The British people have used their democratic right to re-elect the Conservatives into Government in the UK.

In forming a new government, Theresa May has kept her job as Home Secretary. Within less that 24 hours of the election, she announced that she will be pushing ahead with the Communications data bill, or Snooper’s Charter.

The bill effectively legalises the monitoring of *all* communications within the UK.

The pursuit of state level surveillance is more than a disturbing abuse of technology, it represents a fundamental ideological shift previously pursued only in the strictest of dictatorships.

Stasi records found after the fall of communism (Leipzig)

This twitterbot never tweets.

@theresamaybot simply adds you to a series of Twitter lists.


She never talks to you, she never tweets publicly, nor gives any rationale for her decision.

How does it feel to be placed on a list?

She chooses her targets based on keywords she finds in your public tweets. Imagine if she could read your email too…

If you want to be a target, simply follow @theresamaybot or mention her in a tweet.

This is, of course, a parody of the complex data-driven surveillance programmes operated by GCHQ and others, but this process of algorithmic classification is behind all State level surveillance systems.


If Theresa May manages to pass her bill, every British citizen becomes a legal target for investigation and classification.

If this bothers you, I suggest you make your voice heard.

100 algo-Kims & 100 algo-Kanyes

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West occupy a unique place in popular culture. In America, at least, it appears they fulfil the role of Royalty.

Kanye West’s career is built on an unassailable sense of self-belief. Kim Kardashian’s on the ability to create a brand out of her very existence.

They are the American Dream incarnate.

Whilst their rarified position in society grants them significant wealth and influence, it comes at the cost of constant exposure. They must live their lives in public, presenting themselves to be photographed and commented upon, generating new pieces of ephemeral culture to fuel their status.

Without new images and soundbites, they cease to be relevant (and effectively cease to exist). Their faces have been examined by millions, from every angle. The appetite for new images of the lives of these particular human beings is voracious.

This work comprises 100 algorithmically generated digital paintings of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.

Kim 019

These images were made using a generative system of my design, seeded with the names ‘Kim Kardashian’ and ‘Kanye West’. The source images are chosen from Google Images, they are then cropped using a face detection algorithm. The resulting images are then used as sources for a generative painting algorithm which makes marks based on the images, and blends and distorts them into something new.

Kanye 033

In this work their faces may be fragmented, but their underlying identities remain immutable, for as long as we (and the internet) choose to observe them.

Explore all 100 Kims

Explore all 100 Kanyes

New Activity in your Timeline (2015)

Approximately 4 million years ago, our ancestors adopted Bipedalism, freeing up their hands for more dexterous activities.

However, in recent years, our sophisticated tool making skills have resulted in the creation of the smart phone. A scrying mirror so compelling, that we willingly give up the use of one of our hands, disengage from the present moment, and hunch over our devices, literally deforming us.

acrylic on canvas, 405mm x 510mm

You can buy the original, and prints at Saatchi Online

A tiny act of self cyborg-ification

Like pretty much everyone in the developed world, I like to find things on the internet. The act of discovery is thrilling, and we like to think, informative (though one must wonder how to quantify the intellectual value of another cat video). For the artist, the web offers an inconceivably large corpus of inspiration, visual or otherwise.

When I find an image which appeals to me, I frequently copy it onto my local computer, building a scrapbook of inspiration (or provocation). Some people like to use services like Pinterest to collate these things, but I am old school, and prefer to keep my data on spinning hard-disk platters under my control. As a result, I have collected hundreds of images over the years, mainly sitting in a single unordered directory.

These images lie dormant, just 1s and 0s amongst millions of others. Every now and then I flick through them, looking for a spark. Often I can no longer remember when or why (of from where) I copied them.

I decided to present them back to myself, in an algorithmic manner, to see what they might inspire in a new context. Every day, at 8:31am, a picture is selected at random and posted onto my Twitter timeline. I have no interaction with this process, the images just appear, as if from me, at the same time each day.

A tiny act of self cyborg-ification.

At some point in the past, I selected these images. Each one represents an aesthetic choice made by a historical version of myself. And now they are being presented back to me, algorithmically, for fresh appraisal.

Kind of like a visual version of Oblique Strategies.


Erasing History

As I upgrade my hardware, I dutifully copy these images from one place to another. During this transfer, the files themselves are re-created on a new disk, entirely new digital records which perfectly replicate their parent. The idea of the ‘original’ image ceases to make sense – you can’t point to a specific copy of the data and claim it is any more authentic than any other.

However, in theory, each image has the potential to retain it’s provenance and history. Many cameras record EXIF data, which can be used to store technical details (the camera model and settings), information about the creator (artist name, copyright) and the circumstances of creation (time taken, GPS coordinates). These data are ideally created when the image is taken, and then augmented as the image makes it’s way out into the world.

I wondered what history had been recorded in my directory of collected images and whether this could be brought to the surface. Generally this data refers to the act of creation, but in theory, the act of sharing the photo could also be recorded inside the image. I could leave my mark, and perhaps watch it move around the network, like some sort of ‘message in a bottle’.

This was an exciting proposition, until I actually ran few tests. It transpires that EXIF data can be stripped, and Twitter is one of the worst offenders.

Consider these two seemingly identical images of Alan Moore:

First, the ‘original’ which I copied from the web.


It contains all sorts of information:

ExifTool Version Number         : 9.90
File Name                       : alan-viking.jpg
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
JFIF Version                    : 1.01
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Description               : SAMSUNG
Make                            : SAMSUNG
Camera Model Name               : GT-I9000
Orientation                     : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Software                        : fw 49.01 prm 49.103
Modify Date                     : 2015:01:21 15:50:35
Y Cb Cr Positioning             : Centered
Exposure Time                   : 1/26
F Number                        : 2.6
Exposure Program                : Program AE
ISO                             : 100
Exif Version                    : 0220
Date/Time Original              : 2015:01:21 15:50:35
Create Date                     : 2015:01:21 15:50:35
Components Configuration        : Y, Cb, Cr, -
Shutter Speed Value             : 1/26
Aperture Value                  : 2.6
Brightness Value                : 1.54
Exposure Compensation           : 0
Max Aperture Value              : 2.6
Metering Mode                   : Center-weighted average
Light Source                    : Unknown
Flash                           : Off, Did not fire
Focal Length                    : 3.5 mm
Warning                         : [minor] Unrecognized MakerNotes
Flashpix Version                : 0100
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 640
Exif Image Height               : 480
Interoperability Index          : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version        : 0100
Sensing Method                  : One-chip color area
File Source                     : Digital Camera
Scene Type                      : Directly photographed
Custom Rendered                 : Normal
Exposure Mode                   : Auto
White Balance                   : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio              : undef
Focal Length In 35mm Format     : 0 mm
Scene Capture Type              : Standard
Contrast                        : Normal
Saturation                      : Normal
Sharpness                       : Normal
GPS Version ID                  :
GPS Latitude Ref                : North
GPS Longitude Ref               : East
GPS Altitude Ref                : Above Sea Level
Compression                     : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset                : 1316
Thumbnail Length                : 9350
Image Width                     : 480
Image Height                    : 640
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Aperture                        : 2.6
GPS Altitude                    : 0 m Above Sea Level
GPS Latitude                    : 0 deg 0' 0.00" N
GPS Longitude                   : 0 deg 0' 0.00" E
GPS Position                    : 0 deg 0' 0.00" N, 0 deg 0' 0.00" E
Image Size                      : 480x640
Megapixels                      : 0.307
Shutter Speed                   : 1/26
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 9350 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Focal Length                    : 3.5 mm
Light Value                     : 7.5

Now compare it to this photo, which has been passed through Twitter:


ExifTool Version Number         : 9.90
File Name                       : CDHLzOyW8AEGvpx.jpg
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
JFIF Version                    : 1.01
Resolution Unit                 : None
X Resolution                    : 1
Y Resolution                    : 1
Image Width                     : 480
Image Height                    : 640
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
Image Size                      : 480x640
Megapixels                      : 0.307

The image you see on Twitter no longer contains a single trace of information related to it’s creation. The image has been reborn as an anonymous, amnesiac clone of the original.

The act of ‘sharing’ has stripped it of it’s identity.

Sure, there are services like TinEye which offer to find the history of online images. However, they are not perfect, particularly for images on low traffic sites.


Here Tineye has identified the first citation of this image as coming from a social media aggregation site. Whereas I actually lifted it from here.

In an attempt to thwart this algo-revisionism, I am publishing some of the EXIF data in the text of the tweet. There’s not room for much, but where possible I publish details of when it was created, and by whom along with a record of the software used to manipulate it.

Unfortunately, many of the images have already been through an anonymisation process before I came across them. There is no record of their origin, and their future is stored in proprietary systems, beyond scrutiny.

Whilst we worry about networked systems recording ever more data about us, perhaps we should also consider the data which is being selectively ignored, and why.