“As long as artists adapt to changes, they will remain relevant.” Interview with artist Gordon Cheung on the future of artists’ practice.
As part of our 40th anniversary series exploring the past, present and future of artists’ rights, we sat down with artist Gordon Cheung to explore the role that technologies have played in his work, both as medium and subject, and what the future of artistic practice may look like.
DACS: Thinking about ‘technology’ in the broadest sense, what kind of role does it play in your practice, not just in terms of application but also as an inspiration or subject?
Gordon: I started my BA at St Martin's in 1995. Up to that point, I'd been making very angsty self-portraits. Once I considered my direction, I decided to philosophically challenge myself by making paintings about paint, which meant exchanging the paintbrush for technology and pigment for information. My time at St. Martins coincided with the rise of the Internet and the availability of mobile phone technology which completely changed our perceptions of time and space, into a state of constant flux. Then the dot-com bubble burst. I wanted to integrate this disruptive technological moment into my work. The way I did that was by initially using maps and eventually distilling that into the stock listings of the Financial Times newspaper.
I was using very analogue methods, but I was also exploring how to mix these materials into a simulated brush. I thought of it as creating virtual paintings. I created collages of newspaper clippings of stock listings, which to me referred to the global economic space. Back then, the buzzwords were globalisation, global villages, information superhighway. There was this kind of utopic euphoria about what this new technology was going to enable. Using maps and information itself was my way of literally using the symbols of that space. The way I produced my early works was using technology like colour photocopy machines: I would have collages of these maps that are already cut up and shredded, and then when I was scanning them, I’d rotate it and the scan would sort of smear and glitch.
Fast forward to my current work, which uses AI technology such as MidJourney and even ChatGPT. It’s an exciting time with every new tool developing quickly. There’s a particular aesthetic that comes with AI imagery, but once we become familiar with that, we start to notice that these tools are perhaps not as amazing as they may seem at first, and are not the be-all and end-all, or perhaps won’t have such a seismic impact. I think it’s more about the artist’s intent, how they use these tools, and what meanings they are trying to capture, what reflections.
DACS: From what you're describing, you’re drawing out the glitch in the way that image generating AIs produce an image, creating an aesthetic effect that disrupts the ways in which these technologies are intended to be used.
Gordon: Yes, it's at once unfamiliar and familiar. It looks like a brushstroke, but on closer inspection, it’s not. It’s engaging with a known lexicon in terms of what we perceive to be a painting but made in such a way that it disrupts the familiarity into something new. That dynamic between the two is where space is created for us to think about what we’re trying to say about modern existence, modern history, and technology.
DACS: There was a sense of optimism around the rise of the Internet in the 90s, with its ideas of open-source access to information, which seems to parallel today’s emergence of generative AI.
Gordon: Absolutely. The Internet revolutionised our world despite early scepticism on how much this would be the case, whether it was just going to be a flash in the pan or not. I remember feeling a lot of pushback when, quite early on, I built a website to show my work; I could see that you didn’t need to rely on a gallery system and a show or magazine to publish your work. I recall a gallerist telling me I shouldn’t have a website, as promoting my work was their job.
DACS: But there’s also anxiety and fear, particularly around issues like copyright, and around the effects on livelihoods.
Gordon: I see AI as similarly disruptive, and it is feared because of its potential impact on jobs and creativity.
But ultimately, history shows us that if society deems AI relevant, artists will need to adapt, or they will face existential questions about their relevance.
DACS: You’ve used generative AI tools in your work for years, long before they became part of the public debates we’re now seeing about generative AI. How did you first integrate these technologies into your work?
Gordon: My first real use was with pixel sorting, which would rearrange pixels according to gradients between light and dark. The end results I saw as almost like a digital version of Gerhard Richter’s blur technique, but done by code. Then further down the line I’ve started using AI tools like MidJourney and experimenting with 3D printing, which I then integrated into paintings or standalone sculptures.
DACS: You spoke about how the internet gave you license to distribute your work outside of the gallery system. Given the wide range of technologies you employ in creating your work, do you see digital distribution of your work as an integral part of your practice
Gordon: I guess to step back a little bit; I remember being a student and having a sort of naivety to believe that I would be able to choose a gallery. For a start, I realised that there were very few Chinese names in any of these galleries. So I started organising shows myself, taking control of that situation in a sense – if the galleries aren’t knocking on my door, then I’d better go out and make these shows. I think now, artists are still in the same situation I was, it’s just that there are more tools and platforms available to generate exposure and momentum. When I was a student, exhibitions and magazines were the main avenues for exposure. Today, artists have numerous digital tools and platforms like Instagram and even NFTs to showcase their work, bypassing traditional gallery systems.
There’s some really interesting work in this space, like Peter Wu – who creates virtual reality worlds and incites artists to make work in these metaverses, in his EPOCH project.
DACS: NFTs and the blockchain are an adjacent part of this technological revolution. Do you see them as just another platform, or do they have a unique role?
Gordon: For me it’s just another platform, but they present an opportunity to support artists’ right through smart contracts that enforce resale royalties and ensuring that artists are compensated. The blockchain is one of the pillars of the technological revolution, and I think it could have a significant impact on how the art world, and wider society, operates.
DACS: With AI’s rapid development, there are ethical concerns, particularly around transparency and consent. How do you view these issues?
Gordon: Transparency is crucial, especially regarding the training of AI models on artists’ work. Artists should be compensated, and there should be informed consent. There needs to be transparency as to the inherent biases underpinning these models. It’s a bit of a mess now, but these issues need to be addressed, ensuring that artists are not unfairly exploited.
DACS: Thinking speculatively, what do you think the role of an artist might look like in 40 years?
Gordon: Maybe everyone will be an artist, just as everyone is a photographer now, but I think we will still have classes and professions. We might see more integration of augmented reality and VR, and a blurring of these boundaries between human and artificial creativity. Whether we as artists are relevant is decided in essence, by society and by civilizations. So much of art is already created by technology: I don’t make my canvasses, I don’t make my materials, my paint, or my computer display, I didn’t code the software I use. I use these things as tools because my work is what I am trying to say.
Art is a human endeavour, a mark of humanity that transmits through time and history. As long as artists adapt to changes, they will remain relevant.
Gordon Cheung’s hallucinogenic art explores contemporary utopias and dystopias in a fast-paced, technologically-evolving globalised world. He is best known for his epic landscapes, which use an array of media including stock page listings, spray paint and recently, inkjet and woodblock printing.
Cheung was born in London in 1975 to parents who had emigrated from Hong Kong. He studied at Central Saint Martins and then the Royal College of Art, where he graduated in 2001.
He has exhibited extensively and in 2005, his work was exhibited in the British Art Show 6. He was a finalist in the John Moores Painting Prize, 2006 and in 2007, he was commissioned for the Laing Art Solo Award. Cheung's works are in international public and private collections including the Hirshhorn Museum, Whitworth Museum, ASU Art Museum, UBS Collection and Yale Centre for British Art.
Read more
- Explore Gordon Cheung's work on Artimage, DACS' digital platform for licensing art
- Creative industry thought-leaders speaking about artists' rights for our 40th anniversary
