Maintaining a proper relationship with digital technology in my studio (by avoiding it)   By Chris Geremia, September 2024

In light of the further proliferation of powerful technologies, I feel that it is important for me to make a statement about how I use electronic devices in my creative endeavors, and why it is necessary for me to keep them in their rightful place.  

It has always been valuable to me to maintain my artistic exploration as a path of discovery; and after over 20 years of 'serious' creating, I am as fascinated by it today as I was when I first decided to dedicate a significant part of my life to it.  The more time and focus that I invest into this noble study, the more I realize that art, properly rendered, is a method of higher learning; a fundamental method of learning that precedes formal language and reason.  For nearly the entire course of recorded human development have imagination and creativity been recognized as an integral part of human intellect and high consciousness.  The word 'genius' was historically used to exclusively describe creative or imaginative minds.  This makes sense when it is understood in it's proper context of a mind capable of bringing into reality (GEN-erate) that which did not previously exist.  Compare the liberal usage of the word today and we find that it is frequently used to describe the re-arrangement, exploitation, or management of what already exists.  Still, even today, after much of the broader cultural respect for the creative mind having been stripped away, do we remain in calling the artist's space of work his 'studio' (place of STUDY).    

Since the burgeoning philosophies of the early Enlightenment (circa 1630,) the 'creative', 'experiential', 'phenomenological', and 'intuitive' paths of discovery have been progressively marginalized within our (North American Western) culture.  Even within the very cultural structures that should embrace intuition, imagination, and creative revelation as methods of arriving at truths, have they been minimized as lesser forms of intellect; and in many cases relegated to mere entertainment, hobby, fantasy, or outright hokum.  In a very real sense we have fully embraced the comprehensibility of 'logos' and neglected the comprehensibility of 'mythos.'  The three groups that should be standing firm in defense of creative discovery are the arts, philosophy, and religion.  Sadly, even in these organizations has the post-modern zeitgeist of preeminent rationalism and utilitarianism been embraced at the expense of artistic discovery, and just about everything else that falls under the humanities umbrella.  I would like to add an interesting observation here.  I have found that many, and perhaps most, of the people that I have encountered who claim to be highly rational in their thought process and actions are often the most emotionally driven people that I encounter.  It is my (artistically derived) opinion that this is a result of the lack of, creative expression in their lives, that leads them to first act on emotion, and then secondarily explain their actions through rationalization and reason.  When one lives in a limited state of understanding that denies the value and interpretive power of the creative impulse, the default position will be to ascribe all actions to a 'reason,' that was formulated , now by necessity, ex post facto.  Artists, spiritualists, religious and other wholly (holy) formed individuals understand that not only can we be informed through reason, we can, and are, also justly informed via intuition; which can be represented in transcendent creative manifestations or as solutions to problems otherwise not considered.  Left unacknowledged the creative impulses end up suppressed, only to emerge at a different time and place, and often in destructive ways.  Artists are those who are comfortable with acting on intuition, spirit, emotion, and virtue, and not needing to rationalize their work, for the value is precisely within it's unadulterated purity of mythical understanding.  Mythos informs us to build a cathedral, and logos informs us how to make it structurally sound.  The world is smarter, more beautiful, and safer when both are provided equal space and energy.       

Admittedly, when I first found myself called to the arts I had a naive (modern) understanding of it, and as such, had no idea of what I was engaging in, and subsequently was not engaging in art at all.  I was engaging in craft without art, and using a reasoned approach to creativity as a method of applying my mental energies to a 'field' that is, by it's very nature, inaccessible to and super-ordinate to reason.  Gradually, with time, practice, and maturity, I tamed my egoistic drives sufficiently to realize that chasing aesthetics, and rationally working through a creative project will not make an artist.  True it is that one may be popularly called an artist, and cultivate a respectable commercial standing by mastering aesthetics and harnessing familiar themes; but true it is not that aesthetic technique and theme management defines art.  I will dare even to suggest that any creative project that begins entirely with reason is fundamentally already doomed to remain within the sphere of 'what has already been done', granted, perhaps, with a new twist.  Such even is the nature of the unseen creative 'muse' that cleverly intending to act unreasonably will only result in playing in the same confined arena; for intending to act unreasonably to achieve an artistic result is as much a reasoned approach as any other.

There is a common phrase that 'art happens' and this is true, and perhaps it even says all that can be said about the phenomenon.  An artistic approach to discovery distinguishes between thinking about something, and thinking the thing itself.  It is a way of not working on a project, but from within a project.  In the first instance, I (my ego) applies it's self to the work, in the second instance I (my spirit) discovers itself, and possibly (hopefully) something else, from within the work; hence drawing is properly interpreted as 'drawing out' the art, not applying the art.  Subtle differences in approach make large differences in what is derived.  This is what is meant when the expression 'turning it into an art form' is used to describe someone who excels at a vocation not typically associated with art.  It does not mean a new procedure!  It means introducing non-procedural harmony into the an existing set of practices for superior, and often more elegant, results.  Another way of looking at the approach is as starting with an true 'open mind', not a modern definition of 'open mind' that exists within a limited ideology. An open mind is not fixated on an outcome, because it can't be known! If one does have an outcome held in mind, then it is, at least partially, closed to the possibility of anything outside of it, and therefore partially closed in general.  An open creative mind, is a mind capable of capturing the impulse and following it without making it a hostage of the rational mind and it's preconceived notions; it is allowing the gut, and most importantly the heart to lead the work.  

When creating a work of art it is necessary to allow it to develop as it will, and yes, I believe it is a shared will that I am taking about.  Artists frequently talk of their creations as their children, and this is an accurate way of understanding true art.  Yes, we do our best to form a child into a good citizen, but also realize that to allow the child to properly develop, a certain amount of independence is required.  The same is true with developing an art project, we start it on impulse, guide it and are guided by it, and encourage it to have it's own voice.  The temperament of the work of art can be as varied as individual people.  Some are compliant, some are energetic, some are reserved, some are rebellious, and some are lost causes, but when all is said and done they are still our creations, for better or worse.  Like the developing person, the work of art will also show evidence of it's development.  It will show, in it's very physicality, the net total of everything that it was involved in to get to where it is as a finished product.  These artistic 'scars' and 'blemishes' are not just important, but are where the actual humanistic character and presence comes from!  Sure, we do get to develop the art as much as we wish, as we would a child when considering which social crowd it will (probably) mingle with, but even so, the true nature of the very thing is ever present even if it is under a little make-up, and wearing a sport jacket.  I have gone into this detail to try to show how very tactile, actual, and (possibly) transcendent human works of art are.  It is present in it's image, it's personality, it's symbology, and the history it bears within it.  To 'know' art is to experience it in all of it's dimensions, like a person.  To be an artist is to share in the effects of the work.

All of what I have written so far may be considered an essay on the creative experience, and it is, but what I have not addressed until now is the effect it has on the artist, and that is personal development.  It is work to create art; and equal amounts of that work end up reflected in the piece itself, and in the artist.  The benefit of long term study of any noble topic cannot be summed up by an accumulation of knowledge for its own sake.  The benefit is derived in our ability to now understand the world from a newly elevated perspective that we were previously unconscious of.  We develop more insight into the world, and our own being by our dedicated efforts. This new insight, combined with our other life experiences, enhances our identity as an individual, and gives us a perspective that is extraordinarily our own.  This is where dedication to the creative disciplines has it's benefit to society; partially, in the actual fruits of the process that result, and partially in the valuable perspective that the practitioners themselves bring to their culture.  Make no mistake about the utter importance of this to any society, for the moment that the intellectual (yes, creativity is high intellect) expansion stops or becomes one sided, society regresses and degrades in upon itself.      

The question, and the topic of this essay can now be addressed.  Where, why, and how do I use 'modern' technology in my creative process, and art business?  

The topic of AI technology has been persistent over the last several years, and I intended to write about it a few times before this.  What held me back from getting past a paragraph or two is the fact that it is such an immense topic, and I was not inclined to tackle it with any diligence.  An other reason is that I was not sure of my own position on the subject apart from some basic precautionary rules that I followed.  I was initially approaching it from the normal reactionary perspective, seeing how it has already 'displaced the need' for many people, including those in industries that rely on talents not considered creative (law, engineering, medicine.)  Needless to say, I am concerned about these broader dynamics for the obvious reasons, but these larger societal concerns are better suited to analysis by ethicists, theologians, and sociologists.  Granted, all of us need to prepare for the serious consequences ahead, but I decided to take a slightly different tact; and as plainly as possible state how I am addressing this within my own life, and most specifically within my art studio.  
    
Electronic devices are neutral.  They are tools that allow us to increase the amplitude of what we are using them for; like wealth, a social network, or an instrument of mechanical leverage, and, theoretically anyway, the ease and speed of the task they are being applied to.  The question for me is not whether electronics, are good to use or not good to use, true to art or untrue to art; but do I actually want what I am doing to be leveraged, faster, or easier?  When it comes to creativity I most certainly do not!*  This does not mean that I therefore want my creative experience to be demoted, slower, and harder; what it means that I want to meet it exactly at the point where I am at the moment; competent to work through it to completion, but incapable of conquering it.  If my aspirations are too easily met, I will no longer develop, and eventually decline.  If my aspirations are impossible, then I am engaging in futility and will be influenced by degrading emotions.  Anyone that engages in personal development of any kind will understand exactly what I am referring to, and the only surprise should be, if there is any, that the same rules apply to abstract and largely undefinable concepts like creativity.

*Note: I am not saying that electronics have no place in the creative process, they have a place, if one chooses, as mediums through which creativity can be harnessed.  What I saying is that they have no place in creativity itself, because they cannot be creative, only recombinant.  Another way to approach my point is to say that one can use a physical machine to exercise with, but the machine itself cannot exercise, and if the physical machine is doing the work, neither it, nor the person interacting with it is exercising.  Still another way, a better way, to consider this is through the lens of value.  Creativity is valuable because it is virtuous.  Machines, mechanical or electronic, cannot be virtuous, they can only be used in the fulfillment of the virtuous actions of people.  Now, there is a subtle argumentative element in the background of my position, and that is if these tools cannot be creative, then why should they not be employed fully?  If they are ultimately all neutral, then why would one draw any distinction between what and when can be used?  The answer is not found within the devices, but within the user.  Creativity is virtuous because it is an act by which one can get closer to truth and beauty through a broader intellectual and experiential understanding than if it were not engaged in.  The risk in using advanced electronics in the creative realm is that what is presented by the device may be understood as truth, adopted as one's own, and presented as creative.  The very ease in which images and patterns tend to emerge in electronic devices is the reason to be wary.  The 'freeness' of the imagery tempts us to accept them, and identify with them, eschewing the needed discipline of the artist to do their own work, that only they can do, and that only they can contribute to the world.      

         
For any person who relies on, and value's their personal creativity, it seems plainly evident to me that this ability should be guarded zealously.  I have made the well considered and practiced decision to only use electronic devices after the creative project is concluded.  In my experience, I have discovered that when using these tools I become less keen creatively.  By limiting the use of them to post-production I am insulated to the effects that their presence has on my ability to comprehend art properly. If for some reason I have the need to make something that is predefined in it's terms, I am less restrictive on the usage of these tools.  If it is predefined, it is not purely artistic, and I would consider it a graphical project, and not have any restriction on the tools that I employ in it's production.  By example, this was the case when I made a design for a product package.  Also, I am less restrictive in my usage of available tools for the print and digital marketing of my art.          

A second reason that I do not use any electronic device, save the most basic (lights, text editor, etc..) during the creative process is that I do not want to create an unnecessary layer between myself and the work.  If I am working on resolving a creative impulse, I want all of the work to be within the piece itself.  I appreciate the remnants of the experience that are inevitably present throughout the work.  Like people, the art bears the testimony of how it arrived where it did.  People who present to us as too clean and unblemished, babies excepted, appear fake and insincere, and for good reason.  The same is true with art.  Yes, the final image is part of the art story, for the story in the image is what was settled upon during the process; often after a fight and some compromise. The larger part of the story; where all of the felicity, intrigue, frustration, synchronicity, luck, blood, and tears are found is within the artifacts of the work.  True art, manly art, shows up as it is, and silently attests to a life well lived through it's very being.  The scars of an electronic medium, if they exist at all, look more like an audit trail then a farmers favorite overalls and boots.  If I start, work, and finish a creation within the same physical medium, I cannot release something that does not record my every action, whether perceptible or not.  I believe that it is only in this manner that I can claim to have authenticity as an artist.  The works are the persistent remnants of everything that is wrong with, and hopefully right with, Chris Geremia.   

I will conclude this essay with a wish that it makes sense, and offers a worthy perspective from the front lines.  Perhaps, I might just as easily have stated that I prefer art by humans and for humans. Then again, perhaps I am taking a small public stand against a world that is speeding ahead into some strange simulacrum of reality, and I am planting a stake in the ground to help us find our way back should we go to far.     

Presented below is a list of the technology that I use, and when I use it, as of September, 2024:

I do use outside vendors for printing, which is digital printing.  This includes my stickers, most of my apparel, and all of my limited edition prints.  

I do use digital cameras for capturing the images of the works that I have produced.  I also use them for creative photography, and for capturing images that I may be able to use as a background, prop for marketing, or if I want to remind myself of something.  I rarely use any outside reference anymore in my works.

I have used a small projector to cast an image on a surface from which an outline can be rendered.  This is the case for the pattern found in the painting 'Potentiality', and the painted text found in the 'Natura Naturans' painting.     

I do use Apps, and AI generated images for the acquisition of simulated backgrounds, and as props to use for displaying and marketing my art.  It seems inevitable that in the near future it will not be necessary to distinguish between using an app. and using an AI powered app.  App's will simply assume AI technology, in one form or another, and it will no longer be a distinguishing point of difference, if it even is today.  This is all the more reason to keep a healthy distance between technology and all of the  humanistic areas of life.   

I do use photo editing apps to crop, color balance/enhance, increase/decrease contrast, and to modify perspectives in the images of my finished art.  I try to get the works to appear as they do in plain daylight.  I have noticed that digital cameras, or at least the ones that I use, tend to add a blue tint to the art, so being able to modify this aberration is helpful.  Please also consider that many of my works are put up for sale.  The last thing that I wish to do is to deceive someone about what to expect, so accuracy to the original is important.  If I do alter something digitally from what I created in physical matter, I consider it the start of a new project, or an offspring of a parent work.  An example of this is in my 'Daring Midnight Escape of Schrodinger's Cat' art.  It started as an abstract drawing, was developed into a cat, was further developed into the final drawing and story.  From the drawing I developed the art into a poster and sticker.  The same process was used in 'Vae Victis'.  

I do use smart apps and AI technology in my writing for research, spell checking, grammar checking, composition arrangement, and story line editing.  I do not use any 'smart' technology in the genesis, composing or editing of poetry.  I do not use 'smart' technology in written or visual story line generation.  My initial 'notes' are often the work of art itself, such as in 'The Euphonious Crowning of Lady K' where the entire story evolved from the image itself. I do use a very basic 'text editor' app as a space to brainstorm and create variations on written word concepts, in addition to basic pen and paper.  In most instances I complete my written work in the text editor, and only then put it into a 'smart'er ap for spell checking, punctuation, grammar and sentence development.  The AI chat apps are helpful in translating between languages, and are especially useful when I am reading books from the middle ages and need help deciphering dialects and language variations.     

These works were produced entirely in a digital setting: 'Amor Fati' sticker, 'Contemptus mundi' sticker, and 'The Road is Better then the Inn' sticker.    

Production Materials and Tools: paper, canvas, wood panels, poster board, scissors, X-Acto, pencils, ink pens and markers, watercolor paint, acrylic paint, oil paint, charcoal, brushes, pallet knives, putty knives, tape, varnish, metal leaf, glue, saws, nails, etc..

Post-Production Materials and Tools:  iPad, Lenovo T460s running Linux Mint Cinnamon v20.2, PhotoFox, Procreate, Phonto, LibreOffice, XED text editor, Gimp v2.10, Pinta v1.6, ChatGPT v4.0, Firefox, Google, Websters Online Dictionary.  

Read more at: https://pictorislore.com/
See more at: https://painterloki.com/

Copyright Silver Palm Publishing, 2024.