May 27

May 27 Phil Toledano: Another America

Credit Phillip Toledano - Courtesy of L’Artiere.

Phil Toledano interviewed by Andrea Blanch

Phillip Toledano will be releasing his eighth book, ‘Another America.’ published by L’Artiere. In addition to the generated images, there are accompanying short stories by New Yorker writer John Kenney. ‘Another America’ is simply bold, and new, and most importantly, it challenges reality and the concept of truth in the context of art. Toledano created images through the use of A.I., and through his vision, he was able to create a multilayered world where the scenes in his mind could exist on paper. Through this creation the need and expectation that the viewers will then begin to question everything is essential. ‘Another America’ will be released on April 25th, 2024.

Andrea Blanch: Hello.

Phil Toledano: Hello.

Andrea: Hello, how are you? We were just talking about you. The last time I saw you it was in my studio.

Phil: I know; I probably had a lot less gray hair.

Andrea: Yes, you did; you were blonde at the time, actually.

Phil: Blonde?

Andrea: Blondish.

Phil: I never had blonde hair.

Andrea: What color was it?

Phil: It was a rich chestnut; my hair was always dark brown.

Andrea: Was it really? Like mine? Well, the impression you left me with was blonde.

Phil: Well, maybe it was my ditzy demeanor or my essence.

Andrea: You were the one who told me that any serious art magazine does not have astrology in it. Every single art magazine now has astrology and we took ours out.

Phil: Wait I told you that?

Andrea: Yes, the day you were here.

Phil: (laughing) Wait hang on, you thought I was blonde... Maybe this wasn’t me.

Andrea: No no, you said that. Anyway, congratulations on what you did, I love the book, and the images, and I love that you did it with AI I think it is fantastic.

Phil: It had to be done with AI, if you are talking about the demise of truth and the elasticity of history, you have to be doing it with AI.

Andrea: This is one of the reasons I was having dinner with Vince [Aletti] and I asked him what do you think of AI, and he is a much more traditional type of guy, and he said that he likes AI but he is concerned about what it does to the truth. He talked about that, but I just don’t think of that when I think of the pros and cons of it, I think of it as an artistic tool and that is why when I read your interview on lens culture I think one of the reasons you are excited about it is because what you can do with it.

Phil: Yeah I mean well look, AI happens to coincide with my fascination with the current state of America and the kinda elasticity of history that we find ourselves in, the idea that facts or history is a choice of all these things that are happening in America, these conspiracy theories, the way we believe in such different things in this country some which are real, and some which are not. And AI ties into that because for me it is an extraordinary tool, but it allows me to play with the truth.

Andrea: Oh, that's how you perceive it? That's interesting- I wouldn’t think that.

Phil: Well, for instance, I was asked to do a residency in Normandy in June.

Andrea: That’s exciting.

Phil: Well yes, but everyone else is going to be photographers and I’m just going to be on my phone sitting on the sofa.

Andrea: That's true, that’s very true

Phil: But then I was thinking, well you know Robert Capa, he went with the D-day landings, and the methodology is that he shot four rolls of film approximately sent them back to London, the film is ruined by an assistant so now he only has 11 shots from D day, so then I thought okay I’ll use AI to fill in the rest of the 137 missing images from his D day landing photographs.

Andrea: Good idea.

Phil: But then I got into it and was reading this whole article about how actually those images were never shot and the whole methodology of a helpless lab assistant in London ruining the film was bullshit, so there are multiple layers of truth and not the truth, verses history and imagined history. I guess my point is there is this tiny little hole that I can fill with an imagined history that has to do with Robert Capa and the D-day landing photography.

Andrea: And are you going to do that in the residency?

Phil: Yeah!

Andrea: Oh wow that is a great idea, I think that is fabulous, I really do that’s wonderful. Yeah, that is interesting, close to that I had dinner with some family, I’m a Democrat by the way, I just have to say that.

Phil: Well, I’m a huge MAGA individual.

Andrea: (laughing) No, you’re not, I know you’re not. So my family is Republican, anyway, we were talking about the Israeli war, and they were talking about Trump of course, they are always trying to brainwash me, and I said look I don’t know everything about Donald Trump, but I know all I need to know and my instinct is this is not somebody I want to lead the country, and so my brother said even though I am giving you all the facts, these are facts. Are you choosing to not believe it, or do you not, I said I choose not to because it comes back to what you are talking about in the context of the lens culture due to the election, about people choosing not to believe that he lost the election.

Phil: We’re at such an interesting hinge point in history, where the mere presence of AI makes everything untrue or true. I think it will increasingly loom over us in the sense that every time we interact with media now, in particular when we look at images now, I find myself doing this when I look at images that seem crazy, like a disaster, sometimes I think is that AI, increasingly that will be a reflex for us, and so we have lost the language of the image as veracity.

Andrea: Oh yes absolutely.

Phil: And look, I'm neutral about that. I'm interested in that, as I am in orbit watching this happen. As you say, going back to the election, millions of Americans did not need AI to know the election was rigged. It's not like we need AI to convince us of alternative history.

Andrea: Well in terms of it being in the right hands it helps regarding making art, I mean that's a whole different question. I spoke to a collector, who collects photography obviously, and I asked him if he would collect AI, and he said ‘No, what the value in that’ he said well once that person didn’t make it, and I was like well that's not true someone needed to make the AI version.

Phil: See that's one of the things I am very interested in because people shout at me well they didn't make it, it's such an extraordinary lapse in logical thinking. The images I did with AI wouldn’t exist unless I had the idea of the image and then used AI. I just don’t understand, I think they think it’s like a supermarket and I just went in there and took this picture and that picture, and the images are just waiting for me to collect somewhere like a clearing house.

Andrea: Well, I have to say in all honesty I don’t think that way, because before I was a photographer I was a painter So I know all about the different routes, obviously these people who you are talking to don’t. The point is I had this photographer come to me. He hasn’t been on our website yet, but first, he was a sculptor, then a photographer, then he had a gallery. He is in his late 60s or early 70s. I mean, and now all of a sudden he started doing AI, he said he put in a few prompts, four or something, and then all of a sudden these pictures came, about sixty came out, and they were good, I have to say in my opinion, a lot of them were very interesting. He used all of his own work, all of his own images and he collaged them or whatever. They look really, really good. So, I guess what are the criteria?

Phil: Well, I suspect that your collector, if you could ask the same question in 1850 he would have said I would never collect photography.

Andrea: Exactly yes, I suspect that, too, he is very stubborn about that.

Phil: So what is the question?

Andrea: How do we determine the criteria for what is art or not?

Phil: Well that's a question that we have been asking ourselves at least since modern art happened, even though I imagine even in the 16th century or 17th century some artist was making art and people were saying that’s not art, real art is a painting of landscape, or real art is the painting of madonna and child. This nonsense is not art, I think this is a question that has been going on for a millennial, for centuries.

Andrea: But it certainly brings it up again.

Phil: I’m always very dubious when someone says something isn’t art, because people are different, I mean like pop art, Andy Warhol, all these people that were reviled initially because you are taking commercial objects like a soap box and calling it art, so anyone who says that something isn’t art to me that is just small-minded.

Andrea: And bringing that up, I have to interrupt you because that is a key word. I was telling Beverly, our pre conversation I was telling her that you were interviewed by Elizabeth Beonte for photograph magazine, and how every single- I looked at that interview because I turned Elizabeth onto you, and every bloody response was negative, and I was just shocked because people in our industry are so small minded, really I found it very disturbing.

Phil: (laughing) I haven’t read all the comments.

Andrea: Oh well, you don’t have to.

Phil: I read some.

Andrea: Well, they all say the same thing; they were just negative and about AI, it wasn’t so much about what you did. I just thought to myself, oh my god this is a creative industry and you have all these creatives going against something like this. Did you know you had all these negative responses?

Phil: Sure.

Andrea: I’m just curious what your response is to that?

Phil: My sense of it is that there are usually four to five reponses for AI work. One is there is no soul for it, which is exactly what people said about photography in the 19th century. Two is, well it's just sad you are staring around in your living room just staring at the screen typing into a computer. This is absolutely true but AI is not photography it is an entirely internal process. Photography is external, usually a reactive process, and it is entirely almost an instinctive process when you eventually if you get to be a good photographer and acquire a series of instincts and habits that always allow you to understand the thing that you are seeing in front of you which is the right thing, but AI is a much more inward intellectual process, in the sense it is more like writing a book, through making an image you have to construct it. Like a house, you have to think of the aspects, the weather, the time of day, the ethnicity, the emotion, the content of the picture itself, the narrative the drama, what the sky going to be doing. All these maneuvers, you have to really capture all these details which you don’t when taking a picture because you just have a reflex and if you’re good you have a good reflex, um so there is that. I’m trying to think of the other ones oh you’re not doing anything; the machine is doing everything- so what do I think about all these things, honestly I was initially taken aback by it but I think if you take a historical view I feel nothing but sorrow for these people if you look at William Eggleston in the ’60s, the color photography versus the black and white photography, the outrage that he was doing colored photography. If you look at the outrage from film to digital, the outrage from the top photoshop, at every juncture when there is an advance there are always people that will be very upset. It doesn’t matter if the shift was baked potato to french fries- there are going to be people that are upset by it, and to me, I immediately dismiss those people because to because I feel strongly that being an artist my job is to be curious.

Andrea: Exactly.

Phil: And if you are not considering everything, then how curious are you? and historically, you look at all these people who get mad about this stuff, and in two years, three years' time, all these people who were raging they will be using AI and posting their AI pictures, so it doesn’t bother me. It is unexpected but then if you look at history it is entirely expected. Like I'm sure when Gutenberg showed up at the printing press the monks were not happy about that at all.

Andrea: So listen it is progress, okay, and that is one of the things that I embrace about it besides the results that you can get from it. How difficult was it for you to - I mean you used to do photoshop so how difficult was it for you?

Phil: To be honest, I was never much of a Photoshop person.

Andrea: Oh okay.

Phil: Yeah, I was actually terrible at re-touching, all the weird stuff I would do for magazines, I would work with retouches and I would be with people I knew. I also knew that I was a pain in the ass to work with; I was incredibly specific, obsessive, and exacting about what was in the image, so now I just have to harass AI, which has infinite patience.

Andrea: I read something about how AI can get it wrong, and it takes a lot of patience as you said.

Phil: Sure, it is interesting, the analogy that I use when talking about AI is it’s like working with a very talented but drunk person.

Andrea: Oh really? That is a good analogy.

Phil: I mean it's interesting, you have to understand how AI thinks, and once you begin to understand how it thinks you can begin to speak the language it will understand. For me, the thing I am so interested in is called historical surrealism.

Andrea: Like the images in your book.

Phil: Yeah exactly, and to me that is what is so fascinating about AI, is the idea of changing history. I see a lot of AI work that is super super surreal, but for me, I don’t know it is like it doesn’t have enough calories in it. So I find with AI when I am doing the historical surrealism that sometimes it is hard for AI to understand, I am asking it to do several things at once, I’m asking to envision NY in the 1940s and all the stuff that comes with it and then on top of that, I am asking for it to envision something odd happening in a typical normal setting so that is a little of a twist sometimes for AI. Sometimes, it doesn’t understand it at all, and I have to keep rewording it like a magic spell until it understands what I want.

Andrea: Do you make your own software?

Phil: No no, I use Midjourney.

Andrea: Oh yeah, Beverly was telling me something about what happened with The Guardian and that they had an issue.

Phil: With copyright?

Andrea: Yeah. Yeah, that sounds like the issue.

Phil: Well look, AI has only really been around for a year and a half, as a real tool. Which is nothing in the context of business or anything. So yeah, there are all sorts of issues because Midjourney is fed imagery of other people; my own imagery has been fed into Midjourney. So a couple of people were upset about copyright, I understand why people are upset about things, I guess for me I think it is such an extraordinary tool that whatever twenty-three cents that I would get from a lawsuit- it's far more worth it. I think I should have this tool available for anyone to use to get upset that your images have been fed into it. I mean, I think, but I understand how people would get mad about it but I’m not personally angry about it. It’s such a powerful tool, it's worth it for the greater good.

Andrea: I know, that's one of the things that people would bring up to me when I’m touting it but what about this and who did this and I’m just like you know what it will shake out in the end.

Phil: No no you are right, it will eventually resolve itself, but I guess I’m just trying to make art that is interesting to me and hopefully to other people, so you know am I going to wait around for the supreme court to hand down a ruling? As you say it will work itself out and it will be what it will be, but meanwhile I’m just trying to make some stuff.

Andrea: Right, and I think you are doing an excellent job at it, but how do you think- have you approached galleries to exhibit the work?

Phil: No, I’m always disastrous with that kind of stuff. If you want to approach galleries with my stuff please feel free.

Andrea: (laughing) I’m not great at that either, that's why I have a magazine, but you know I’m just wondering how people will accept it, do you think there will have to be like, just like certain galleries, sorry websites, like when NFT’s were a thing - wait isn’t Midjourney an NFT?

Phil: No Midjourney is software, it's an AI generator.

Andrea: Well, something like that you know that man, Alejandro Cartagena, well he started a website with NFT artists and etcetera- did you go to Paris Photo this year?

Phil: I did not.

Andrea: Well he introduced somebody who was the person who developed AI, I think he was fifteen or sixteen at the time, from text to image and he is the one who developed it and he showed all of his work at Paris Photo, so um, anyway, all these websites or whatever popped up because of that and do you think the same thing will happen with AI given the challenges? Like NFTs had challenges that they had to face and they are not as popular as they once were because of them and I’m wondering do you think AI is going to have to come up with their own way of getting it out there and supporting it for the same reasons actually.

Phil: I mean like we said earlier, I just, I am just trying to do the work, the legal stuff however it is beyond my control it's going to work however it's going to work.

Andrea: Yeah, but you want to get your work seen by as many people as possible.

Phil: Sure.

Andrea: Okay that's the point that it also helps it all.

Phil: I mean I’m not sure what you are asking if you are asking if there are obstacles to people, certainly, some newspapers, when we have been promoting the book there are some people that object to AI on ethical grounds or they object to AI on legal grounds, of course, there are going to be those people, but I think when something new happens there are always people who object to that thing for whatever reason.

Andrea: Well I’m not one of them I guess I have loose morals, but no I am not one of those people. So what is next for you?

Phil: Ah, well so I did Another America and now I am working on Another England, which is invented history set in the 1980s.

Andrea: Wow, that should be interesting- fun!

Phil: I just find it incredible and interesting; it goes as far as I can go.

Andrea: Um, so let me ask you something, though would you sell individual prints from this work?

Phil: Sure.

Andrea: Oh okay, how would you compare the price of your AI prints to the price to a regular photographic print?

Phil: I think that whenever you buy any kind of art no matter what it is, whether it is a photographic print, sculpture, you are buying someones mind.

Andrea: That shows how conceptual you are.

Phil: I am deeply conceptual, I mean, should I charge less for an AI print? I mean, I don’t see why not its still my mind; it is still me who came up with this idea, it is still me that created this thing in conjuncture with AI, so whatever I would charge for prints I would charge for AI prints, it's the same thing, it's still my work.

Andrea: I think what is so great about this is it’s such an exploration, and you let yourself explore so many varied things, and subjects, I just loved it I think you did such a great job.

Phil: Thank you so much and don’t forget the writing

Andrea: Yeah, I didn’t see it.

Phil: Oh, you should.

Andrea: I have to read it; I haven't gotten it.

Phil: Yeah, the thing about it is after I made up all the images I teamed up with a friend of mine who is a writer for The New Yorker and he wrote these invented historical stories.

Andrea: Oh, you are kidding. I didn’t even know that.

Phil: Yeah yeah, it's amazing, John Kenney is his name, and he is an incredible writer, the stories and the writing in the book really complete the whole idea.

Andrea: Oh my god, okay the digital book is in the email, that’s what Beverly said, okay well now I know- that is just divine and really fabulous, I didn’t know that I only saw the images.

Phil: Oh yeah, look at the book, if you have a minute read the stories they are so good.

Andrea: Oh, I will read the stories, and I know they can’t be that long.

Phil: Oh yeah, they are short - brilliant, really brilliant.

Andrea: So you'll do the same thing with the one you are working on now? Another England?

Phil: Yeah, I think so, but I’m not sure yet.

Andrea: Now what can I look forward to soon? (laughing) No but really job well done you should be proud.

Phil: Thank you, Andrea, that means so much.

Andrea: In some ways, I'm jealous that I didn’t do it.

Phil: You know I think that is the best compliment. I don’t often see work that I really love, but when I do I’m immediately jealous that I didn’t think of it, in some weird narcissistic way that is the best compliment, like shit how did I not think of that.

Andrea: No no I really think that, and there was another thing that you did in the issue a long time ago, was it on plastic surgery?

Phil: Yeah, it was.

Andrea: And also the one that you did on your father.

Phil: Sure.

Andrea: I love that one too, that is my favorite thing that I have seen so far, I haven’t seen all your work but that one is my favorite. I’m going to read the book and the other stories.

Phil: Yes please let me know what you think, the stories are amazing they are really great.

Andrea: So when are you leaving for your residency?

Phil: Last week of June I think.

Andrea: Lovely. Really lovely; I have to say thank you so much, it was great talking to you again.

Phil: Lovely to see you after all these years.

Andrea: Thank you, take care, Goodbye!

Phil: Bye, thank you so much.