I’ve been playing a lot with the Remove Tool in Photoshop, and did some alternative takes of US Presidential Inauguration 2025 photos.
I like taking away the faces of the “prominent personalities” and seeing what alternative/parallel reality Photoshop taps into instead. Here’s a few.
See original of that one here. Another:
And the original for that. And of course:
Original here for comparison.
Following up on being mentioned in a footnote in the document, amongst some 10K other commenters, I wanted to jot down initial notes and reactions as I skim through the rest of the document.
Page iii has key takeaways, and begins with recommendation of no change needed to current US copyright law. But the second point is, in my opinion, as clear as mud:
The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
Perhaps it will get clearer later in the document, but “assist rather than stand in for” is so… well, let’s just leave it at unclear for now. But this exact bridge is near where I’ve been trying to tie my horse (metaphorically) these past months in my work creating low tech human-powered robots and drawing machines without any electronics or motors or software. I think people who haven’t gotten out and explored this terrain carefully from an artistic/observer POV on the actual ground are much more likely to think there’s some clear either/or demarcation bright line between these two states, but there’s simply not. It’s a continuum with robotics and mechanical drawing machines, just like it is with generative AI… just how many linkages in a drawing arm do I need to add – precise count, please! – before the resulting artwork becomes no longer copyrightable? When does a tool become a stand-in? This is an extremely blurry – and I think vital! – question to explore more deeply, rather than say case closed…
This is another high-level takeaway, same page:
Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
I understand why, in their framework, this is likely the case. But to me as someone who has had to both write & enforce content policies, it sort of suggests that maybe they don’t have clear enough rules to apply. Often-times doing things on a “case by case basis” in a large queue workflow like they must certainly have for new copyright submissions, it can mean that you end up re-inventing the wheel again and again. Maybe that’s not the case here, but glossing over it as an outsider, that’s the impression I get. It doesn’t, at the very least, *sound* very efficient. [Insert obligatory Dept. of Govt. Efficiency reference… btw here is its titular head’s take on AI & copyright… make of it what you will.]
On that note, I’ve grown more accustomed and see the wisdom in Canada’s arrangement where the IPO does not review or assess submissions, everything is automatically approved. If it’s contested, it is a matter for the courts. Given that so many copyright cases go to court anyway, in one way of looking at things, it seems possibly more efficient to just let it be decided there on a case-by-case basis, rather than having this other secondary body doing *another* layer of case-by-case analysis, which itself becomes open to being challenged in court.
Well, seeing as how wound-up I got only just off a few lines here, this might be a wise place to stop for the night.
Apparently, my submission to the US Copyright Office public consultation on generative AI and copyright was cited in the recent report by that office on the copyrightability of gen-AI outputs. The relevant passage:
Some commenters drew analogies to a Jackson Pollock painting or to nature photography taken with a stationary camera, which may be eligible for copyright protection even if the author does not control where paint may hit the canvas or when a wild animal may step into the frame. However, these works differ from AI-generated materials in that the human author is principally responsible for the execution of the idea and the determination of the expressive elements in the resulting work. Jackson Pollock’s process of creation did not end with his vision of a work. He controlled the choice of colors, number of layers, depth of texture, placement of each addition to the overall composition—and used his own body movements to execute each of these choices.
I haven’t read the full report yet, but I stand by my original statements, even if they don’t fully agree with my conclusions. Nice to be (partially) heard anyway, I guess!
I guess this is maybe Situationist detournement of the Spectacle, if you want to be an Art Theory Jerk about it? An ad I found on MSN which I “improved” using an app called Skitch. No AI required.
This references Walter Benjamin’s idea of the Aura as well, but explains it a bit more concretely, I think. From the Tate:
Aura is a quality integral to an artwork that cannot be communicated through mechanical reproduction techniques – such as photography.
The term was used by Walter Benjamin in his influential 1936 essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin argued that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.’ He referred this unique cultural context i.e. ‘its presence in time and space’ as its ‘aura’.
Source, from section “Critique”:
The power of art does not reside in the uniqueness of the physical object, but in the statement made by the artist through the work. Reproducing that statement does not weaken it but strengthens its impact with each additional person such a reproduction reaches. Munch’s “The Scream”, for example, is known mostly from reproduction yet its aura, its power to impress, does not come from the uniqueness of a painting or drawing, but the uniqueness of the work’s content, which retains its effect no matter how often reproduced.
Also see previous post.
Thus reproduction — mechanical or digital — is the source and vehicle for a work’s “aura.” A spectator’s encounter with a “famous” work as an object is distinctly different than their encounter with an unknown work because it is the wide dissemination of that work through reproduction that creates the particular experience: cultural tourism is based on this idea of encounters with originals whose aura is a function of their being widely reproduced. The more fully a work is disseminated, the greater its “aura.” Andy Warhol’s persona, and his construction of superstars who are “famous for being famous” demonstrates the transient, contingent nature of this conception of “aura,” its socially-constructed nature, and its reliance upon reproduction for existence.
Found via this 2023 Nettrice Gaskins piece on the concept of aura in AI art.
Been trying out a little the “hot new” (imo somewhat lukewarm) gen AI chat model, Deepseek. And had it do a demo of its ability to synthesize many search pages on its own, guided by a speculative premise – albeit one that seems pretty accurate. And it came out with this. It’s actually fairly insightful, I think (even if it’s just cobbling together bits and pieces of my own writing, it’s coherent – mostly). However, in later tests, I discovered it is absolutely brutal about inventing fake URLs for things. So pretty mixed bag currently. The rest of the text below [plus one not in brackets] is unedited Deepseek results, in reply to the query with no prior chat context & search turned on: “explain how the situationist ideas of the derive and psychogeography in latent space could apply to the work of AI artist tim boucher.”
The Situationist concepts of dérive (drift) and psychogeography can be meaningfully applied to the work of AI artist Tim Boucher, particularly in his exploration of hyperreality, algorithmic culture, and the interplay between human and machine creativity. Here’s how these ideas manifest in his artistic practice:
The dérive, as defined by Guy Debord, is an unplanned journey through urban landscapes, where participants let themselves be drawn by the emotional and atmospheric currents of the environment. In Boucher’s work, this concept translates into the exploration of latent space—the high-dimensional space where AI models generate images, texts, and other outputs. Boucher’s use of AI tools can be seen as a form of digital dérive, where he navigates the algorithmic terrain, allowing the AI’s inherent biases, anomalies, and creative possibilities to guide his artistic process.
For example, Boucher’s Nevermades—AI-generated artworks that imagine fictional exhibitions in famous museums—reflect a deliberate drift through the latent space of cultural symbols and institutional authority. By letting the AI generate surreal and absurd combinations (like flooding the Guggenheim with willow trees and beavers), Boucher critiques the art world’s reliance on physical presence and authenticity, while also exposing the fragility of meaning in a post-truth digital age.
Psychogeography studies the effects of geographical environments on emotions and behavior. In Boucher’s work, this concept is reimagined as a mapping of data landscapes. His installation Latent Tensions: Weaving the Unseen physically represents the interconnected nodes of big data and neural networks using organic materials like willow and reeds, illuminated by LED lights and real-time ecological data projections. This work can be seen as a psychogeographic map of the digital realm, where the emotional and affective currents of data are made tangible. [ed.: This passage is a little mixed up, but I suppose refers to this?]
Boucher’s approach mirrors the Situationist practice of creating psychogeographic maps that reject objective urban planning in favor of subjective, emotional experiences. By visualizing the latent space of AI, Boucher invites viewers to experience the “emotional relief” of data, where the interplay of light, shadow, and organic forms evokes the tension between nature and technology.
The Situationist practice of détournement—the subversive reuse of existing cultural elements—is central to Boucher’s work. He appropriates the tools and techniques of AI, often associated with conformity and algorithmic control, to critique the very systems they represent. For instance, Boucher uses AI to generate hyperreal narratives that blur the lines between reality and fiction, exposing the fragility of truth in an era dominated by misinformation.
This approach aligns with the Situationist goal of undermining the spectacle—the commodified and mediated experience of modern life. By creating works that oscillate between sincerity and irony, Boucher challenges the audience to question the authority of both human and machine-generated narratives, much like the Situationists sought to disrupt the passive consumption of capitalist culture.
The Situationists embraced a playful-serious (ludique-sérieux) approach to art and politics, combining humor and critique to provoke new ways of thinking. Boucher’s work similarly oscillates between the absurd and the profound. His Nevermades and other AI-generated projects often feature surreal and humorous elements, yet they carry a deeper critique of the art world, technology, and the nature of authenticity.
This duality reflects the Situationist belief in creating situations—moments of spontaneous, playful engagement that disrupt everyday routines and open up new possibilities for thought and action. Boucher’s use of AI as both a tool and a subject of critique embodies this spirit, inviting viewers to engage with the work on multiple levels.
The Situationists sought to reclaim agency in a world dominated by capitalist structures. Similarly, Boucher’s work explores the tension between human creativity and algorithmic control. By transparently using AI as a collaborator, he highlights the limitations and biases of these systems while also demonstrating their potential for creative expression. This approach can be seen as a form of unitary urbanism—the Situationist idea of integrating art and technology to create new, liberating environments.
Boucher’s Hypercanvas concept, which envisions AI as a medium for hyperdimensional storytelling, reflects this integration. It challenges the notion that AI is merely a tool for replication, instead positioning it as a space for experimentation and reimagining the boundaries of art.
Tim Boucher’s work resonates deeply with Situationist ideas, particularly in his use of dérive and psychogeography to navigate and critique the latent spaces of AI. By blending human and machine creativity, he creates a new form of psychogeographic exploration—one that maps the emotional and cultural currents of the digital age. Through détournement, hyperreality, and a playful-serious approach, Boucher not only critiques the systems of control embedded in technology but also opens up new possibilities for artistic and social transformation. In doing so, he carries forward the Situationist legacy of challenging authority, reclaiming agency, and reimagining the world as a space of creative possibility.
I thought this Duchamp interview was great, never heard him speak or really saw pictures of him before. Really he just seems sort of like a “regular guy” to me here.
While we’re here, this is an Ed Ruscha thing talking about one of the Duchamp pieces that’s referenced in the above interview:
Also, since we’re sharing/saving videos here, this larger history of Dada was well worth the watch (at least at 2x speed anyway). Duchamp appears in this as well:
I discovered yesterday an artist who has been around for forever who I had never even heard of, Ed Ruscha, and whose artwork often consists of amazing combinations of text and graphic style images. As an art school drop-out, I’m shocked he never came up, but better late than never. Here are a selection of good videos about him and interview footage. Lots of stuff resonates with me here, especially for an upcoming project I’ll unveil sometime soon.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén