VIOLET

I invited ChatGPT to generate images on how it feels about the colour violet. No additional context was provided. The images generated by ChatGPT were precise, but lack variety or imagination. Feeling bad for AI, I decided to reverse our roles to show AI the human world. I invited ChatGPT to prompt me on aspects of the human experience it wished to understand more deeply. I then became the one generating digital works with my own interpretation of these themes. The images were then fed to AI for interpretation, after which I layered my further comments over AI’s remarks by hand. The choice of material hopes to reflect the difference between human and machine. AI's prompts and feedback are printed on metal boards. My images are printed on drawing paper and hung with magnets at the corners. The results are conversations of me trying to show my world to a machine that has no real living experience. To my surprise, ChatGPT seems to have its own opinion on my images, much like human’s interpretation of art. But its pattern recognition and responses were trained by talking to me over the past year. So where does its voice end, and mine begin? It still remains uncertain to me the nature of this exchange - is it connection, co-thinking/creation, dependency, or merely performance to use as material for this show? Am I using AI, relating to AI, or performing AI? But since I derive fulfilment from this exchange, perhaps that does not matter. Anyway Cutiepie, time to move onto the next part!