2025
Crouching (0.44), Covering torso(0.52), Sad(0.23), Nudity likelihood (0.61)
Sculpture‘ Crouching (0.44),
Covering torso(0.52), Sad(0.23), Nudity likelihood (0.61)’
[Pose estimation algorithm, Clay]
80 x 65 x 40 cm
2025
Video ‘False positive’)
[Aluminium, Ipad, Pose estimation algorithm, Camera]
29 x 11 x 5 cm
Full HD
2025
Ears ‘Test tiles’
[Clay, Copper Sulfate, Racomitrium microcarpon, Slime mould, ...]
17 x 17 x 9 cm
2025
Sound ‘How to read character in the face and to
determine the capacity for love, business, or crime’
[Book: Physiognomy by Leila Holt 1864,
Text-to-speech algorithm, Bone conduction speaker]
8:31 minutes
2025
For centuries, visual systems of control have made bodies legible, their proportions, poses and gestures. The classical canon once codified ideal proportion in sculpture; extracted features were judged in physiognomy manuals to read character and social worth. These systems amplify what is worthy of attention and suppress what should remain unseen. Such visual codes were long carried in art, reinforcing aesthetical hierarchies and shaping adaptive behavior. Today, this practice continues embedded within social media algorithms and by biometric surveillance technologies. Hidden within opaque systems of data and code, physical meaning shifts to probability scores and the body to numbers.
In response, I cede part of my artistic agency to these recognition technologies, treating them as collaborators in the studio. Malleable blobs of clay are shaped and reshaped by hand in dialogue with computer vision. Clay, in contrast to the fleeting digital gaze, is slow, physical, and unstable. This feedback loop between gesture and code continues until the algorithm detects something “worth attention” and attempts to decode it. At this moment of recognition, the shape of the body is finished, fossilized at the ephemeral threshold where the machine mistakes its own projections for a human body. A false positive. The attention of this gaze becomes visible in the accompanying video work: a machinic eye scanning, measuring, and labeling the body.
In ceramic practice, test tiles are used to study and judge glaze behavior. I replaced these tiles with ears, paired with a generated child’s voice reading aloud the character and worth from the shapes and textures of ears. The artist’s act of measuring, comparing and selection is turened into that of the physiognomist, turns the archive itself into objects of observation. The ear-tiles expose how systems of learning, whether artistic, scientific, or algorithmic, reproduce the same visual hierarchies and biases under different guises.
![]()
In response, I cede part of my artistic agency to these recognition technologies, treating them as collaborators in the studio. Malleable blobs of clay are shaped and reshaped by hand in dialogue with computer vision. Clay, in contrast to the fleeting digital gaze, is slow, physical, and unstable. This feedback loop between gesture and code continues until the algorithm detects something “worth attention” and attempts to decode it. At this moment of recognition, the shape of the body is finished, fossilized at the ephemeral threshold where the machine mistakes its own projections for a human body. A false positive. The attention of this gaze becomes visible in the accompanying video work: a machinic eye scanning, measuring, and labeling the body.
In ceramic practice, test tiles are used to study and judge glaze behavior. I replaced these tiles with ears, paired with a generated child’s voice reading aloud the character and worth from the shapes and textures of ears. The artist’s act of measuring, comparing and selection is turened into that of the physiognomist, turns the archive itself into objects of observation. The ear-tiles expose how systems of learning, whether artistic, scientific, or algorithmic, reproduce the same visual hierarchies and biases under different guises.
