This artistic process is based on the theoretical work of Donna Haraway, particularly her concepts of the cyborg, situated forms of knowledge, and the entanglement of human and non-human actors. The work understands AI neither as a tool nor as an autonomous subject, but as a relational actor within a shared production process.
Central Assumption:
Artistic authorship cannot be clearly localized. It emerges from the interaction of human, machine, dataset, interface, and institutional framework. The AI does not act intentionally, but it enforces decisions, reactions, and detours. Authorship is thus distributed, not divided.
Working Logic:
The process does not begin with an image idea, but with a rule. This rule defines constraints, not content. The AI then generates a visual result. I, as the artist, respond not aesthetically but structurally: through prohibitions, shifts, or new constraints. This cycle is repeated multiple times.
The Process as the Work:
It is not the individual image that constitutes the artwork, but the sequence of iterations. Each iteration documents a negotiation between human decision-making and machine response.
The work presents no final solution, but an unstable co-production.
Haraway’s Contribution:
In Haraway’s thinking, there are no pure subjects and no pure objects. Instead, there are entanglements, dependencies, and situated action. Transferred to AI art, this means: the machine is neither a tool nor an author, but part of a hybrid assemblage in which responsibility and agency cannot be clearly assigned.
Outcome:
The artistic process makes visible that creativity does not arise from autonomy, but from relations. The work does not show a “creative AI,” but a fragile collaboration in which control is constantly renegotiated.