Lawrence Lek: Some artists are also activists, working actively to achieve real-time actions that can change the worlds. In my case, my work focuses more on exploring speculative dimensions of time, imagining worlds that could exist or could have existed. This exploration, may trigger thoughts in people’s minds, which could potentially influence their future behaviour. However, my approach is more metaphorical and allegorical, often delving into narrative and moral ambiguity rather than issuing immediate calls to action.

Regarding collaboration, it’s an essential question, and I can only offer a limited perspective on it. There are different aspects of collaboration to consider. One aspect is being instrumental, where working together becomes a means to achieve a particular outcome. Each collaborator brings their own resources and skills to the table, complementing one another and collectively building something better or more significant than what any individual could achieve alone. Additionally, coming from a DIY background, I’ve been contemplating the idea of collectives. It’s rare to find art or activist collectives where a few individuals don’t dominate. However, it’s worth noting that the notion of collaboration is sometimes co-opted as a tool to hide power relations. Similarly, collectives, while having fantastic and utopian ideals in theory, can be challenging to operate as egalitarian structures in reality.

Sinofuturism, at its core, examines the complexities of China and technology, encompassing both its promises and challenges. The concept of China being a simultaneous promise and threat, akin to the Greek “pharmakon” serves as the foundation for my video essay Sinofuturism (1839-2046). In this project, I sought to intertwine personal reflections on the patterns of Chinese culture with broader universal themes.

The genesis of Sinofuturism occurred during my research for the script of my film Geomancer (2017). It was during this process that I became captivated by the parallels between the advancements in AI and deep learning research and the rapid growth of Chinese industrialisation. I noticed that both AI and China were often discussed using similar terms, yet there seemed to be a dearth of critical discourse infused with playful elements on this subject, unlike other movements such as Afrofuturism or Gulf Futurism.

Motivated by this observation, I swiftly created the video essay. Since it incorporated found footage instead of my usual digital animation, I had the freedom to experiment more with editing and narrative. This unconventional approach allowed me to explore new dimensions within my filmmaking process.

I’m interested in the idea of site-specific simulation, creating spaces where both physical and virtual dimensions hold equal weight. This is different, for example, from the idea of architectural visualisation, where the 3d simulation serves as a means to an end, and from installation art that creates a total environment of a physical space. It’s hard to say exactly why I’m interested in this hybrid space, but I believe it has naturally emerged from my creative process and mindset.

Public space holds great importance in the realms of social architecture and urbanism. It serves as a platform for activists and grassroots collectives who strive to reclaim public spaces in both urban and rural areas. I find the notion of digital art as a new form of public art particularly captivating. In the physical realm, public art is often a neoliberal device to make public spaces more beautiful, part of property development, or a new kind of monument where some idea of the public is put on a pedestal – literally in the case of the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar square.

For me, digital hybrid forms of space have emerged as my medium for some reason, and I think it’s the confluence of questioning established spatial practices (land art, site-specific art, architecture, utopian urbanism), as well as personal biographical aspects, playing video games, being a musician who used to distribute music online in the early days of file-sharing and blogs, and so on.

I would like to emphasise that the setting of 2065 takes place in Singapore, which, in global terms, is a highly prosperous location where the government places immense importance on communication and technology. There’s also a top-down drive to make Singapore a ‘smart nation’ and by extension a ‘smart city’. This contextual backdrop is crucial to understanding 2065, where the allure of travel has faded due to the near-perfect simulation available within Singapore. Of course there are lots of missing parts to this seemingly perfect simulation; what about embodiment and the other senses? Is it possible to simulate these as well? This is the Matrix scenario, which is called the ‘Brain-in-a-vat’ or Cartesian philosophy, exploring the separation of the mind from the body. Theoretically, we could replicate all of our physical sensations through simulated means. Who knows how far it might go in the next four decades.

What intrigues me is the notion that we are constantly in a state of being somewhere else, whether it be in our imagination, exploring alternative lines of thought, or immersing ourselves in films that transport us to different places, allowing us to empathise with others. I believe that the state of illusion or being elsewhere is a natural state rather than an alien one. But it’s a dimension that frequently gets attacked by ideologies about ‘authenticity’ and ‘truth’, suggesting that the concept of place is singular and fixed.

Similar to the ‘problem’ of China, AI also raises the question of “pharmakon” – whether it can be a saviour or a destroyer of humanity. Perhaps it encompasses both. Some consider it as the fourth industrial revolution. However, unlike the labor relations of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, this is distinct. It doesn’t involve physical or repetitive work, but rather knowledge-based work that can be replicated, outsourced, and automated. Consequently, significant shifts in the market and economy will undoubtedly arise.

Another important aspect to consider is the opacity of power structures governing AI, similar to the realm of digital surveillance and big data. The majority of forces and changes in this domain remain hidden from plain sight, dictated by companies and governments equipped with substantial financial resources. Unless there is active investigation and exploration of these companies and systems by individuals, collectives, and organisations driven by motives beyond commercial interests, they will inevitably evolve in exploitative and covert manners. It is imperative that we engage in critical examination and scrutiny to prevent the development of AI in ways that perpetuate invisibility and exploitation.

I believe that what I once considered mere “imagination” has evolved into something far more complex. In the realm of fiction writing, adopting alternative perspectives has always been an essential approach. It goes beyond poetic personification of other entities and holds a practical point of view. Seeing things from different points of view helps in the creative process.

When I’m writing a script or narrative, I explore various possibilities. First I could imagine a different temporal scenario. If it’s in the future, then the scenario is science fiction; if it’s about a different outcome from the past, then it might be in the genre of alternate history. As an author, I then place myself in different bodies or perspectives, allowing unique ideas to emerge. In Geomancer, for example, I reflected on what it would be like to inhabit a satellite in the year 2065. In Black Cloud, I imagined being a surveillance system in contemporary mainland China. This simulation of being another is quite natural.

These explorations fall under the category of counterfactual scenarios, also known as “what-if” situations. They find application in diverse areas, from war games to trend forecasting to the imaginative play of children in playgrounds. The act of simulating the experience of being someone or something else is innate to us.

In music, collaboration happens all the time, and quite organically. When creating the soundtrack for Black Cloud, I engaged in a series of jam sessions with Kode9, building upon our previous collaboration in the Notel project and our shared discussions on fiction, science fiction, and hyperstition, which ultimately influenced the creation of the video essay Sinofuturism (1839-2046 AD). This collaboration has been highly rewarding, and I believe one key factor contributing to its success is the mutual trust we have in each other’s decision-making within our respective areas of expertise.

While I engage in various disciplines, I acknowledge that I am not a specialist in all of them. Learning animation or music has always been a means to an end for me – a way to bring to life complex projects. It is worth noting that long-term collaborations are relatively rare in the art and cultural landscape. As a freelance producer, I often find myself moving from one commission to another, constantly rebuilding networks and relationships for each project.

Regarding collaboration and support, I believe there should be sustainable solutions to address the structural issues prevalent in the cultural industry, such as resource allocation, fair compensation, and genuine diversity. From my experience, cultural producers or groups of producers often find themselves reinventing the wheel with every project. This is the price to pay, but the advantage lies in the possibility to continuously experiment with new ideas.