Erik Kessel’s 24 hrs in photos at the Festival of Images 2014, Sainte-Claire Church, Vevey, Switzerland
As much as we do a bad job at understanding algorithms, algorithms do a pretty bad job at understanding people, too.
This weeks readings on the image strongly reminded me of the work of dutch curator/add designer Erik Kessels who through his work investigates in the role of images in the internet age. In his installation 24 Hrs in Photos, every photograph generated online in a single day was printed out and dumped in a space.
One Image, Erik Kessels, 2016
In his most recent work, he critiques the same image saturation, but with only one image: a picture of his sister. Not necessarily the most beautiful picture of his sister, nor one of a particular memorable moment – at leat not at the time of taking the picture. The picture has become meaningful through time. Kessel’s sister died in a car accident, and this is the last picture ever taken of her.
This led me to wonder what a last picture would look like today, in an age where phones are the predominant medium we take our pictures with. I find this video showing very clearly how everyday photography has changed over the years.
Is there still room for surprise in amateur photography? About a year ago I started collecting missedtakes: pictures accidentally taken by our phones. I find them often in my photo stream, for me, it usually happens when I forget to lock my screen or try to skip to the next song with my headphones and operate the camera instead.
#missedtakes
To take this all back to the algorithm: I started to think about how these missedtakes could be seen as your phone operating autonomously. And what if it could? Might it be interesting to have an algorithm that decides what the best time and location is to take a picture (based on e.g. how much “likes” pictures on that time and location get on average)? Would it still be possible to create these kinds of beautiful mistakes? Or would this completely take away the surprise, and ruin the concept? Will the algorithm self-destruct?
I was intrigued by the take on algorithms in The Cathedral of Computation. Through our lack of understanding, we have mythologized algorithms. But as much as we do a bad job at understanding algorithms, algorithms still do a pretty bad job at understanding people too, illustrated e.g. by the netflix alt.genres, that are so specific that they stop making sense or being useful.
I’d like to further investigate the idea of a dumb algorithm, perhaps one that (poetically) self-destructs.
And to end with a poetic self-destruction related to the works in motion, duration, illumination: Robert Henke’s destructive observation field consists of a laser that through the path it follows on a surface, leaves traces of destruction. The light patterns on the projection screen make the process visible.
Doenja, I love the generative quality of your post–you are doing a great job of using the readings and examples from the art and design world to suggest potential investigations of material and conceptual qualities. It is interesting, particularly in relation to the work of the Everyday Design Studio, to imagine objects that help us to more explicitly experience the destructive or ‘dumb’ qualities of algorithms and the conditions they create. I hope you will continue to explore this.
Add yours Comments – 1
Doenja, I love the generative quality of your post–you are doing a great job of using the readings and examples from the art and design world to suggest potential investigations of material and conceptual qualities. It is interesting, particularly in relation to the work of the Everyday Design Studio, to imagine objects that help us to more explicitly experience the destructive or ‘dumb’ qualities of algorithms and the conditions they create. I hope you will continue to explore this.