I've been painting a lot.
I'm going to borrow an idea from Flusser, and then probably make a terrible mess of it. The
idea is magic, and I'm borrowing it from his essay on photography. The underlying idea he's talking about is
of a culture, usually an ancient one, that treats time as cyclic. Everything repeats. The sun
rises and sets. Winter is followed by spring. The animals migrate, and so on. Flusser is interested
in how such a culture transitions to a linear one, one of endless progress, where time is viewed as a
straight line. He identifies writing as a technology that underlies this change, but that
probably doesn't matter here.
You can name the linear time approach as Modernism, or Manifest Destiny, and probably a 1000
other names. Currently we have a lot of idiots in the tech industry describing the same idea
as accelerationism.
In the world of cyclic time we have a lot of what I am going to call ritual magic
in which some repetitive and usually tedious activity is done for probably unreasonably
long, producing, sometimes, a result. A rain dance is ritual magic. You dance for days, and
sometimes rain happens. Agriculture is also ritual magic. You dig a furrow with your stick.
Then you dig another one. And another one. You plant a seed, you plant a seed, you plant
a seed. Some months later, sometimes, food happens.
Washing dishes, sweeping the floor, doing laundry, painting a picture. These are all
ritual magic. You manifest clean dishes, clean floors, clean clothes, or a picture,
through a series of boring repetitive steps that go on far too long.
Modernism, the human urge to progress, constantly seeks to press the boring steps
of ritual magic into a machine. We seek to rid ourselves of the tedious, the repetitive.
The "work" of a human should only be the novel parts of the task, the decisions which
differ every time through. If you repeat a step, you should automate that step.
We've been doing this forever. Prayer wheels, which specifically automate the tedious work
of prayer, have been around for almost 2000 years. Agriculture has been automated more
and more, since its inception (anyone who has done agriculture can appreciate this
trend, farming is terrible.) Picture making has been automated with the camera, and
now with generative AI.
Rather than manifesting a picture by tediously applying pigment to a surface one daub
at a time, the camera largely reduces the process to one of making a small number of
decisions. Mostly, you're making the choices that are specific to the picture at hand.
Generative AI eliminates virtually all of the remaining repetitive tasks (setting up
lights, setting up the tripod, checking batteries, blah blah blah) and reduces picture
making almost completely to "what is specific to this task, what is novel."
Modernism is built around what is knowable. If you can know how a task manifests its
result, you can build a machine to do the task (in principle.) You can automate
picture making, farming, dishwashing. You cannot automate a rain dance, because you
don't know how it works. You literally do not know the "mechanism" and so cannot
"mechanize" it. In a meaningful way, there is no mechanism to know, but see below.
Nevertheless, at some level, humans don't really distinguish between
rain dances and agriculture. You do the thing over and over and over, and sometimes
a result occurs.
It's "ritual magic."
The modernist version, in which the repetitive tasks are shoved into a machine, let's
call that "technical magic."
A camera is technical magic, a painting is ritual magic. More or less. There's probably no
strict line between technical and ritual magic, but there's definitely two big lumps
at the ends of the spectrum.
Once you get your arms around this framing, you see it absolutely everywhere. Walking
versus driving. Cooking versus ordering out. Religion versus secularism. It's all the
same thing.
The observation I'm working my way around to is that people like ritual magic. We like
the results of it, and we like doing it. It tickles something inside us.
Receiving a hand-written letter hits differently from a typed letter hits differently
from an email. A home cooked lasagne is different from a restaurant lasagne, and
is meaningfully "better" even if the latter is objectively better. If we have to do
a lot of ritual magic, it's less fun. Ritual is boring and difficult.
Modernism struggles to insert itself here. Modern affluent people often look for ritual
in modernist ways. They want to find themselves by traveling to South America and taking
drugs in a clean and well ordered retreat. Nobody wants to just wash the goddamned
dishes.
I think it's safe to say that the results of ritual magic are generally appreciated.
You might not like my painting, but you appreciate the work of making it. What people
generally try to dodge or dress up is the work of ritual magic. We want to use technical
magic to produce the result of ritual. At this exact moment, we have a ton of people who
are trying to use generative AI to become artists, to make art. It's not so much that
the pictures suck, although they do, it's that there is an inherent conflict between
ritual and technology. You cannot use technical magic to produce ritual results. You have
to do the work.
If you serve someone takeout as if you cooked it yourself, you might get away with it but
you'll know, and anyways you probably won't get away with it and now you've fucked up
a relationship.
Humans have many ways of "knowing" things. The first is more or less rational, we follow
chains of causes and effects, modus ponens and all that stuff. Philosophers like to get fancy about this, but
roughly speaking we "know" about the world of stuff we can hit, or drown in, or set on
fire. At the same time, though, we also like to "know" things through a process of feeling,
of "faith" if you will. You can pretend that this is silly, but it's damn near universal.
Humans have some sort of built-in affinity for mysticism. Maybe it's just our natural pattern
matching mental machinery gone amok (we danced last year, and it rained, let's dance
again) or maybe there's something meaningfully "real" that we cannot know by hitting
stuff. Those questions are outside the scope of these remarks, and it doesn't matter for
our purposes here.
Technical magic is essentially executed by moving from the epistemology of mysticism
to the epistemology of rationalaity. If we can identify the parts of the ritual that are,
in the terms of the rational way of knowing, are efficacious, then we can insert
that ritual into a machine. The rain dance "doesn't work" in those rational terms,
if you measure things you find that in the terms of rationality, of cause and effect,
of science, rain dances do not produce rain. In mystical terms, in the faith-based
way of knowing, rain dances work fine, however. To say "rain dances don't work" is to
commit to the modernist epistemology, the way of knowing which leads to linear time,
to progress, to science, and also to manifest destinty, colonialism, and so on.
You're welcome to reject mystical epistemologies! I have no particular dog in this
hunt. But the day-to-day manifestation of those ways of thinking are rituals, and
humans have a potent affinity for ritual. To acknowledge that you love getting a hand
written letter more than you love an email is to reject modernism, and to embrace
a kind of mysticism. The hand written letter is objectively inferior in every way,
it's hard to read, it's slow to create, it's slow to deliver. It has literally no
advantages, and yet, we like getting them.
To enjoy a painting is in a sense to reject modernism, and to embrace a mystical approach
to the world. Again it is in every way inferior to a photograph, except some vague and
contested "sense of artistry" or whatever the hell you want to call it. Whatever it is
that you see in a painting as an advantage is essentially rooted in an epistemology that
is not modern.
The only practical thing that comes out of all these ruminations that I've been able
to find is this: don't think of washing dishes as a chore, but rather an an act of
ritual magic which manifests clean dishes.
Beyond that I think it's useful to acknowledge that we, as humans, like these ritual
things both as doers and consumers. We like at least the idea of cooking a meal
from scratch, and we certainly like eating it. We should also realize what we're
about, and not muddle up ritual magic with technical magic. The point is the
process. If you cheat at the ritual magic and actually execute it technically,
you're doing it wrong by definition.
If what you seek is food, by all means order out. If what you're actually looking for
is the warmth of the human condition, buy some onions and whatnot, and cook.
Or, you know, make a painting.
"Marvelous power and supernatural activity: drawing water, carrying wood."
ReplyDeleteIndeed! The buddhists do have a sort of approach to embracing the ritual, and seeing the value in it.
DeleteIt's not quite "chop wood" is its own reward, or valuable in and of itself, but there's something metaphysically valuable (where this might actually just mean something about the human endocrine system or whatever, but who cares?) in chopping wood.
Something ineffable but beyond the task itself.
An interesting argument, this, that I want to think about some more. However an obvious first thought is that the logical end point of the "technical magic" approach is to do away with inefficient human beings altogether... Apart perhaps from a few super rich individuals with nothing to do except to admire their bank balance. I'm reminded of something I read recently, which I'll quote:
ReplyDelete"But I’m also haunted by something I saw in Google’s A.I. demo. The video featured A.I. briefly summarizing emails someone hadn’t read. Then it demonstrated generating new emails to reply with. It’s easy to extrapolate. The recipients will use A.I. to avoid reading that email and generate new A.I. replies for others to avoid reading. How soon until everyone’s inbox is overflowing with emails no human has read or written? Why stop at emails? A.I. can write book reviews no one reads of A.I. novels no one buys, generate playlists no one listens to of A.I. songs no one hears, and create A.I. images no one looks at for websites no one visits.
This seems to be the future A.I. promises. Endless content generated by robots, enjoyed by no one, clogging up everything, and wasting everyone’s time."
Lincoln Michel, "The Year That A.I. Came for Culture", The New Republic, December 20, 2023
Mike
Modernism seems to me to embrace a notion of what humans ought to be "freed from" which is mostly "from drudgery" and that's all very well, but if you're not careful you lose something essential about being human. Right? Maybe?
DeleteSupposedly the technocrats are going to free us all from drudgery so we can paint and write poems and whatnot, but none of these guys have any idea how much drudgery there is in both of those tasks!
This essay reminded me of the origins of chemistry, from the merging of magical/religious practices in ancient Egypt (following its conquest by Alexander the Great) with Greek philosophy -- alchemy.
ReplyDeleteAs no-one else has mentioned it, that is a very odd painting. I presume you *haven't* been asking Mrs. M. to lie head-down, naked, on the garden steps? So, life class? Imagination?
ReplyDeleteWhatever, some very disturbing anatomy going on there... Great feet, bizarre shoulder blades.
Mike
that is a model at a life drawing session! she was actually lying on an arrangement of pillows and a stool, but i reduced that to a sketch of levels because they don't matter. the model is very thin in some ways, and thus the shoulders are maybe the most accurately rendered part of her!
Deletethat was the appealing part of the pose: the"horizon lines"; of shoulders, back, butt.
They probably mattered more to her... Looks like a "10 minute" pose? I used to give life classes, and timing the poses was actually my main job...
DeleteI realise now that what I took to be an oddly prominent buttock and shoulder blade are actually your rendering of the pillows? Phew...
Mike