Artificial Intelligence, Human Idiocy
Artificial Intelligence, Human Idiocy
Making WTF things, feat. Rajeev Basu
All this talk of artificial intelligence… so little about human idiocy.
For this, I needed to consult an expert: Rajeev Basu – artist, and founder of Basura.
We’ve known each other for years, and his multi-faceted practice has taken him from art, to advertising, music-making, fashion, and celebrities.
Most of all, he’s never been shy about embracing new tools, or unseriousness.
Basu’s work centres around the pursuit of provocative ideas that live online and in culture: Waiting in Line 3D, “the most boring game in the world”, the Hinge Phonebook “a phone-shaped book to get you off your phone”, Second Hand Internet, couture digital fashions recycled from 1990s websites, and Between Two Naps, unexpectedly insane luxury goods for dogs.
We got a chance to speak about idiocy in the age of AI.
ULTRA: What’s your hot take on AI and creativity?
Rajeev Basu: I think it’s exciting.
My view is that it’s a useful tool. For inspiration, to do things that you can’t, or just to give you stuff to mess and play with to help you get to something you like.
I use ChatGPT to support my work. I subscribe to Midjourney to create references too. I think one of the best tools people aren’t talking about as much is Vizcom. It’s more specialised and leans into product design. You can do a sketch (even if it is supremely terrible, as mine are), give it some simple prompts, and it will render product images that are amazing. Not the dodgy stuff we’re used to seeing, but things you can actually use.
ULTRA: Maybe the missed opportunity I see is that a lot of people use AI to replicate normality. I’m most interested in using these tools to push at the edges, explore more surreal and imaginative outcomes.
Rajeev Basu: Definitely.
ULTRA: So with projects like Waiting in Line 3D and the dog shit bags… is the idiocy the intention, or just a natural outcome of who you are?
Rajeev Basu: Wow, what a question 🤔.
I always aim for there to be some kind of provocation. Specifically, things that make a point in a way that makes you laugh. I think it’s the best way for things to get noticed and be remembered.
I also think I’ve just doubled down on what interests me and been lucky enough to find individuals/brands/celebs that align with my point of view and voice.
So much these days is driven and informed by data which is certainly helpful at times. But it’s all so rational. Humans aren’t rational. We are all such incredible weirdos. We are random. We don’t make sense most of the time. It’s what makes us great.
That’s why I think the beautiful, random, dumb, WTF things from the minds of people are more valuable than ever. Whether it’s assisted by AI or not.
Does the world really need a game about waiting in line and punching yourself in the face? Or a dog poop bag that’s made out of pebble-grain leather imported from Italy and lined with silk? Maybe. I don't know. But why not?
ULTRA: MSCHF are interesting because they work in the blurry space of art, product and brand. Do you apply a label to the work you do?
Rajeev Basu: Although a lot of my work is commercial – my approach has always been to try and make “things” instead of “ads”. The difference being that “things” are inherently more interesting and what people actually care about (a comedy short, a book, a sculpture, a set of weird posters, or whatever) … and when a brand is involved, it just so happens to also be an ad.
Other projects might be classified as “art”, in that they exist purely to exist. But overall, if I had to use a label, it would be “things”.
ULTRA: So if you didn't exist… and instead, there was no one, or a lesser-you working with AI. What's missing?
Rajeev Basu: Taste.
However good AI gets, it still needs someone with the taste to be the conductor. Someone who understands the right kind of questions to ask. The taste level to select what should and should not be developed. And that’s all so subjective and unique to each of us.
ULTRA: True. People talk about the taste economy and the idea that gatekeepers can be good, sometimes, and certainly that you can’t replicate good judgment.
I also love the idea of play as an input for the work. Is that innately something that a person brings to the table that a machine can’t? The spirit of wanting to make a pebble leather, silk-lined dog shit bag… Is that playfulness innately human, or is it perhaps easier to replicate than we think?
Rajeev Basu: I think machines can play, but it’s different.
Things like Waiting In Line 3D, and the luxury dog poop bag are the result of 40 or so years of my personal interactions, learnings, travels, and experiences. Not just the creative things that got made, but the desire to make those things in the first place.
It’s the specificity and subjectivity that’s unique to each of us that makes our own points of view so special. And gives them depth. I don’t think machines can quite match that. Yet.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and vanity. Synthetic tools were used in the process.
Rajeev is an artist and founder/creative director of Basura. He was formerly at Maximum Effort, Spotify, and Wieden & Kennedy.
.
.
.