How truthful are the truths we believe in? The truths we rely on today are scientific truths. And more than ever, we place humanity’s hope in those scientific achievements. Knowledge has now been broken down into components smaller than the levels of perception we can imagine, and it has become difficult to anticipate what kind of chain effects their discoveries and applications may bring.

As modern technology increasingly demands specialized knowledge, knowing everything organically and completely has become near impossible. As someone who once pursued scientific discovery, I began to wonder if the nature of scientific breakthroughs was in fact a repetitive act of hope and obligation built upon failures and past studies.

I felt that we were ignorant of the direction in which this repetition was leading us, and how it was transforming human life and organisms. This brought me a sense of fear. This exhibition places the veiled lives of researchers at the center. Scientists repeat empirical experiments to generate knowledge. But can merely observing something prove its truth? Is it possible to say that under the compulsion to constantly show, some parts of the truth may remain hidden?

Hope For the Rats / Researcher P’s Record of Failure

Researcher P repeatedly conducts experiments on rats, injecting a diabetes factor to confirm reactions in order to validate a hypothesis. However, being unable to prove that the cause of the diabetes factor originated from the experiment itself, a full year of experimentation is rendered futile. Now, P begins observing the results at the cellular level. From 6 AM to midnight each day, P extracts cells, applies electric pulses with a needle, and manually reads the noise in graphs. The researcher continues in hope that this experiment can finally be proven.

To develop diabetes model rats for immune research, live rats are dosed with substances until they become diabetic, and only those that can be crossbred with other rats to produce diabetic offspring are of value. Moreover, using diabetic rats in actual research is also difficult. It must be verified that the diabetes was induced purely by one factor (which is why this research failed). The rat only moves forward and cannot return once it proceeds. Over time, the rat slows and gains weight due to the effect of the diabetes factor. Through this repetition, the audience gradually realizes that they cannot act in the desired direction—and if that direction lacks legitimate research results, it becomes meaningless. The experiment ends and moves to the next stage when the sick rat becomes completely immobile due to diabetes.

Unexpected Scenery is a game-based media work that highlights issues hidden behind AI’s achievements, including miscomprehension, the accidental evolution of history, and the side effects of new conveniences. The artist questions the environmental conditions and implications of technology, adopting the narrative of arcade games to offer multifaceted perspectives. The game is structured in three stages themed around: (1) the physical spaces where AI is implemented, (2) the resources required for spatial system implementation, and (3) accidental research breakthroughs.

Blind Landing

Humans today optimize their abilities through fast data processing systems, cloud technologies, and media platforms, perceiving all these tools as being under their control. At times, they even trust the use of technology more than their own decisions. Blind Landing is an installation inspired by the novel Night Flight, in which the protagonist Fabien is a pilot trained to rely on instruments over his senses during flight. While the novel shows a dehumanized protagonist who depends on machines during night flights, this installation offers viewers an experience of machine-led dehumanization that renders them passive through the quantification of perception. The artist continually exposes how individuals lose themselves by relying on the predictability and convenience of modern technologies.

Audiences are shown artworks “viewed” by an artificial viewer, and the perceptual outcome is presented through videos. On screen, works exhibited by other artists in the same space are shown as videos—not as archival footage, but as scenes interfered with by AI vision. Tags appearing and disappearing in the video indicate object attributes classified by AI. Following this, on-screen texts represent the cognitive process modeled after the ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational) system, mimicking brain structure in viewing art.

BirthMark defines three basic cognitive stages of art appreciation: Initial Viewing (Camouflage), Artist’s Intention (Solution), and Insight. Rachel, an AI voice trained to mimic human pronunciation, recites the entire process: “Move your gaze to the left,” “Recognized the image on screen,” “Stored it in memory,” etc. Initial data and results are displayed on a small screen of an old slide projector. Each time the projector blinks like an eye, a different artwork enters the AI’s field of view. The meanings derived by the AI cognition model developed in a specific era are also presented with the old slide projector. Among 300 words, the AI extracts only 2 to 5 keywords. The more abstract the artwork, the lower the AI's understanding of the BirthMark.

Virtual Environment Regulator is a work aimed at offering technical convenience in viewing 360-degree perspectives by recalibrating such environments to fit the perspective of individuals accustomed to linear perspective. Though people use VR devices capable of viewing all directions, they tend to focus only on what’s directly in front of them. Viewers of Virtual Environment Regulator end up in uncomfortable physical positions, struggling to view a fixed frame on a VR screen. Through this discomfort, they become aware of bodily-mediated sensory perception and experience the limitations of advanced technology.


 
Scientist’s Dice Game

This game is based on stories from researchers in fields like robotics, biotechnology, and neural engineering. It addresses the contradictions behind cutting-edge science and technology. The game poses questions about the legitimacy of continuing certain research activities by showing how even the most advanced scientific methodologies can (1) be ineffective or (2) lead to destructive outcomes. Using everyday experimental tools as symbolic elements, these contradictions are turned into game mechanics. The game takes the form of a bingo board that matches archival images with descriptions based on the real experiences of six scientists. Participants mark circles for the facts they know and can take the bingo sheet with them.

References

• 《내가 무엇을 모르는지 알자》 (Let’s Know What I Don’t Know)