mine: Can you create what senses cannot capture? Create emotion?
C: That’s virtually my entire aim for my craft…
S: Our questions have very different focus. Yet, they both go to the heart of the matter — just from different roads. I find that refreshing.
C: I am now hearing echoes of songs which are relevant: A-ha’s “stay on these roads, we shall meet, I know!” and Sixto Rodriguez’s “so I set sail in a teardrop and escaped beneath the doors…” That’s what inspired my teardrop question. I recommend watching the film about Sugarman, an artist who never knew how famous he was until his art caused someone to seek him out beyond death…
S: We both seem to question: where does the artist source inspiration, and what does the artist offer through their production.
C: Yes — it begs the question: can our own art save us in the end? One to ponder on next week?
S: Reading my mind again, dear Carcazan?
About 