Another important change is editing into greyscale. This way, I ensure the pixels are read as height on a surface. One interesting example is the second piece of the series, where a skyline gradient translates as a horizon that grows in height exponentially. The last print of the series, also shows a character lit from the back, so the perspective lines also grow exponentially as it gets closer to the borders of the image.

Once the image is printed, I use the remaining piece as a mold to later vacuum form. This is the part of the process where I think there is space to do further research to find alternative ways of using leftover or recycled plastic instead of HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene), which is very harmful for the environment, gets scratched easily and is very wasteful.

The vacuum forming process transfers the 3D print into a transparent surface. I tried to polarize transparent filament, however due to the amount of accumulated melted material it is too opaque to polarize. Also, an acrylic print is not an option for direct polarization as resin doesn’t get polarized. This printing process however, allows to have more detail, so I could use it for further projects where I want to maximize the quality of the vacuumed formed pieces, especially for reprints, where plastic filament starts losing sharpness after a number of tries.

The pixel, however, is fully diluted now. So, there is a sculptural approach to the image from now on. The final goal is to allow light to be the main source to read to image as a gradient map of stressed material exposed to our limited frequencies of seeing. For the main piece in the middle, the print has a mistake, it moved out of place while being printed, so the volume of the piece was not symmetrical and was empty on the sides. I could have left it like that to polarize the printing mistake, however, I used self-hardening clay to fill the gaps. My fingerprints shaping the image are now embedded in the final piece as well. 

The pixel is replaced for the trapped air in a heated surface. It is a second print, but an analogue one, it is a transference of information. It reminds me of taking the USB with the sliced final document to the 3D printer. That walk from the computer to the printer is also a step in the preparation of information transferring. All these traces, innocuous steps and information are then contained in the sculptural piece.

There is material exchange that happens when assembling the final print. The piece comes from a place of material exploration, and questioning the limits of where the image is placed and perceived. The vacuumed formed piece exists as a separate piece with the potential to get polarized, but without showing the stress it contains unless submitted to a back-lit linear polarization while rotating.

The sculptural aspect is important because it exists habilitating the sense of touch, in combination to what one is seeing. The audience is using two senses to have a complete approach to the piece. It demands a direct interaction, and then a connection between movement an image shifting. The piece is powered by nervous and electrical connections, which are both needed when its being interacted with.

The surface is animated. Volumes and figures emerge out the digital interpretation of darker and lighter areas. Shades allow a space to build exponential altitude. Within the transparencies, colors seem to appear, when we are only, in reality, reaching the limit of our human capacity for color perception through polarizing light.

Are the pieces light sculptures?

The curators for the Dilston show classified the piece as “Light sculptures”. This inspired the description of the piece: ‘Unknown realities’. It is made up of five light sculptures. Each one has a singular, AI generated, vacuum formed image that gets polarized. The light orientation is manually controlled, which shifts molecular stress, so there is no singular version of what the audience sees. As said, the images are based on AI’s interpretation of the word ‘reality’. Since AI is built with an input of previously generated images, they reflect back on our own constructs.

I am happy with this description; however, a lot of information is being left out.

Through this piece I try to question if we can trust the accuracy of the perceptual skills we are born with and used to. The focus are the uncommon aspects of materiality.

This exploration of material presents the process as levels of understanding. Different levels of reality are presented by contrast. Does knowing it is artificial intelligence have an effect in how the piece is perceived? And if so, what is that effect? Also, how does intersectionality or different cultural backgrounds affect the different interpretations of AI generated images?

These are difficult questions, however trying to understand the possible interpreted outcomes could help answer them. One example, is applying the notion of cultural appropriation when it comes to artificial intelligence, as well. We could argue that the language and codes used are human, while the visual outcomes are not, even when the original inputs they are based on were. So, is AI its own culture?

Artificial intelligence reminds me to the rise of the Vaporwave culture in that they don’t take aspects of one specific cultural background, but rather try to address an aesthetic universality. The difference is that we now have an algorithmic automated process to do so. Cultural appropriation and artificial intelligence as visual outcomes can have further development making use of language, and how we are equipped to understand other systems of communication.

When it comes to the process, however, there are questions that arise unexpectedly. The notion of perception and material imperfections, for example. Materials like HIPS sometimes have scratches, so an immediate redesign and replacement of the piece, if possible, is mandatory. The layer people interact with is an acrylic handle that does not affect the polarization. It does, however, register the fingerprints of the participants. It also gets scratched over time inevitably.

Regarding scratches, I found myself obsessing over them. Over time, I found interesting how I was caring too much about scratches. At the end, the piece and the materials are just a number of surfaces that absorb a history of traces over time.

Light, on the other hand, is crucial to identify ourselves and recognize our surroundings, allowing us to place ourselves in a specific time and place. Plastic, on the other hand, is humanmade, unlike the wood washers that hold the two main structural pieces together to allow the polarizers rotation and to minimize friction. I also find interesting the relationship between humanmade and natural materials to show information in a different way. This is why, for example, I decided not to paint the main wood surface that served to hold the pieces on Dilston gallery’s wall.

On the pieces, having two handles is crucial to enhance the desired effect, to allow the audience to control the piece as well. One handle controls the orientation of one of the two polarizers, the other one controls a layer of HIPS that gives light an extra layer to go through.  

I was interested in Macroscopy and the limitations of the naked eye. I use the ability of tools to allow us to see further, taking away the illusion of needing to use an extra device to enhance the way in which we generally are used to seeing. I tried to focus on scale, so I picked the one that allowed me to display the potential layering materials without lenses. So, no needing an “extra material” is a way of disguising enhancement as the polarizing effect is happening in front of you, but you don’t necessarily notice or understand it at first.

Filters, layers and lenses are great material sources to explore further effects. One project I intend to do in the future is growing big crystals that can get polarized, and then build a device big enough that allows us to perceive polarizing variation without the need of a microscope. Liquid crystals are also a material I was interested on and I wanted to work with, however the most efficient ones are sold by milligram, and they are very difficult to find. I wanted to add an interactive experience to chemical reactions, as a way to address forced change.

Another project I want to work with on in the future is creating polarized versions of litmus cellophane material, similar to the video experiments I made at the beginning of unit three. I find polarized litmus cellophane fascinating as the color transitions are unexpected, and it gets difficult to tell what the color you are looking at will transitions to.

Another interest I have are invisible colors, which is the assigned name of colors that reflect on a white surface after you see a prolonged amount of that color on a bright screen. Over all, I am interested in the creative potential of color and its possible combinations, the interaction between light and pigment, materiality, extremes (limits) and potential perception.

For a later project I would also like to understand how birefringence can be controlled to a point where the photoelasticity stress scale’s values are actively activated. This could be digitally engineered polarizing the image while it’s being vacuumed, so a new technology would need to be designed.

No object possesses intrinsically the colors we perceive. Perception works as a filter that alters, increases and diminishes. If this is true, reality as we know it is unreliable. Is it possible to grasp all meanings? The open and closed aspects of the piece can help as guidance to start this conversation.

I was looking for the work to allow multiple interactions at the same time. This is what eventually happened at the Dilston Gallery closing party, where I was able to see more than one person interacting with the piece at the same time. This was an exciting experience for me, as the piece also worked, behaviorally, like I expected, which for me was a big step.