GHOSTS AND SHADOWS: SEEKING PATTERNS

 

Ghosts and Shadows: Seeking Patterns Oil on linen 92 x 112cm 2024

Ghosts and Shadows: Seeking Patterns is a new painting that plays with multiple influences and issues that occupy my mind, and imagination. The visual indulgence of repetitive shapes alludes to algorithmic pattern detections that assist collection, storage, and sorting of data. Patterning also references algorithmic and AI statistical and sequencing operations across interconnected and inter-operational technologies. Patterning also alludes to synchronisation and standardisation requirements for these interconnected and inter-operational technologies to produce or generate outcomes and outputs. And, patterning also indicates how synchronisation and standardisation lead to homogenisation - aesthetic, behavioural, expectations, and more. 

Yet patterning can be quite reassuring. I have played with this sense of reassurance in Ghosts and Shadows: Seeking Patterns. However, the reassurance is a ruse. In my mind, each patterned section denotes technological capabilities, dispersed across a synchronised scape. Two MQ-28 Ghost Bat drones ambigrammatically relate to each other. Is one a shadow? Are they allied drones, or is one an enemy drone? Is one a digital twin? Both drones are painted with different patterns across their fuselages and wings. For me, this indicates the MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone's multirole capabilities within one drone, as well as across a group-swarm of drones ie: removable nose cones allow different payloads.

The background is an assortment of lines, circles, squares, rectangles, and shard-like shapes. They create a kind of landscape or skyscape, a measured environment that appears to be colourful and neutral. Are you above, below, or in front of this unusual scape? Neutrality, however, is not assured if the patterns are geolocating measures designed to guide autonomous drone flight. Are the patterns a sign that geography is algorithmically sequenced to enhance target selection? The patterns may harbor dispersed dual-use and/or latent lethality.

The softer background plays with the idea of ghosts and shadows. Maybe other worlds? Or, maybe past sorties, the drones now readied for an immanent new deployment, or on the edge of full blown attack? 

The words seeking patterns in the title of the painting is my way of indicating that while algorithms scope data for patterns, sequences, and statistical alignments or anomalies, we humans can also identify patterns - patterns of homogeneity, patterns of creeping normalisations, patterns of standardised behaviour, expectations, and more. 

As a painting, Ghosts and Shadows: Seeking Patterns exposes, but also retreats from the world of algorithms and AI. 

I'll leave you to ponder!

Cheers,

Kathryn

PS. My solo show, DRONE: Ghosts and Shadows, curated by the University of Southern Queensland Art Gallery is early next year. You can find details on the UniSQ Art Gallery site. 

PPS. Have you read my article "Light-Speed, Contemporary War, and Australia's National Defence Strategic Review" in Digital War journal? It is open access, so anyone can read it! 

SPOOFED AI GENERATION: A PAINTED PORTRAIT

Self Portrait: From My Dataset, Oil on 3 canvas boards, 2024

Generative AI is the talk of the town. 

I am particularly interested in gen-AI image production. 

Fast AI generated 'paintings'! 

Gen-AI image production has provided the vehicle for tech-bros types, opportunists, and wannabes to become 'artists'. After a prompt, the speed of generation induces exclamations about how fast images can be 'created', 'painted'. I have seen these words used, and yes, I have pointed out, for example, that a generated image may have elements of various paintings, due to data scraped from online sources, but this does not make the generated image a painting. Rather, it falls into contested areas of copyrighted image use! Yes, the generated image might simulate painterly-textural elements, but again this does not make it a painting, because a painting is a material object, created with actual materials, such as, canvas, brushes - and paint! 

The clincher is that the gen-AI 'painting' has been GENERATED using algorithms - it has not been created using paint. If the generated image was to be made into a material object, it would need to be printed, and then it would become a print. And, there's a huge range of print types, from monoprints, limited edition artist prints (lithographs, etching, screen prints etc) to the mass produced prints found in places like IKEA, news agencies, KMART etc. And, of course, the use of canvas giclee prints (not a fan!).

Last year (2023) I made all these comments (above) to someone on TWITTER (X), in response to their excited tweet about their speedily produced series of gen-AI 'paintings' - and - their response was something like, "Hey, good points"! It was like a revelation to this person! This is why artists and art historians with a broad experiences and understanding across multiple creative practices and histories need to engage in current debates about generative-AI image production. Some of the tools list 'styles' in which a prompter can choose for their image generation. This is akin to a list of font styles - but choosing a font style to write text, does not make a person a good writer, nor a creative writer, a poet, a speech writer.... 

On the issue of speed and generative AI, I have many concerns about the lure of speed and its effect on contemporary world-building activities. These concerns are based on my PhD research, an examination of increasing military interest in the electromagnetic spectrum. But, that's for another blog post! In the meantime, here's an article I wrote, published in Digital War Journal, Light-Speed, Contemporary War, and Australia's National Defence Strategic Review 

Is 'cultural product' a better description?

Although my comments above may not indicate it, while I am concerned, I also find the explosion in generated AI image production to be extremely interesting, for many reasons. I do prefer, however, to view the phenomenon as cultural activity, with image outputs as cultural product. I propose that these descriptions avoid the binary question - is it art or not? I hasten to add that art is also a cultural activity. Thus, the topic can be opened up to embrace wider cultural and social issues, for example, the influence of tech platforms on increasingly homogenised visual aesthetics across various aspects of cultural production - design, fashion, advertising, football paraphernalia. and yes, art too? One of my hobby-horses is the homogenisation and standardisation of car design!

I'll add here, to avoid being called a technophobe 😁, some images and videos derived from gen-AI tools, could be called art. It's what someone, an artist, does with the tool or the tool's product generation? For example, if an artist develops their own datasets and experiments with them, or 'breaks' the technology by introducing glitches or other interstices, or does something with a generated image, for example - prints it and then draws or paints over it, or rips it up and weaves pieces into other ripped up pieces. There are so many possibilities. 

One needs to keep in mind that art, whether AI assisted, painted, sculpted, digital or other, can be good or bad, fashionable or cutting edge. Critical appraisal is another subject for another day. 

'Art' and advertising
Simply ascribing the term 'art' to a product/service/tool does not elevate the product, but some opportunistically seem to think so. The term 'art' has become a marketing word or medium for companies that develop gen-AI tools. This reeks of desires to legitimise and elevate their products. But, this reeking exposes ignorance, opportunism, carelessness. 

John Berger's observation, in Ways of Seeing (book and TV show-1970s), that during the mid 20th century famous paintings/art were used to advertise completely unassociated products, such as alcohol and cars, provides a way to critically think about how the term 'art' is used to market contemporary tech products. The 21st century twist is that the so-called 'art' and the tech being promoted/sold are less divisible than in the mid 20th century promotions. 

Divisibility is illustrated in the image below, a photo from a 1967 edition of a French magazine, Réalités, that my mother used to subscribe to. A detail of Emil Jean Horace Vernet's painting Bataille du pont d'Acole' (1826) is used to promote a product, Courvoisier Cognac. AND, while the advertisement in effect cheapens art as an advertising motif, please notice that the advertiser places a caption acknowledging the artist, the painting, and the context of the painting. This does not happen with images now scraped from online sites where artists works are posted. In the twenty-first century the cheapening continues at speed! Ironically, this is at the same time people aspire to be called artists, many claiming the anybody can be an artist, and that all artists are inspired by other artists, so copying is ok etc! Regarding the latter, the art theory term appropriation is another topic - for another post! 

From Réalités, November 1967. 

Self Portrait: From My Dataset, 2024

SO, my self portrait at the top of this post, is a painting, an actual painting - a triptych painted over a number of months. It is a spoof of gen-AI processes and outputs. This self-portrait seems to be grappling with how it might emerge. Each piece of Self-Portrait: From My Dataset conveys something about me; my likeness, my personality, my geeky sense of humour. Therefore, each piece is a portrait/self-portrait. Combined, the three paintings are another self-portrait.

The first piece of the triptych makes my 'prompt', To paint a portrait of Kathryn, appear like the headline for a fabulous show! Is it a gameshow, a carnival oddity, or....? This is a critique of the importance placed on prompting, now a 'profession' eg: prompt engineer. 

The middle piece is my image 'dataset', but it includes images chosen for reasons no scoping/scraping algorithm could detect. 

The third piece is the final 'generated image', but there seems to have been a glitch because the 'AI' has not been able to pixelate a final 'perfect' image. Have correlations from the dataset and statistical probabilities failed to sequence? Did my painted dataset of characteristics no algorithm could scope, trick the tool? Or, maybe it was because, over the few months I took to paint Self Portrait: From My Dataset a few insects got stuck in wet paint. While I did attempt to remove them, and repaint areas, I am pretty sure insect body parts may still be embalmed in the paint. Pretty sure an AI tool would not have to deal with a stuck insect! But, for an artist - a painter - this kind of occurrence is all part of the process of problem solving. 

NEWS

• My commentary piece, "Light-Speed, Contemporary War, and Australia's National Defence Strategic Review", published in Digital War Journal.
  
  
• Visual essay chapter "Imaginational Metaveillance: Revelations in the Drone Age", published in Drone Aesthetics: War, Culture, Ecology  Open Humanities Press. 

BOOK LAUNCH for Drone Aesthetics: War, Culture, Ecology on Wednesday October 2, 2024. Please register through the Centre for Drones and Culture, The University of Cambridge, site 

• Visual essay chapter "Imaginational Metaveillance, Creative Painting Practice and the Airborne Drone", in Drones in Society: New Visual Aesthetics  Palgrave MacMillan.
  
  
• In November 2024, I am presenting at Artificial Visionaries two day workshop, The University of Queensland. Humanitix Registration   
  
  
• In March 2025, a major solo exhibition DRONE: Ghosts and Shadows at the University of Southern Queensland Art Gallery, Toowoomba, Australia. 

Cheers,

Kathryn

VISUALISING THE INVISIBLE

 

Normally Invisible  Oil on linen 50 x 122cm 2024

I've not posted for some time. I've been busy! Firstly some news about an event and a couple of publications, then at the bottom of the post a few words about my new painting, Normally Invisible (above).

EVENT

Deakin University, Law School, Centre for Law as Protection

On Friday 9th August I attended the launch of Deakin University Law School's new Centre for Law as Protection. I was thrilled to be invited to speak about my research, and to hold an exhibition - a pop-up show that I carried in my luggage from Brisbane to Melbourne, and back to Brisbane. I hung and labelled the show, before the launch event started, in about 90 minutes, and took it down about 9 hours later. Years of hanging my own shows, improvising, planning ahead, and early professional curatorial work all help this kind of frantic activity!

I am also thrilled that my painting Target (2016) is the image for the new Centre's website. Plus, the Centre has included a separate Art of Protection online exhibition of a selection of my paintings. You can view this on the Centre website.

I am so very grateful for Professor Shiri Krebs, co-director of the Centre for Law as Protection, for her enthusiasm for my art and research. The vision for the Centre is inspiring, 

The Centre for Law as Protection is building a scholarly community to study the idea of protection, shape policy and develop legal tools to protect people, animals and the environment.  

 

The keynote speaker for the Centre's launch was Professor Matilda Arvidsson from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her presentation was inspiring. She introduced us to a  history of data collection practices, including early warnings about automating data collection. She brought us into the present with a discussion about the digital shadows we generate, and more. I keep thinking about her presentation. 

View of exhibition at the launch for Deakin University Law School's new 

Centre for the Law as Protection, August 9, 2024.

The first two paintings in the row of paintings, in the photo above, included painted binary code 'instructing' MILITARY LAWYER. Theatre of War: Law and Theatre of War: Techno-Seduction .

               Me with Professor Shiri Krebs, co-Director of the Centre for Law as Protection, Deakin University.

The paintings on the wall in the photograph above all included my version of the tree-of-life, along with various militarised technologies. The tree-of-life represents all life, and in my paintings can be considered as a symbol of a collective or an individual. 

PUBLICATIONS

Digital War Journal

In case you missed it, my commentary piece, "Light-speed, Contemporary War, and Australia's National Defence Strategic Review", in Digital War Journal, was published in May this year. It's open access, so it's accessible for everyone at this link or copy and paste - https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-024-00091-2 

I was thrilled when the editors encouraged me to include two of my paintings. 

Drones in Society. Social Visualities

And, I have a visual essay chapter "Imaginational Metaveillance, Creative Painting Practice, and the Airborne Drone" in a new book Drones in Society. New Visual Aesthetics, edited by Elisa Serafinelli. Palgrave Macmillan. This is not open access, but you can view details at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56984-5_8 

                                                                      Normally Invisible 

I have been painting too!

Normally Invisible (photo at the top of this post) is one of a few new works. I chose to include it in this post because it links with the idea of protection. The painting is a continuation of earlier works - Force Multiplication , Ghost Sky and Ghost Shadows.

In Normally Invisible, two scapes seem to vie for attention, the landscape in the background, and the signal-scape that seems to net or web the background landscape. The background landscape, a physical scape, is normally visible, but the signal-scape depicts normally invisible conduits of connectivity and interconnectivity. Is the normally invisible scape protective or does it pose threats? The signal-scape is visualised as a web or net to indicate its insidious occupation of our environment. The lines linking various ambiguous shapes generate geometric contours that contrast with the physical contours of mountains, valleys, plains, sky, waterways and more.

The small red shape could be interpreted as a glitch - or it could be you holding your mobile phone, a node in signal-matrix - what do you think? 

The background landscape was inspired by my childhood experiences growing up in western Queensland, Australia, where my father, a grain-grower, was also a keen ham: amateur radio. operator. I often write about my father's ham radio passion. When he died in 2016, I wrote Two Paintings of my Dad.

I will post again soon,

Kathryn

OUR COSMOLOGICAL HISTORY

Our Cosmological History Gouache on paper 56 x76 cm unframed 2024

I have not posted for some time! But, there's news! A painting in an exhibition, and a published commentary piece in Digital War Journal. As the commentary piece, "Light-speed, Contemporary War, and Australia's National Defence Strategic Review", is open access, I invite you to read it at this link - https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-024-00091-2 

I was thrilled when the editors encouraged me to include two of my paintings. 

THE EXHIBITION

Our Cosmological History (above) is a new painting. It is currently in an exhibition Duality - an artistic exploration of quantum science, in Sydney at Flow Studios, Camperdown, until May 20, 2024. The exhibition is hosted by The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS)

The exhibition includes the finalists and winners of the EQUS 'Quantum Art Competition', plus other selected artworks from entries. Very happy to say, Our Cosmological History is in the selected group. The finalist works and the extra selected works look like a high quality, engaging group of artworks, all responding to EQUS's invitation to "artists to explore quantum science through their medium of choice, drawing inspiration from the competition theme, ‘duality’".

More information about the competition and the exhibition, plus talks and workshops, is available at the EQUS exhibition webpage.

This is the artist's statement I sent when I entered the competition.

‘Our Cosmological History’ is a painting that tries to envisage the universal history of the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), and humankind’s increasing reliance upon EMS frequencies for accelerating civilian and military technological needs. The red firecracker-like markings represent the Big Bang, and the ‘birth’ of photons within ten seconds. The dotted wavy lines represent the dual particle-wave nature of photons. I have painted seven wavy lines, from longer waves to shorter waves, to indicate EMS frequencies from radio to gamma waves, all travelling at lightspeed. This visualisation of normally invisible EMS frequencies (except the light spectrum) is augmented by painted symbols for photons (y) and lightspeed (c). A swathe of stars provides a background for a universal cosmic-scape that reveals macro and micro forces. The stars and the painted EMS frequencies appear to continue beyond the painting’s edges. This is my way of visualising that the universe and the EMS are around us, and continue beyond us, including into future history. 

Humankind’s sphere of influence, from Earth to orbiting satellites, is apparent. The pale blue dot (after Sagan) is a focal point. The sphere around the dot-Earth represents the commons where humankind harnesses the lightspeed forces of the EMS to enable connectivity, interconnectivity, operability, and interoperability of a bourgeoning array of civilian and military
technological systems and devices. ‘Our Cosmological History’, painted for EQUS, expresses awe at the wonders of the universe. At the same time, it questions how we harness powerful natural resources in an increasingly connected and volatile world.

Cheers, Kathryn

AI GHOSTS

AI Ghosts Gouache on paper 56 x 75 cm 2024

 

This painting was inspired by thinking about AI generated avatars, replicas, proxies, simulations and fakes. I've tried to write more, but like our looping - if not loopy - world - I kept on going in circles. And, endless looping is not helpful, so I broke it!

It's now up to you to ask the questions! Indeed, the painted binary code at the bottom of the painting 'instructs' multiple question marks (?). 

Cheers, Kathryn

WHY WAR?

Why War? Gouache on paper 56 x76 cm 2024

 

Why War? is a question-painting or a painting-question. 

PhD
I have just finished my creative practice-lead PhD*. My research focused on increasing military interest in the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), as an enabler of technology, a type of weapon, a manoeuvre space, and a domain. In the contemporary era, geographically-based kinetic warfare and new modes of warfare, such as, information, remote operations, electronic, and electromagnetic warfare, rely upon signalic connectivity and interconnectivity for operability and interoperability of systems and devices. War now exceeds geography, extending its operational apparatus and outcomes across the world, and from land to orbiting satellites. It is vitally important, though, to remember that in active kinetic war zones, the horror of war remains physically bloody and destructive.

Planetary war
In the age of algorithms, light-speed signalic connectivity, increasingly autonomous systems, airborne drones, and generative AI, Why War? presents contemporary war as planetary and space-based. Military technological reliance on the EMS martialises the environment from Earth to orbiting satellites. Significantly, this same techno-environment is also crucial for civilian technological operations. 

In the painting the Earth is formed by red dots and painted binary code 'instructing' a ? (question mark). This white code is cross-hatched with lines - perhaps revelations of signals ricocheting around the world? The white-dotted area surrounding the 'planet' is the Earth-to-orbiting-satellite environment. This environment is punctuated with painted binary code 'instructing' the word WAR. The zeros and ones encompass the planet, at the same time as occupying the space between land and orbiting satellites.

Photons?
The red and white dots could be interpreted as photons, the elemental particles that make up electromagnetic frequencies. All EMS frequencies consist of photons travelling at the speed-of-light in wave patterns. The light spectrum is the only frequency visible to the unaided human eye. But, the dots may not be photons - maybe they are bullet holes, bomb sites, smart-device hacks, social media disinformation dissemination? The dark shapes that surround the 'Earth' could be read as debris, or perhaps stealth space-craft, or maybe visual metaphors for danger? These shapes also appear in a few previous paintings  - THE CLOUD IS NOT A CLOUD, Force Multiplication, Ghost Sky, and Ghost Shadows.

Cosmological perspective
The cosmological perspective taken in Why War? is an example of my imaginational metaveillance* approach and practice. Without the aid of augmenting devices I fly in imagination, and ask you, the viewer, to fly too. As you fly way beyond Earth, what do you see? Imaginational metaveillance is a play with perspective - literal, imagined and metaphoric.

Maybe I have painted a photon, rather than the Earth? 

Questions are important!

*You can access my PhD thesis: 
Drones, Signals, and the techno-Colonisation of Landscape
at Curtin's espace My thesis includes a chapter on imaginational metaveillance. 

Cheers,

Kathryn

THE CLOUD IS NOT A CLOUD

 The Cloud is Not a Cloud gouache on paper 56 x 76 cm 2024

The Cloud - Swarm?

With The Cloud is Not a Cloud I wanted to pose questions about the contemporary 'Cloud' as a weaponisable and weaponised system. I was thinking about swarming technology, pondering whether the techno-Cloud, enabling complex arrays of services and capabilities, could be described as a dexterous swarm with both benign and malign latencies. However, is the techno-Cloud the swarm or the swarm enabler? Or maybe its a swarm that can spawn more swarms? The proliferation of misinformation, disinformation and fake news/images across social media is an example of this conception of swarming. 

Signals

While the techno-Cloud is underpinned by bricks and mortar, for example, buildings housing massive computer infrastructure, relay nodes dotted across the landscape and space, and other tangible devices, I am particularly interested in the invisible infrastructure. Here, I am referring to signals that ensure connectivity, interconnectivity and interoperability of devices and systems. 

Signals carrying codified data and instructions are visualised in The Cloud is Not a Cloud as lines connecting ambiguous looking shapes. Their multiple sharp edges could indicate a not-so-friendly environment, a protective stance, tactical readiness or strategic preparedness. Could The Cloud is Not a Cloud be a visualisation of military preparedness, geopolitical alignments, force posturing? Are we projecting onto the techno-Cloud fears of geo-political instability, and the type of war that needs no physical invasion? 

Red and White

I have used red and white to indicate potentialities, such as, attack, vulnerability, disguise, stealth, blood. I have deliberately implied that the colours could oscillate or merge, depending on politics, technological resilience, or non-resilience. Like many of my paintings, The Cloud is Not a Cloud can be viewed from multiple perspectives - from above, as if you are flying over the sea; from below, as if you are peering through 'clouds' to a blue sky; in front of or behind, as if you are about to walk into a spider's web...

As always, there's a lot more to think about. But, I will leave it to you now...

____________________________

Previous Posts of Interest.

The Cloud is Not a Cloud visually references some other recent paintings where I have painted odd patterns that echo the shapes of airborne drones, munitions, debris. You can see these paintings on these blog links Force Multiplication, Ghost Sky, and Ghost Shadows.

Since 2015 I have painted many paintings that refer to the techno-Cloud. You can search my BLOG by typing the word 'cloud' in the top left box above Art @ Kathryn Brimblecombe-Fox or in the 'Search this Blog' box on the right of the post.

NEWS

I am very happy to report that I am now a Dr. 
My PhD was conferred by Curtin University, Western Australia on the 1st December. 

You can access my PhD thesis: 
Drones, Signals, and the techno-Colonisation of Landscape
at Curtin's espace 

Cheers,

Kathryn

  

FORCE MULTIPLICATION?

Force Multiplication? Gouache on paper 56 x 75 cm 2023

 

Ghost Bat Drones
Three MQ28-Ghost Bat drones form an horizon arc across the painting. I've painted them differently to indicate that as a team accompanying fighter jets, they have multi-modal capabilities. They all have  autonomous functions. The Ghost Bat drone is a collaboratively developed drone between Boeing and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). It is the first military aircraft developed in Australia in more than 50 years.

The three drones occupy the sky-scape, like stealthy super-heroes - maybe.

Integrated Force
This is an ambiguous painting - deliberately so. What are the dark drone-fragment-like shapes? Do they indicate proliferation of techno-power? Is this an image of integrated force? Or, do the fragments indicate disintegration? The recent Australian National Defence Strategic Review (DSR) (2023) calls for an integrated force, rather than a joint-force. This term, like joint force, refers to national capabilities, but also integration with allied capabilities, for example, via partnerships such as AUKUS. Integration is enabled by signalic  connectivity and interconnectivity. These then enable interoperability of systems and devices. Interoperability is a foundational capability for integrated force structure.

Let's get back to the dark drone-fragment-like shapes. Imagine signals connecting them all. Now imagine a disconnection - a disruption to the enabling signals. At one instance the painting could be an exemplar of integrated force - and - at the next instance - an image of catastrophe. I am reminded here by security scholar and analyst Jaquelyn Schneider's idea of the capability/vulnerability paradox.

Is the sky falling?
What about the pale blue shapes that mimic the sky as well as the drone-fragments? Note there are no dark drone fragments above the Ghost Bat arc. However, there are some blue fragments below the drones. Is the sky falling? Or, are these pale blue 'fragments' indicators of space-based assets? If they are, can we read them as friendly or not? In the DSR, the MQ-28A Ghost Bat is described as a "sovereign autonomous air vehicle designed as part of an integrated system of crewed and uncrewed aircraft and space-based capabilities." (DSR 2023, 61). 

If the pale blue fragments are indicators of space-based assets, then the painting reveals a war zone from Earth to orbiting satellites, a techno-colonised landscape. Integration across the five domains - land - sea - air - cyber - space - is clearly a complex aspiration. 

What could go wrong?

Clearly a lot more to say!!! For example, I've got more to say about skies, fake skies, fantasy and fake fantasies....deception.

NEWS

I am very happy to report that I am now a Dr. 
My PhD was conferred by Curtin University, Western Australia on the 1st December. 

You can access my PhD thesis: 
Drones, Signals, and the techno-Colonisation of Landscape
at Curtin's espace 

Cheers,

Dr. 😊 Kathryn