Kerem Ozan Bayraktar: ‘Artificial intelligence has added a special dimension to my work like never before.’
İlker Cihan Biner talked to Kerem Ozan Bayraktar about how digital transformations affect the aesthetic practices of our time, NFT-art history and the relationship between artist and technology.
The autonomy of an aesthetic practice is related to the emergence of lawlessness between “the way of making and the way of being made”. In this respect, the creation of the work, whether written or visual and its intervention/power to change material life in all its aspects is essential.But does the situation change regarding artificial intelligence or digital forms?
Kerem Ozan Bayraktar approaches such a question from very different perspectives. He reveals his aesthetic practices by being aware of the digital transformations we are experiencing. I asked Bayraktar additional questions, such as his relationship with artificial intelligence, the constant change of visual arrangements, the relationship between NFT and art history, and the current artist persona. The subtlety or conceptual depth of the answers was impressive. The artist does not deal with technological developments with a flat perception of time and his careful stance on the issue of artificial intelligence automation.
Then, let’s connect to my interview with Kerem Ozan Bayraktar. Let’s take a closer look at the issues the artist points out.
The debate on ‘intelligence’ in art has a historical course. There is the value of the artist’s persona with luminous, godlike abilities, especially in Romanticism. But do you think this artist persona has disappeared in today’s relationship between artificial intelligence and aesthetic practice? Or do you know if its effects persist?
Although the artist has never been such a figure, culture has created such an image. This image has been deliberately eroded, especially by post-conceptual art movements, but it has yet to be destroyed. Today, prominent museums still market the life stories of these unique, almost chosen people. Some artists aim for this kind of image. Social media also amplifies this effect. When I see excellent artists and architects dressed in black, I make fun of them.
Artificial intelligence has different effects on different segments. It hasn’t shaken the artist’s image in the contemporary art world, but it has had a strong impact in other fields, especially in design and illustration. In other words, I think it has caused a shake-up in art fields where craftsmanship is essential.
Contemporary art is a moving, renewing and conflicting network. As you have continued your work over the years, what has changed in the dimensions of your productions with artificial intelligence?
I love working with other beings, especially machines, and this is not just automation work or assisting, but it also determines the subjects I am interested in. In other words, my techniques and the issues I think about are somewhat separate.
In this sense, artificial intelligence has added a unique dimension to my work like never before. Having access to advanced technology in straightforward ways encourages its active use. I have set up a structure of different chained commands when discussing ideas, writing, criticising myself or producing images.
It helps me a lot to see the world outside my glasses or to understand what I want. In my work, I use artificial intelligence in visual production and formal issues related to design principles that the viewer cannot see at first glance. This way of working has also invoked new ethical, political and environmental problems. I am trying to produce a critique of the media I use and to comprehend its effects. This is related to the scale from which we look at the works. When we follow an artist closely, the differences become apparent. But the current culture is based on examining and consuming quickly and moving on to the next. Therefore, the elements of the works other than their visual characteristics are seriously pushed to the background. If the viewer has no art education, the most accessible layer they can relate to the work is the visual one. In visual production, similarities are prevalent, and this may be normal. There is a space of possibilities offered by Photoshop or oil painting. These spaces have laws, of course. For example, we can only paint by considering gravity or chemistry. Here, the medium largely determines which world we enter from the beginning.
Since the boundaries of the medium itself are more or less clear, the rate of similarity increases according to the frequency of use. For example, “book” as a format has been in our lives for centuries. There are many similar novels. On the other hand, we don’t say we shouldn’t write books anymore. It means we still believe this format has something to offer us. But for some artists, the book form may need to be revised and prescriptive. Then maybe it starts to dance. Then, when these traditional formats are not enough, they may begin to develop their means of expression. In those breaks, the works’ differences become more apparent.
Your text ‘Does Artificial Intelligence Dream of Electric Sheep?’ in Argonauts (1) is in a position to discuss the dimensionality of artificial intelligence in depth. In the ‘Limits and Differences’ section of the article, I have put the following sentences in quotation marks: “In the world of remixing, the context becomes very variable and fluid, while the data on time and space fades away.” In addition, your following statements are also important: “The visualisations that we often see in New Media exhibitions, which do not fit into any container, which melt, flow and transform, sizzle, cannot stay in place, which look a little bit like everything but are nothing themselves, are an icon of this age. In the matter you point out, doesn’t the way of making fall under a law in the way forms exist?
This is evident in the works that we cannot name, that we cannot easily categorise. But we should distinguish discovering original languages from inventing a new tool or technology. A large part of the work in new media falls into this trap. The technology is unique, but the expressions can be suffocatingly traditional.
On the other hand, using similar forms of expression does not necessarily mean that the works are identical. What the artist is concerned with is an important dimension. For this reason, one can examine how the artists’ forms of making and the problems they work on relate to each other. There is a broad context here, such as the artist’s discourse, writings on the work, other works, etc. I am only suggesting what art historians have always done, which is not to approach art from a single focal point, primarily not only through its visual production. This is true even for a painter who produces representations with traditional techniques.
Should we record every technological development as progress? In other words, isn’t the logic of ‘it’s 2023, and everything is so advanced’ in positions we can call neo-liberal rationality? Also, how do you develop a perspective on the ruptures, deviations or times in our digital age?
There is no single civilisation or goal, so progress is related to our value mechanisms and what we imagine on the horizon. For example, we can say that Turkey has regressed regarding women’s rights. On the other hand, we can say that we have progressed a lot in cancer treatment in the last fifty years. Technology also has a far-reaching impact. Artificial intelligence is a severe advancement in automation, but it has also brought a lot of problems. While it speeds things up, it will also slow down and eliminate some things. It may even be the end of us. Therefore, instead of a civilization flowing towards a goal, using a multi-branched structure as a metaphor seems more accurate.
There is a question I ask everyone I interview on Nftify. I also want to pose it to you: Did NFT cause a break in art history?
Are there breaks in art history anymore? Art has liquefied, and to break, it needs to solidify again, close in on itself, and disconnect from some things instead of connecting with everything. And this seems impossible. On the other hand, the buying, selling and display networks of art and art practice affect each other but are fundamentally separate. Decentralised structures are critical, but the uniqueness and originality of the artwork, the contracts between the work and the artist, etc., are central ideas. There are many controversial layers related to NFT, and it is necessary to open them all separately.
1)Kerem Ozan Bayraktar’s interview ‘Does artificial intelligence dream of electric sheep?’ in Argonauts: https://argonotlar.com/yapay-zeka-elektrikli-koyun-dusler-mi/
Ilker Cihan Biner
NFTIFY
Editor’s note: This interview was first published in nftify.com.tr in Turkish. The interview was later translated from original to English, and minor changes were made during the translation.
Original Article:
https://nftify.com.tr/kerem-ozan-bayraktar-yapay-zeka-calismalarima-daha-once-olmadigi-kadar-ozel-bir-boyut-ekledi/
