​

Construct a mirror in front of your TV set so that the mirror covers the entire screen. Now switch on your favourite channel and watch the show - Nam June Pike. 

 

Soap bubbles are blown out of various wind instruments. The conductor cuts the bubbles with a samurai sword - Eric Anderson. 

 

Leave a piece of canvas or finished painting on the floor or in the street -  Yoko Ono.

 

Those are scores from the book The Fluxus Performance workbook ( Edited by Ken Friedman, Owen Smith and Lauren Sawxhyn. A performance research e-publication 2002 ).

 

The idea behind the publication is to allow anyone to do the performances and scores in the book. Fluxus wanted everyone to create art constantly and to make it accessible to the general public. As I see it, the new Artificial Intelligence generators found everywhere these days are the Fluxus way of making art - Anyone can create his artwork in just a few minutes. All The images in the video are manufactured similarly, taking the scores from the Fluxus artist and putting them inside an A. I image application, the results are animated into a video work. Some of the scores the application found offensive and didn't want to generate any images. I found myself conversing with a computer, and through that, I understood the limitations that the programmers of the bot made. There is a way to understand the company's ideology in charge of the app through the chat process.

The score by Nam June Pike, "Piss on the subway tracks and thus stop the train", could not be made into an image, and I am not sure it is possible to make in real life. The act of refusal by the machine mirrors how the work will be accepted in society if performed by real actors. 

Who set the rules for art-making in our futuristic world? How do artists need to work or move through society's rules to create artwork? Artificial Intelligence Technology sheds light on society's limitations on artistic freedom. Through Fluxus scores, we understand the borders of art-making today. The rules of the image being made are determined by the regulation of the man who wrought the code. My art is within my limits, just like a machine. The art I produce mirrors the restriction I work in; in a sense, I and the device are the same. I see Nam June Pike as a futuristic thinker. One of the things inherent to his artwork is how he used new technologies to imagine the future of artmaking. In that sense, this guided the process of making my latest video - How  Nam June Pike and the And Fluxus artist will use this new technology. 

Some research suggests this idea: If a human is talking to an object that responds, it could be a refrigerator, phone app or toaster, the human anthropomorphises the thing and thinks about the object as a human being. As the process of the video progresses, the conversation with the machine becomes more personal in a sense. I felt the humanity in the machine; I had to consider its idea and thought, and the images being made were a product of brainstorming with another entity. It raises a question about creativity and ownership; we know who had the idea and the score, but who owns the copyright for the artwork? In that sense, working with an Artificial Intelligence generator is the Fluxus way; no real author exists, and the artwork belongs to anyone.