Lauren Lee McCarthy: I don’t believe there’s a significant distinction between in-person relationships and virtual ones. Many of our relationships span both realms, and even if they are limited to one or the other, they can still hold profound meaning. Furthermore, I don’t find it helpful to separate the physical and virtual worlds since our constant use of mobile phones, for example, means we often navigate both simultaneously.

However, throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed a lack of connection in many virtual interactions. It’s more challenging to feel a genuine physical connection when we’re not physically present with someone. Our brains might not be naturally inclined to piece together multiple environments and people into one coherent mental model, particularly when faced with numerous individuals in different settings.

Therefore we have to really work to have the same sense of connection and presence when operating through virtual communication platforms. I believe it’s possible, but it necessitates considering the purpose of the interaction and prioritising that over any distractions or extraneous elements within the technological framework.

In the process of developing a technological system, it’s important to recognise that we are simultaneously constructing some kind of social system or infrastructure. And the social infrastructures that we have can be seen as types of technologies themselves.

When it comes to fostering relationships within these technological systems, a good starting point is understanding the system’s parameters, construction, intended audience, prioritisation, possibilities, and biases. By asking these questions, we can challenge the notion of neutrality in platforms and tools. Instead, we can view them as one particular perspective on how relationships can be formed and communication can take place. This perspective opens up possibilities for building alternative systems, making modifications, hacking, subverting, or even breaking the systems, all while working within their framework.

In the Lauren project, my goal was to occupy the role of Amazon Alexa. It was a performance that took place in people’s homes, where I would be invited in to install cameras, microphones, gadgets, and devices. Afterwards, I would leave and remotely observe and control their homes 24/7 for several days. I synchronised my actions with their rhythms, including sleeping when they slept, and responding to their needs and desires. This piece served as a critique of the increasing presence of surveillance technologies and automation in private and intimate spaces like our homes.

I felt that it’s difficult to truly grasp the implications of having all our private data transmitted to a corporation like Amazon. The idea of our data residing on a server somewhere lacks a visceral connection. By substituting myself as the AI, suddenly people could understand and directly experience what it felt like, what it meant to be watched by a human. The stakes became clearer, revealing what they were giving up in terms of privacy and control, but also the possibilities for what sort of relationship they might have with this AI or virtual assistant character. Through this performance, my hope was to provide a space for people to develop their own ideas about how they want to interact with technologies such as Alexa, AI, and home surveillance.

While I have my own perspective on these technologies, the objective is not to persuade people to adopt a particular viewpoint, but rather to offer them the space to reflect. In today’s fast-paced online environment, we are often pressured to react quickly, to make purchases, to be outraged, and to form immediate opinions. There is little time for genuine engagement and independent decision-making. Therefore, with this performance and many others I create, the point is to give people the time and space to really feel and engage with the tensions, to assess what aspects feel positive or useful, what parts violate their boundaries, and what conflicts emerge. It prompts us to consider how we want to navigate and shape the technology and systems that surround us.

During the pandemic, I engaged in a series of performance works that directly responded to my own emotions and observations, as well as those of people around me. One of the projects I initiated was called Later Date, which began in March 2020. It involved creating a platform where I would engage in one-to-one text chats with individuals, planning a future date for when lockdown would end or when the pandemic was over. The intention was for us to meet up later and bring to life the plans we had made together. This project delved into questions surrounding the concept of “later” and how we contemplated it in that particular moment.

Another project I undertook was titled I Heard Talking is Dangerous. In this piece, I unexpectedly showed up at people’s doorsteps and delivered a monologue through my phone using text-to-speech technology and custom software that I had developed. I explained that, due to constantly evolving medical advice, it had been conveyed that masks and maintaining a distance of six feet were no longer sufficient, and it was recommended that we cease talking altogether. They claimed that ‘talking is dangerous’; I then invited them to access a URL on their phone, allowing us to continue the conversation through text-to-speech communication.

These are just two examples from the series, as there are several more. Each project was a pretty spontaneous gesture, rapidly responding to the prevailing circumstances. Collectively, they served as a record of the experiences and emotions throughout that extended period of time. Throughout these projects, I pondered deeply on the meaning of presence and the challenges of communication and connection at a time when that felt really difficult. Risk, danger, and safety were recurring themes in my thoughts. I contemplated who possessed safety and access to it. I also explored how each of us individually conceptualised and experienced risk and danger, particularly in the context of the ongoing pandemic. Additionally, I thought about how we could help and support each other in these difficult circumstances.

I see my artistic practice as contributing to a larger reflection on our current society while simultaneously offering glimpses of where it might evolve in the future. In all of my artistic endeavours, I consistently incorporate elements of critique that involve a deep examination of the prevailing circumstances. Yet, amidst the critical analysis, there is always an intrinsic aspect infused with hope, an aspect that seeks out those moments of meaningful connection and profound presence, even in the midst of adversity. My aim is to widen the horizon of possibilities, fostering an environment where such profound emotions can be experienced more frequently.

P5JS, as an open-source creative coding platform and library, has a primary focus on democratising the learning process of coding and fostering creative expression through code, making it accessible to a diverse range of individuals. This accessibility entails not only ensuring that the syntax is easily learnable and graspable but also proactively addressing various barriers to access. These barriers encompass under-resourced communities, individuals who may not typically identify as coders, people who speak different languages, and those with disabilities who may encounter challenges in accessing the technology.

I initiated this project back in 2013 and led it until 2020. Currently, the leadership has transitioned to Qianqian Ye and Evelyn Masso. The overarching objective of this library is to explore the possibilities of building a tool with a foundation rooted in values of inclusivity and accessibility, allowing every design, software, and community decision to flow from that core ethos.

Additionally, the Processing Foundation, operating as a non-profit structure, provides support not only for P5JS but also for Processing, the Java-based predecessor to P5JS, which continues to evolve as a separate ongoing project. The goals of the Processing Foundation align with the principles I outlined for P5JS, aiming to offer assistance and foster communities encompassing educators, artists, and other stakeholders engaging with these tools.

The significance of this work stems from the belief that technology should not be exclusive to a select few. I don’t believe that we’ll get anywhere by creating technology that is just for a limited group of people. Instead, it necessitates an exploration of who we create things for and whose perspectives are represented within the very fabric of the tools, particularly in the context of creative expression. By adopting a multitude of perspectives within these tools, we can cultivate diverse outcomes that resonate with and empower a wide range of individuals, allowing them to find themselves reflected and expressed through these technologies.

Well, personally, I don’t really believe in a strictly optimistic or purely dystopian vision of the future. I think it will always be a mixture, and it’ll mean different things for different people. For me, it’s more about the questions we ask as we imagine the future. How do we understand ourselves in relation to others, to other species, and to the planet we live on? Can we see ourselves as part of a larger system rather than isolated individuals? Can we design technologies that help us connect with this understanding, that represent diverse viewpoints, and that are useful for many people? And can we actively work against inequity, bias, and the societal problems we face?

In my view, the most optimistic future is one where we strive towards these ideals. However, it will be a long road, and it requires a lot of conversation and involving as many people as possible. We need to get there together. When it comes to designing technologies, it’s about making space for different perspectives and circumstances. I acknowledge that this is difficult within a capitalist society that often privileges those with more money and power. So, as we design things, we need to consciously build systems that challenge this dynamic.

I don’t have a definitive answer for what is necessary, but personally, creating art has been my way of comprehending and grappling with the issues I observe in the world and the internal conflicts I experience. I don’t consider my work to be solely about technology. Instead, it delves into the essence of what it means to be human in today’s age, which implies various forms of technology. Ultimately, it revolves around understanding ourselves in relation to others, which I believe is a fundamental aspect of the human experience. Therefore, my artistic practice resides at the intersection of technology and interpersonal connections.

One of my ongoing objectives in my work is to deconstruct complex and seemingly inscrutable concepts, making them accessible and relatable. By doing so, I aim to enable myself and others to form our own perspectives and opinions. I strive to create metaphors on a human scale that shed light on the broader systems that surround us.

In my perspective, artistic practice presents alternative visions of the world, of people’s potential, and of what the future can hold. When it is not so purely speculative, it offers a dimension of life that engages with something deeply human: the longing for connection and the feeling of creative energy. That’s why I find it absolutely essential, especially during challenging times.

Personally, I’m particularly drawn to art that engages with the everyday, transcending the boundaries of galleries and museums. Art that can be experienced by people who may not actively seek it or even realise they’re encountering art. This approach democratises art and allows for reaching individuals without the preconceived notion of a ‘cultural’ or ‘artistic’ experience. By connecting with people in their everyday lives and posing questions about technology, society, and their own self-perception, it raises these inquiries within the context of their immediate reality. This approach provides an opportunity to encourage reflection, not only on art, but also on their wider experiences, potentially fostering a change in their worldview and self-awareness.