ART Habens Byron Rich degree of subjectivity built in. That’ s what I’ m working on removing now. When I ponder whether a computer can play a creative role, I tend to think it can set up parameters for creativity. I’ ll give you one of my favorite examples. Charles Bukowski had an old Apple computer. He began using it to write poetry. The simple word processor had some autoformat functionality, and rather than fight against it, Bukowski embraced it. The old Apple became a collaborator of sorts. Was it a conscious creator? Obviously not, but did it play a role in the development and ultimate interpretation of the work? Certainly.
So I guess it becomes more of a philosophical question: Does something need consciousness to be creative? I worry that creativity is over-fetishized by those who want to put humanity on a pedestal. Will a computer ever be able to be unequivocally conscious? I don’ t know. I think this stuff with the Neural Networks is an interesting foray into it, however it is still fraught with philosophical questions. And therein lies the power of art: Being a catalyst for brining these enormous questions into the light. I think art, like science, should be probing the ultimate questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? What does it mean to be human? You know, those little things that we all wrestle with to one degree or another while we wait for a bus or clip our nails. I don’ t think art can answer these questions the same way that science can, but I believe that art can open intellectual doors to ways of thinking that no other method can. It’ s a wildly liberated space if you let it be. I always tell my students to not be held down by the history of a medium. When you respect where you came from, but not allow it to completely rule you, then you can make work that really asks something of its viewer.
Thanks a lot for your time and for sharing your thoughts, Byron. Finally, would you like to tell our readers something about your future projects? How do you see your work evolving?
I have no idea. I don’ t think of myself as much of a maker. I think I come up with crazy ideas, and utilize whatever I can to make them a reality( or fiction). I think I need to fall in love with a process, something I’ ve failed to do. I’ ve missed out on jobs and opportunities at every corner because I’ m just never in love with a way of producing and too in love with the idea. I think I need to become more knowledgeable. Theoretically and technically I have a lot of work to do in becoming the kind of artist I want to be.
I think my work is on the verge of major change. I don’ t know what path that will lead me down yet, but with some time I will figure something out. Or not. This summer I have been lucky enough to spend my time in Europe at a couple residencies. Pilotenkueche( www. pilotenkueche. net) in Leipzig, Germany. The second was a bit of a dream come true. It was Ars Bioarctica, in Kilpisjarvi, Finland. Working in these two wildly different environments has produced some interesting outcomes. I’ m working on a project called Repatriated, and another called GARRy( GPS Assisted Ragweed Robot). Both are about reintroducing material and immaterial remnants back to their origins. Repatriated is a huge departure for me. I’ m excited about it. I’ ll be heading home to western Canada in August, and I’ m going to do another Repatriation of residue from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.
To answer your question more concretely, I need to get a handle on the biological science side of things. That is my goal now. Juggling gaining that intimate knowledge with showing, teaching, and trying to have a life is hard, and will take time.
An interview by
, curator and curator
Summer Special Issue 2015 23 405