TABOO - TRANSGRESSION - TRANSCENDENCE

Visual and performance artists are increasingly engaged in reenactments of different types. Reenactment not only defines a distinct phenomenon (different to re-make or re-creation) but also offers a specific concept of time. (Franko 2017) Whereas reconstruction always reveals performance as already historical, reenactment treats it as something that exist in the present – and thus has an open meaning structure. The new tools associated with the advent of AI multiplies this potential. How is the concept of reenactment changing? What impact does it have on the very notion of performativity? But most importantly, how the sense of agency (SoA) is modified?

In the project Monument AI (2024-ongoing) Czech performer Vladimír Havlík (1959) deliberately engaged AI in the process of reenactment. He has chosen original projects by Marina Abramović (1946) and Joseph Beyus (1921), emphasized the notion of articulation (“Joseph Beuys discusses what contemporary art is with a dead rabbit.” / “Marina Abramovic performs The Justice with a Libra, a sword and a black scarf tied over her eyes.”; Flusser 1984), and awaited the response based on AI own understanding of the situation, collected data, and culturally determined semantic systems. (Epstein-Hertzmann-Akten-Farid-Fjeld-Frank 2023)

Humans desire to control the technologies they use. However, SoA in AI permit it to have a subjective recognition of its own agency. Hence, the dilemma of joint human and synthetic agency is in the epicentre of the discourse on human–AI interaction. With Havlík’s example, the paper reflects the change of discursive categories. It focuses on the position of the author and the limits of agency, turning the attention to the autonomist framework of the final artwork. (Geiger-Iaia 2024; Samuelson 2023)