A few years ago, while studying for my BA, someone recommended Flusser’s (2012 [1983]) Towards a Philosophy of Photography. After reading it, I was confused that it was not included in the usual collection of photography books, which everyone on a BA reads, or is expected to, e.g. Sontag, Bates, Wells. I liked it for several reasons. Some of which were probably less serious than others, such as the fact that he was Czech like my relatives whom I never met. Or that he reminded me a bit of my father – his mannerisms. That he championed McLuhan was a definite plus. His thesis about how writing changed the way we thought seemed to come directly from McLuhan. That he seemed to say the changes taking place in the contemporary world might be revitalising and exciting for society, but may also end up catastrophic appealed to me. I don’t believe in Utopias, nor think they are all that useful (this is not the same as feeling hopeless by the way – hope is imperative, always). And while Flusser seems to strive for a Utopia, there are constant reminders that there are too many pitfalls along the way.
One of my favourite things about him was his use of the word ‘functionary’ for photographers. I know plenty of photographers who are likely to have taken umbrage at being called a functionary, because they appear to feel rather important in the world, and it made me smile. His writing is playful, although still difficult if just starting with such texts. But the playfulness makes me feel like there is permission to disagree with him. He, like so many philosophers from that era – Dubord, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari – is extraordinarily perspicacious about how the post-90s internet boom years would unfold. This just shows we are fairly predictable critters, if only we take the time to look. And to question.
So when Maria Ahmed asked if I would like to work on a collaborative zine with her, using Flusser’s (2011 [1985]) Into the Universe of Technical Images as a starting point, I was pleased to say yes. I did not know this subsequent book, but while reading it, I put some of his words through an AI image generator. As always, I was horrified by some and struggled with what was emerging. But when I used my own words and understanding to drop concepts that related, things started to improve.
I have spent the last few weeks trying to figure out how I would approach this collaboration. Maria is so good at a kind of post-representational collage that it would be crazy to try and emulate her. She dissolves images and conjures up something other that is absolutely recognisably hers. I, however, felt a little unsure about where this work should go and felt stuck. But perhaps I have reached a point where any collage from me might be very simple, if present at all. And perhaps I will allow these ‘telematic people’ which emerged through a combination of AI and play, relying on impressions, discussion, blending, and some of Flusser’s words, to evolve and to dominate.
Below is the first image I arrived at, which struck me as worth holding onto. I liked it more than the many, many, many iterations that emerged from the same prompt. The rest were fun but seemed derivative. Somehow, this escaped that, in my opinion. You may have other thoughts. I included it in a blog here and here. Note, that it has not been through any additional software, although if I am going to print it, it might need to. These files have not been upscaled.
I have since begun prompting further images using this and its progeny – variations to prompt further images, using Flusser’s words and introducing different parameters – increasing chaos, adding situations, etc. I really like them when there is something slightly wrong. I still do not know how this collaboration will eventually look or feel. I continue to think and to play …
Others that have emerged recently which I think have potential:
