HOLLY FRASER & CHARLENE PREMPEH

What Is Art in the Digital Age?

By Bonnie Langedijk

The progress of technology relies heavily on culture adopting it. While many creative industries have tapped into technology, only a few players understand the different attributes digital and physical experiences offer and how to use them to their advantage. Most digital products, events and experiences are still simply add-ons to what exists IRL. Additionally, new technological developments get our blood pumping. We’re our own worst hype man – we all want to be the first to embrace the new. Often resulting in society adopting new systems that aren’t fully ready for use. Art is an especially interesting player here as the digitization of art begs the question: what is art now? And who owns it? While adjusting and incorporating new technology isn’t a new concept for the art industry, it might be taking on more than it bargained for with the metaverse, AI-Generated art and NFTs entering the market. 

Two women on the cutting edge of culture, art and technology are Holly Fraser and Charlene Prempeh. They met through WePresent, WeTransfer’s digital arts and editorial platform. Fraser joined the company in 2019 as Editor-in-Chief, after working across various media brands including Bauer Media Group, Crane TV and Rankin. Prempeh founded creative agency A Vibe Called Tech in 2018. The agency explores the intersection of Black creativity, culture and innovation through spearheading partnerships, events, research and workshops with some of the biggest brands in culture including Frieze, White Cube and Gucci. Prempeh is also a columnist and contributing editor at Financial Times’ How To Spend It.  Fraser and Prempeh discuss how culture can be powered through technology, the pros and cons of AI-Generated art and their expectations for the future of the metaverse. But we’ll let them tell you about it themselves.

Charlene: When you started at WePresent had you already decided that you were interested in the intersection between technology and culture? Or was it something that presented itself to you?

Holly: It was a bit of both. The work I had done previously had been more traditional cultural journalism. I used WeTransfer every day but didn’t realize how much more they do. It has given away 30% of its advertising inventory to artists and creative causes and is used by 90 million people a month. We focus on how culture, technology and art can intersect, how to support artists and how to work with them. A lot of the work that we do now is thinking about how culture can exist both online and offline. There's such an energy that exists when you can actually experience something physically. But what does that look like and how can that be democratized digitally so that work can be experienced by millions of people that can't all congregate at one place at one time? 

“Where you tell STORIES and the format that they take is essential.”

Charlene: I'm really glad you made the point about the energy that comes from being in the physical space. Too often the feeling is that you need to be an advocate for one or the other, as if they can't exist in tandem. A few years ago I started thinking about the effects of technology on the black community specifically. It turned out that quite a lot of damage was being done. I set up A Vibe Called Tech which evolved into a creative agency, which looks at marginalized communities and how we can better tell their stories. Technology forms a huge part of that; where you tell the stories and the format that they take is essential. We question who has access to the tools for the pieces that we want to make and who has access to receiving this content and participating in it? 

Holly: At WePresent we have monthly curation meetings. We try to look at creativity in artists and creators from as many countries as possible because WeTransfer is used in 190 countries around the world. We choose about six different creators a month. When you're looking at art that's created in a country where the infrastructure is not the same as say we have in the UK or the States, it's like comparing apples to oranges. We try to be as diverse as possible in the work that we feature, but you can only ever do so much until the actual systems improve for artists and creators in different countries as well. 

Charlene: I completely agree. When you are in the industry, so much of the conversation is just about what's new. The slightly less sexy questions such as: ‘Who has this VR headset that Zuckerberg is creating this world for?’ doesn't get raised as much. What are your immediate thoughts about the metaverse? 

Holly: I would've loved the metaverse as a 15 year old in rural Ireland when I lived by a farm and couldn't get a lift to the local disco. Jokes aside, moving into more decentralized spaces from an art and culture point of view in the future is critical because big tech controls the algorithms that affect so many people's work and therefore their livelihoods. That monopoly needs to be broken down. The metaverse and decentralized places offer an opportunity to do that. But the metaverse is still rife with sexism, racism, homophobia that isn’t checked because it's developing quicker than the legislation, which is a scary spot. 

Charlene: It isn’t the first time technology has run away from us. It’s happened with Twitter, with TikTok. We know that there's an issue with creating the right parameters for these spaces, and yet here we are entering a new era with exactly the same issue. Why do you think that is? 

Holly: The legislation around tech has been murky for a long time. Technology is moving so fast that the actual systems that we operate in as humans from an emotional intelligence point of view, find it hard to keep up. It’s about trying to harness the promise whilst not negating the harm.

Charlene: Artists have always been at the forefront of exploring these new technologies. Interestingly, when you look at big tech – apart from Twitter – there’s this sense that artists need to be central to showcasing what the technology can do. Is that part of the relationship between WePresent and artists you work with? Is it about showing and illuminating the real essence of the platform?

Holly: Yes, completely. What springs to mind is the year-long partnership we worked on with Marina Abramovic in 2021. The project focused on questioning what happens to performance art once the performer is no longer there to perform it. We digitized the famous Abramovic method into a digital time capsule. It ended up being seen by 130 million people. Marina is potentially the most famous performance artist that's working today, but she’s not used to reaching that many people. For us it’s about how we can make an impact with and make sure it’s seen by as many people as possible? If we do something in person, you need that human connection and energy, that magic that comes from being in a space and actually experiencing something. When it's digital, we look at what the best use of the work is in a digital sense and how we can get the essence of the project and the narrative out in a way that is still going to be able to be consumed by millions of people?

Charlene: Completely. There was a time when all of these technologies were emerging when the focus was on how can we make the digital feel like a physical experience or make the [physical experience] a digital one? 

Holly: You can’t

Charlene: No, exactly. I work a lot with Frieze. During the pandemic, they suddenly had to rethink the fair and create a digital version. So they came up with the viewing rooms, where you could look at different galleries and the works they represented. What's interesting is that the viewing rooms have remained. Post-covid, we’re all still going to the fairs, but now there's this alternative option. It takes elements of art that are in some ways better communicated on a digital platform and amplifies those. But we also have to think about how we make that physical experience of art the most fresh and immersive experience you could possibly have. 

Holly: Thinking about how different mediums can respond to different projects and bringing differentiating experiences is really important. 

Charlene: I also wanted to bring up Jason M. Allen and his talk Midjourney where he used AI to turn lines of text into realistic graphics. He won a prize and five artists weren’t happy about it. Do you think the other artists had a point? 

Holly: I would say yes and no. There's this distinction between art as commentary on society and culture and art as craft. The tangled web is [AI] uses bits of existing images online to make a new image. They're essentially thousands and thousands of lines of plagiarism, which makes you question what happens to art when you upload it on the internet as an artist. Do you just give away your ownership? Anyone can view it, anyone can see it, it can be used for anything.

Charlene: You're completely right. There's such a history of artists who come up with an idea and other people build it. Damien Hirst has been doing it forever. But, suddenly when it's technology it's a problem. They don't understand what those AI algorithms are doing to then make this piece. I wonder whether it will create this divide between people who do understand what the box is doing and those who don’t. I don't love the idea of it being tiered in that way.

Holly: I agree with you, I don't think it's good that there's different camps of people that are creating this divide in what is and isn't culture.

Charlene: Exactly. When that fallout happens, the people left on the margins are the ones who suffer the most. The other issue with AI generated art is who owns it and who doesn’t. It’s like back in the day when musicians at one point asked: “What? Who owns my records?” 

Holly: Next thing you know some random guy is making millions of them and they're bankrupt. 

Charlene: Yeah, exactly. With the speed of where digital art is going and without the legalities or the education matching that speed, I wonder whether we're going to find ourselves in the same position again but with a different type of artist. 

Holly: I don't think the conversation around ownership of art once it's out there digitally has really got a conclusion yet. It's gonna be an ever-evolving conversation.

Charlene: That’s where NFTs and blockchain could come in. But what I find interesting about the NFT conversation is that that's all it is. It’s like the Empress New Clothes. It's just a way of identifying something and ownership. It's just Blockchain. It’s funny how with the implosion of cryptocurrency, talk about NFTs has just been a bit less shiny, right? 

Holly: Last year it felt like this final frenzied frontier of capitalism with NFTs where people were like: “Oh My God, this is new. I'm really rich. I need to own this.” It was similar to when Supreme dropped toothpaste and people went nuts to get it. Justin Bieber paying $2 million for a Twitter avatar of The Bored Ape Yacht Club is a massive waste of money. It has depreciated about 89% in a year.

Charlene: How we laughed, how we laughed. 

Holly: That frenzy to own for ownership’s sake left a really bad taste in my mouth. It's just another way of people showing off their wealth. We live in a crumbling society, there are far better ways of spending millions of dollars than on a jpeg with a barcode. But I do think that the technology that upholds NFTs  will remain and grow, and that can be used for good.

Charlene: What do you think will be the point of focus in the intersection of technology and art going forward? 

Holly: From what I've seen it's kind of twofold. There's a return to craft. I've seen a lot of work in the last few months that's based around beading and tapestry. And there's definitely a return to nostalgia as a theme. We’re looking back at the early nineties, as it’s a period of time when there was rapid change too. I don't think the crypto implosion will mean that we're not seeing any digital art. I hope people will be more intentional about what digital art is, how they're showing it and what impact it's having. We should focus on digital art and NFTs that are more sustainable, that are linked to democratizing art or creating more infrastructure for artists from underrepresented backgrounds or countries where that doesn't exist. Art as a tool for progress as opposed to art for capitalism.

Charlene: Art as the force for good. 

Holly: What about you? 

Charlene: A lot of the creators that we talk to are very interested in the metaverse. Especially as a way of correcting the ills that exist in society now. I'm looking forward to how that develops next year. I never thought I'd find myself rooting for Mr. Zuckerberg but I do think his vision might be right, the timing might be wrong. 

Holly: Right vision, perhaps wrong messenger.

Charlene: Yes, exactly. I'm interested in where people on the fringes are gonna take that technology. 

Holly: To your point, it's about building communities that people have more control over and then not having to answer to other people in the work that they do. 

Charlene: The opportunity for that is huge so I'm excited about that. Also just terrified that the whole world is going to implode next year. 

Holly: Well, at least there is hope. The day that artists don't have hope, I think we're truly finished.

HOLLY FRASER’S PICKS

Holly’s favorite products, carefully curated by the editor.

CHARLENE PREMPEH’S PICKS

Charlene’s favorite products, carefully curated by the founder.

MORE HUR CONVERSATIONS