The Return of Surrealism

I'm happy to say Surrealism retained some of the absurdist humour of the Dada movement that preceded it. André Breton, one of the founders, describes Surrealism as 'the juxtaposition of two distant realities united to create a new one' in the Surrealist Manifesto. The Encyclop?dia Britannica says, "Surrealism is a cultural movement that developed in Europe in the aftermath of World War One in which artists depicted unnerving, illogical scenes and developed techniques to allow the unconscious mind to express itself". It had influence from the 1920s in Paris to the mid 1960s when Abstract Expressionism took over in New York. I think AI has, unconsciously, brought it back.

Maybe I should say it's brought the 'look' of it back, in that we can now easily depict dream like objects and scenes as if they are 'impossibly real', like Salvador Dali's elephants with their spindly legs, that would never have held them up. These office machines look very capable of producing something but what is it? We can only guess. But thats the point. Even the most uncommunicative of artists will say, when pushed, "I just want my work to make people stop and question the way we live. Are we seeing the truth or are we just watching the world go by like TV adverts, and buying the basics. I want them to ask themselves that question". It's a big ask.

Which is why I'm glad The Surrealists retained that earlier Dada humour. We just need to look at the red button and ask ourselves, "What would happen if I pressed that?" And of course, just like in a dream, our answer will tell us what we WANT to happen right here and right now. Maybe to be transported to a sun-drenched, book-lined bolt-hole in Cornwall. Click!

A friend said, when he saw this post, "Your post encapsulates perfectly what seems to me the great shortcoming of AI - the absence of an unconscious mind".

This was my reply, which I stand by. "Perfect. Your comment, to me, encapsulates why people don't trust AI art. The notion that there is no conscious mind suggests, as a lot of people seem to think, that AI art somehow creates itself. I think AL in '2001 A Space?Odyssey' didn't do us any favours here. Or, to be more accurate, Arthur C. Clarke didn't do us any favours. AL wasn't a computer that had become a person but it was a computer programmed to fulfil a mission. AI art computers have no mission. They don't wake up in the morning with a future gallery to fill. They don't wake up at all until an artist, illustrator or curious person wants them to make a picture. What of? AI has no favourite styles or colours, no political bias, no agenda. It's just a robot taking orders.

However, the person asking it to do something DOES have an unconscious mind. Hence, if I'm asked to make a poster of iconic London scenes, featuring a Routemaster bus, I'll make that for my client then try a few things for myself.

What do I get?

Some would say it's a distorted view (see collage on the right) but this is what London looks like to me, light and dark. I've experienced every emotion here and travelling around it reminds me of the good times and the bad times. The Rolling Stones' 'Paint It Black' comes to mind. The sun could be shining but "All I see is black".

AI has allowed that unconscious expression to appear before me.

It started with a simple client poster. It ended with me having a better understanding of myself. AI art is not here to steal our jobs, it's here to aid our personal development.