DAY 1 — EMBODIED INTELLIGENCE, ARTIST CONTEXT & ABJECTION

PROTOCOL — DAY 1

DATE

24 February 2025

INTRODUCTION

The day began with an introduction circle, Marco’s physical warm-up, and conversation about his artistic practice, solo work, Fronte Vacuo, technology, the body, artificial intelligence, artistic independence, abjection, and sacred and violent imagery.

FRONTE VACUO / WORLD-BUILDING

Marco discussed work developed through Fronte Vacuo. Its artistic mythology combined speculative and “black” science fiction, feminism, queerness, nature, religion, the Vatican, animals, plants, technological systems and hybrid bodies. One work included a queer figure; a female human body with antlers; mushroom-like human bodies; choreography derived from growth and interweaving; bodies emerging from a box; projected movement in a second room; and an audience required to move through the environment to discover the full work. Audience movement determined what could be perceived.

PROVENANCE: ARTIST DISCOURSE

INTERDISCIPLINARY ARTISTIC PATH

Marco described a non-linear professional path involving visual art, sound, interactive media, electronic music, computing, performance, artistic research, technological construction and independent practice. He did not begin with formal performance training; his mixed background later became central to his methodology.

PROVENANCE: ARTIST DISCOURSE

EMBODIED INTELLIGENCE

Marco challenged the idea of intelligence as disembodied. He argued that intelligence depends on bodily perception, interaction, environment, sentience, relation and lived experience. He contrasted current representations of AI with animal intelligence, ecological systems, embodied knowledge and living organisms. Treat this as ARTIST DISCOURSE, not a final scientific definition.

AI AND DISEMBODIMENT

Marco questioned what ideas of body, intelligence and value are produced when AI is represented as disembodied and bodies are treated as unnecessary for intelligence.

PROSTHESIS / DISABILITY / DESIGN

Marco discussed technologies designed for disabled people without meaningful involvement from disabled communities. He emphasised lived experience, collaborative design, resisting imposed solutions, different bodily needs and questioning whether enhancement is always desirable.

PROVENANCE: ARTIST DISCOURSE

TENSION / LIMIT

MAKING ONE’S OWN TECHNOLOGY

Marco builds and programs many devices used in his performances. He described technical knowledge as a way to avoid conventional uses of commercial tools, develop a personal language, control conceptual direction and understand the systems involved. This is not a requirement that every artist engineer their own equipment.

APOCALYPTIC AESTHETICS / AMBIGUITY

Marco discussed a recurring apocalyptic or unsettling quality connected to instability, speculative worlds, transformation, ambiguity, discomfort and images that continue resonating. The aim was not simply shock but an unresolved sensory and conceptual effect.

BODY HORROR

Marco described audiences identifying aspects of his work as BODY HORROR. He initially resisted the label but later recognised it as a description of spectators’ reactions. This remains AUDIENCE RECEPTION / CONTEXTUAL DESCRIPTION, not the only definition of his practice.

ABJECTION

Marco connected abjection with repulsion, fascination, the sacred, bodily fluids, blood, sweat, saliva, purity, impurity, suffering and transgression. He referred to Julia Kristeva’s writing as an influence.

SACRED / VIOLENT IMAGE

Marco connected his Italian and Christian visual environment with suffering, sacrifice, redemption, bodily violence, ritual and purity, describing a contradiction between doctrines of peace and visual traditions centred on brutal suffering.

CATHARSIS / RITUAL / CONTROLLED RELEASE

The discussion included Carnival, ritual suffering, bodily piercing, Christian reenactment and Hermann Nitsch. Some historical and cultural statements were informal and partial.

PROVENANCE: ARTIST DISCOURSE — PARTIAL OR SECONDARY KNOWLEDGE

Do not present them as verified cultural history.

CONTEXT

“CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING IN ART.” A work cannot be understood only through isolated visual form; meaning is affected by historical period, cultural system, audience, institution, political environment and artistic lineage.

PROVENANCE: ARTIST DISCOURSE

SOURCE

Day 1 protocol:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-LdeSblrdfNpdDrssmJ7laQ8BoV6ScAKpG4dq7883b0/edit

Day 1 folder:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LxLDcT2znqAnXfY5QyejbPdH2DTTr3nk