Anthroposcenic
Germany
Where do you locate yourself in relation to the systems you work with?
I work from a position that treats software as something to be shaped by hand rather than treated as autonomous. My practice is focused on making computational systems feel human—slow, selective, and materially aware. Artificial intelligence functions as a source of image data, not authorship: raw material that is edited, refined, and often discarded through repeated human judgment.
The work draws on the visual language of analog photography and printmaking, particularly intaglio and plate-based processes. Using image-derived data, I create print-like or print-adjacent pieces that emphasise tone, surface, and restraint, grounding digital processes in traditions of mechanical reproduction and physical labour.
This is a highly curative practice. Iteration and selection are central, with meaning emerging through omission as much as generation. Authorship sits in the act of looking, choosing, and deciding when a work is finished, rather than in the system that produces the initial output.
Where are you heading, and what is pulling you there?
My practice moves along a vector from generation toward resolution. While computational systems tend toward speed, scale, and abundance, I work in the opposite direction—slowing processes down, tightening constraints, and narrowing outcomes through repetition and refinement. Progress is measured not by novelty but by increased clarity and material focus.
I am drawn toward work that leaves the screen. Outputs are developed with physical translation in mind, allowing digital images to accumulate weight through printing, surface interaction, and scale. This movement is guided by an interest in how algorithmic decisions persist when they become fixed—when data is no longer mutable but embedded in an object.
At the same time, the practice continues to resist automation as an aesthetic in itself. I am less interested in what systems can do autonomously than in how they respond to careful direction, interruption, and selection. The vector is not toward efficiency, but toward works that carry evidence of time spent, choices made, and the friction between software and human intention.
How would you describe the space your practice is currently unfolding in?
The space my practice currently inhabits is increasingly phygital—a hybrid territory that bridges physical making with digital image generation. In this context, “phygital” refers to the intentional integration of physical and digital elements into a unified artistic form that resists being purely one or the other.
My work unfolds across screens, print plates, and material surfaces at once. Digital systems provide image data and structure, but it is in the translation into physical form—whether through printing, surface manipulation, or material installation—that meaning consolidates. The digital and the physical are not sequential stages but co-constitutive partners in the space I am shaping.
This space emphasises embodiment over virtualization, where digital origins carry weight only when they enter material worlds. It is a coordinate system where computational images gain presence through surface, texture, and the imprint of human selection: where code is not abstracted away but made legible in ink, paper, or object. As this phygital field expands, my practice unfolds not on a flat screen but across thresholds—drawing viewers into encounters that are at once tactile, optical, and digitally informed.
Artist Statement
Anthroposcenic is an ongoing project that explores the creative and conceptual potential of AI models trained on drone imagery—a machine-eye view of the land, programmatically deconstructed, distorted, and reassembled through various generative technologies. The work operates both as an abstract visual study and as a form of documentary, examining the evolving relationship between humans and intelligent systems.
This project reflects on how we see machines and how machines, in turn, interpret and reframe the world we inhabit. As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in creative and cultural processes, Anthroposcenic captures a moment of transition, where human perception and machine cognition overlap, conflict, and collaborate.
The images emerge from a process of prompt engineering, feedback loops, and careful curation, where the artist acts not as a sole creator but as a guide navigating the generative possibilities of machine output. The results are compositions that could not have been authored by human intuition alone, offering unfamiliar perspectives that challenge traditional notions of landscape, authorship, and aesthetics.
Ultimately, Anthroposcenic invites viewers to consider how technological systems influence the way we see, and what it means to create art in an era where vision itself is increasingly mediated by machines.
