Art in the AI Bubble: Guns, Fences, and the Farm Crisis

Hello everyone and welcome back to another history lecture.

I've noticed I've fallen into this pattern of apologizing at the beginning of every single video for the very unpredictable and random spurts of timelines on which my videos are

uploaded. But again, I am very sorry.

uploaded. But again, I am very sorry.

This past semester has been incredibly busy for me as a student who is also working. And I think what's also been

working. And I think what's also been taking a lot more of my time is I actually was just having this conversation with my roommate. The way I usually find inspiration or I want to

feel moved by things is by reading and reading as much as I can. And I think she is someone who is very much involved in experience and the richness of being

able to learn and adapt to experience and thus educating yourself through it.

And that's something I feel like I've always really lacked the initiative to do because I always think as long as I have my books, I can learn. Um, I can read and I can expose myself to the

world just through reading these books.

But I think at this point in my life as a young adult, I have really noticed the incredible importance of balancing the two. Yes, I think informing yourself

two. Yes, I think informing yourself through theory and literature and other people's thinking is very critical, but so is experience. So, I think in the past month, I have been putting myself

through the idea of experience more instead of just holding up in my room and reading books and thinking I'm exposing myself to the world in this way. It's no longer just me like just

way. It's no longer just me like just bringing up some random artist that I think is interesting or just regurgitating this book that I read. I

definitely feel now more of this necessity and this urge to discuss it in relation to critical and current events

because I think for me art what art means is it's something that produces katharsis and you know katharsis being subjective to whoever is feeling this

moment but now when I read about art and I'm consuming media or literature theory about it I feel like genuine catharsis I feel the art as if it is in the now. And

I think as I regard that shift when I'm researching and I'm kind of formulating these videos, I really have to kind of meet this new level of intention

requirement of care of what I'm thinking about. And I have to be very conscious

about. And I have to be very conscious and intentful not only in my research, but I think also how I I myself am digesting the news and media around me.

And this first book I'm bringing up actually I read before this but inspired me to kind of reread through a recent conversation I had with these two

artists Lisa Wyn and we and they were actually having this exhibition in San Francisco. So I got the opportunity to

Francisco. So I got the opportunity to talk to them and I think we mainly spoke about what is so unique about their practice in the sense that they collaborate so closely together as a

partnership and this idea of holding shared agency within your work I think was really interesting to me but I'm going to put it up should definitely go check out their work if you're interested but essentially this book by

Sydney Sutterheim artist audience accomplice I think I've mentioned another one of her books before in a previous video I think it was wages against artwork and she talks about this

idea of being the accomplice or the assistant in a very interesting desentered way. Um, kind of looking at

desentered way. Um, kind of looking at it opposed to this traditional binary of just seeing whether you're the artist or the audience, but that there is like

this weird external third of being an assistant or accomplice. That's kind of like the overarching thesis of the book.

But I am going to be talking about one very specific chapter the first one and it is regarding Chris Burden's work. I

think what I find interesting in the base of such work in the base of performance work in the sense that it elicits this reaction this larger idea

that you can use your own physicality as the work's principal medium and I think the power what the power of performance are is that it ability to refuse a

structure um to discuss its own representation and it really can't be boxed into like a regurgitation of critical theory um that you can box into

phrases or like lingua frana of academia. It is the people who are

academia. It is the people who are participating in it as the central artistic medium and material. But before

I start, of course, I do have to show everyone what tea I am drinking. So, I

am drinking a cardamom black tea today.

But something very Korean I've been doing recently is putting walnuts and these like dried pammens in my tea because my mom does it and it just makes

it taste it makes it taste thicker and I really like it. And something else I've been really enjoying adding in my teas is this loose leaf crysanthemum from the

chi and they have really really amazing and great herbal teas and blends that I really recommend.

I wanted to start with this quote from Burden. I think a lot of my performance

Burden. I think a lot of my performance works were an attempt to control fate or creating the illusion that you can control faith. In the 70s, he is most

control faith. In the 70s, he is most prophilic for his performances and very such strong explicit use of his self and

his own physical body to risk pain and use like these very this very engineering drive to use objects to question power and violence and his

institutions. And when implicating

institutions. And when implicating himself, he uses his body and his physicality in a very explicit and incredibly violent way. Some

introductory examples of this include 5day locker piece where he literally locked himself in this tiny school locker for 5 days without food or movement. And I think his work is

movement. And I think his work is definitely functioning on this like microcale reenactment of like larger societal

logic of obedience exposure and self-inflicted punishment. in his work.

self-inflicted punishment. in his work.

I think one of the strongest points I want to touch on is that the audience is never merely a spectator and you know in these as you're watching these you

become a witness and in certain cases as Stutterheim talks about an accomplice because his actions and his performances don't end just with his physical

gestures. They like unfold in this

gestures. They like unfold in this constant ethical ambiguity of provoking what are you as the person viewing this willing to tolerate and how far can you

go as a person seeing this just by watching and doing nothing. In his most seinal piece, arguably in shoot in 1971,

Burden is shot at at close range by a friend using a caliber rifle. And it's

shot in this bare white room in Santa Ana, California. And there's actually a

Ana, California. And there's actually a film shooting of this that I'm going to display, but there is just the friend that has agreed to shoot at Burden.

Burden and a handful of people who've agreed to watch this. And Burden is standing still at about 15 ft away from the gun, kind of facing sideways. And

the original plan was that the bullet was just going to skim his left arm, kind of like this controlled injury. But

in the film, as you see, when the trigger is pulled, the bullet doesn't just graze him. It actually passes through his arm. His friend actually shoots him. I think it's really

shoots him. I think it's really interesting that he initiated this idea of the performance of shoot out of like this innate curiosity for what it means

to be shot at and a desire to experience the event rather than simply portray it.

And it's definitely like I think he creates this or makes point of this distinction between reality and fiction of what is acceptable in theory versus

what is acceptable in the real world.

And again going back to this as the audience like merely as a spectator if you are watching this you are automatically implicated in this kind of consequential harmful warriorism against

your own voluntary doing just by watching this and letting it happen.

Another really interesting book I read is this one I read by Pavlinsky, Subject Object Theory. And he's also a Russian

Object Theory. And he's also a Russian performance artist and very prophilic for his incredibly incredibly explicit violent implication of himself in his

performance work. He insists that it

performance work. He insists that it isn't just when these works are happening, it's not just symbolism or just like a mere form of protest. It's

actually this idea of a turnaround where the politics in itself become the medium and you as the audience when you enter as subjects before you go in to see this

you exit as the object because just merely absorbing by being an observing participant of the spectacle. Your

reaction is kind of your reactions are what proves the systems absurdity. Now,

I'm kind of going to pivot into something a topic that's a little bit more pressing today. This idea of speculative bubbles. And I mean,

speculative bubbles. And I mean, obviously, maybe I've just been kind of blindly influenced and following the mental trajectory parallel of what I've been reading in the news and what is so

pressing right now. But I really think what was so striking to me when I was reading Burden and Pavlansk's work was this idea that it was so dependent on the psychological reaction of the other

like of the audience. And for very brief context, if you don't know what this is, a speculative bubble, this term first coined by Minsky, is basically when

asset prices rocket way past something of its real worth because it's kind of fueled by this cultural hype and expectation of neverending continuing

financial gain until the first stages of low profit return or over supply of this subject emerge and the bubble pops, which causes people to mass panic and

herd mentality like draw out their investment all at once and then cause eventually cause the market to crash.

And this is obviously something that kind of devastates it because you know up until this point the entire market and economy and its well-being was kind of functioning around this singular

principle of this like glorified object that everyone was so excited about like this new flashy technological beacon of optimism. And as of right now, as you

optimism. And as of right now, as you can definitely see, AI is the center of this bubble. And as of December 2025,

this bubble. And as of December 2025, Nvidia has hit literally 5 trillion.

Alphabet stands at 3.8 trillion after doubling. And they've literally like all

doubling. And they've literally like all these companies have poured trillions of dollars in financing these data centers despite the fact that open AI and

enthropic revenues still remain honestly very negl I think negligible to their valuations. But yeah like right now just

valuations. But yeah like right now just speak broadly there's so much that you can say about this right now. A quote

Chris Burden said about his work once was quote, "When I use pain or fear in a work, it seems to energize the situation." And I think right now at

situation." And I think right now at this point, as this bubble has expanded so far, people are starting to get a little bit concerned about this being a bubble. These introductory fears of it

bubble. These introductory fears of it being potentially of it being incredibly volatile is kind of creating this also strange simultaneous phenomenon of where

people are turning in turning to gold and crypto as like these safe hedges.

The price of gold literally rocketed 50% this year to a literally a record amount of $4,000 priced at $4,000 an ounce at

one point. It seems like these investors

one point. It seems like these investors are kind of beginning to flee AI for a little bit more of like safer options and assets amid these fears that the AI

bubble might pop and they might lose everything as has happened historically.

But you know this I don't know as I'm reading venues and what I'm reading in literature just kind of always like combines at these weird inner points.

But this also reminded me another piece of burdens that he did where essentially in 1981 he got this budget from S Pumpu

in Paris and the icon gallery in Birmingham, England. But what he did his

Birmingham, England. But what he did his performance was basically consisting of him melting and molding this ounce of gold into this very small like Napoleon

figurine. It definitely could have

figurine. It definitely could have passed as like a very like tacky like cheap souvenir that you could have bought anywhere. And with the diamond in

bought anywhere. And with the diamond in England, what he did is he actually just put the real diamond in his pocket and held a fake similar looking one. And

what he's doing with the figurine and the diamond is it's he's like asking just with the virtue of his own implication of presentation.

Does it create more value of what the actual subject that the people viewing like can see and understand? Like does

something become more valuable just by the virtue of you being told that it is more valuable? It's probably a question

more valuable? It's probably a question we should be thinking about right now.

And Burden's work, I think, is really questioning how far can you push a culture treats like violence and like such a violent tumultuous nature of

things into everyday imagery and you know turn that back around into the form of a real life spectacle. and what it means for you to be in that room full of

people with these other people in the spectacle and you know take the risk of watching the spectacle. thought it was relevant to bring up. But I did finish

reading this um speculative communities by Aana Sue and he says a lot of things in this book, but I think the main thing I want to focus on is his point in focus

about seeing speculation as like this historical trajectory and how it's evolved from historically like elite gambling to become like this core social

force in binding modern society. He

talks about this pattern of you know having uncertainty during these historical periods of instability actually creates this idea of this

collective fantasy by sharing like wagers or like making bets on the future. And I think it's really

future. And I think it's really interesting because he notes on this idea that speculative bubbles aren't just like this reflection of human air,

but actually it is like a direct reaction and representation of how neoliberal tendency to have like this very rational like linear form of

politics actually gives more room and like triggers left and right movements to thrive on like this chaos insurance

like via like and optimisms of extreme nationalism as we see or like these promises of like utopia through radical

like anarchist disruption. And from the city in the 1870s is actually when the first like bucket shops emerged and created this idea of speculating on

future land and rent prices and and he talks about how in this context when the civil war came it brought like such great uncertainty and fear about the markets. People started gambling and

markets. People started gambling and betting on prices of basic necessities like even crop prices and food and hence

made agricultural prices. so insecure

and stable that farmers and people who worked in agriculture kind of face the brute end of this horrible like consequence of speculating on

everything. But on this trajectory of

everything. But on this trajectory of land and how speculation and like the financialization of the market has kind of posited historically against farmers

and agricultural workers. I wanted to talk about this very specific chapter in one of my favorite books. Joan Keyy's

Models of Integrity: Art and Law in post60s America. And I think I've

post60s America. And I think I've mentioned this book before in a previous video. I forget which one. And I don't

video. I forget which one. And I don't have the physical copy to show you because it's actually on loan to a dear friend of mine. But I did really want to bring up this specific art installation

piece that she talks about in this chapter um about this idea of how the legalities of literal territory do influence artwork. And that is Christo

influence artwork. And that is Christo and Jean Claude's running fence, which was a piece that lasted from 1972 to 1976. So Christo and Jean Claude met in

1976. So Christo and Jean Claude met in 1958 in Paris and the rest of their lives were essentially spent collaborating together as this singular

artistic like entity. And they're really known and prophilic for creating like these I'm sure you've seen them these monumental or environmental installations that enveloped buildings,

bridges, and landscapes in like these vast like fabric wrappings like just wrapping the entire thing. But they

really what they emphasize is this idea of process and confronting like property rights and public space and what it means to be an artist who enters and

works within public space. So the

specific piece I'm talking about running fence was actually a 24 and a half mile white nylon fence that stretch across Soma and Marin Ranchlands in Northern

California. And in the summer of 1973,

California. And in the summer of 1973, the artist actually decided on this specific route in Northern California because part of the reason is Christo said was that he had like this

long-standing fascination with the idea of the west and specifically California in which he kind of described it as quote the most American state in their

way of living. And I think he meant this in the aspect of land of like to be American, you know, like the principal foundations of it historically as you

read in history is all about land. It's

about owning land. And it's interesting because, you know, negotiating this passage and setting this piece of work up meant that they had to go through so

many numerous private properties in public spaces that demanded so much negotiation, especially being the fact that most of these land owners were farmers. There were a lot of fears and

farmers. There were a lot of fears and speculation around these farmers who thought that this piece running fence was kind of just this random elaborate

like profitm scheme that they thought it was like a scheme to like raise land value for like corporate developers to come later on and take it from them. But

what their initial reluctance to this, what made it actually give away to enthusiasm and like agreeing with this is the fact that the couple kind of

changed their negotiation strategy by beginning to speak and advertise like the project's materials because what it would take to make this huge vast

spanning running fence would be 2,50 army surplus steel poles, 240,000 square yards of nylon fabric, 90 miles of table

350,000 hooks that would be returned and given to the farmers after the deinstallation of the piece. So after

like this being mentioned to the farmers, they kind of like began to like relent because they kind of envisioned repurposing these fences for their own

like operations as farmers and kind of this like mass connection of like understanding that yes, this actually might benefit me in the future. like

there is a postvaluation to this like this understanding amongst the farmers together to relent and accept this piece legally and vouch for it in like legal

conferences is what Athonosu you know would consider and a speculative imagined community. I thought it was

imagined community. I thought it was also really interesting to bring up that their actual close friend and art critic theorist friend Alfred Frankenstein

actually looked down a lot upon Jean and Claude's methods not because it was illegal but because to Alfred it totally betrayed like what it means to have

conceptual integrity of your work as an artist. And he saw it as reifying this

artist. And he saw it as reifying this like very I guess like individual capitalist view of property like kind of subsuming to it by negotiating with

these farmers and by kind of like needing to add this aspect of like financialization into it by providing them with some form or sense of like

financial post valuation that would keep them in adherence to this and vouch for it. But the key takeaway is that as you

it. But the key takeaway is that as you know the work gained support from local audiences and the local appeal kind of started to slowly draw in to form this

mass. This initial support from the

mass. This initial support from the local is what caused governments and courts to take this work much more seriously as kind of what Joan Key defines as the socially necessary

experience. Key really interestingly

experience. Key really interestingly argues that the populist appeal is what eventually morphed into what is called she calls the experienced events where

the initiative is legitimized not by what it looks like its popularity or even like the economic benefit but rather this idea of it being like this

historically singular event. actually

understanding that this is a conceptual art piece and it's just like it's so singular and unique in it and that it must be experienced and Aonasu actually

says interestingly historically American farmers like the social class of farmers have been so targeted and vulnerable and susceptible to feeding into like early

American populist beliefs and this form of like paranoid politics because usually you know in these rural backgrounds. They had a very foggy and

backgrounds. They had a very foggy and partial understanding of how the political or like the financialized market actually worked. So they were just living with this fear of being demolished and having their entire

identity and stability created by crops and agriculture and their entire industry demolished by a higher institutional power which obviously kind of makes you vulnerable to the

irrational and you know retreat into this confusion um and willing to do anything to ensure that you yourself and your land is safe. And you know, again,

what Jean and Claude said about why they chose California for this project is because it was so American to them in the sense that there was so much land.

What it means to be American, there's there is this common thread of this nationalist American drive to see open land and stake for it. And a lot of this

historically really clearly seems to have this pattern of this taking upheaval and taking advantage of farmers and ranchers in the process of it. And I

think a very critical topic right now that is really important is the fact that it is really difficult for American farmers right now. despite the majority

of his agenda literally being built upon claiming to serve and support especially the bluecollar working class, especially farmers. It seems everything Trump has

farmers. It seems everything Trump has done up until now has been absolutely totally antithetical to serving them at all. For instance, Chapter 12 farm

all. For instance, Chapter 12 farm bankruptcies have literally surged 20% in the first half of 2025 compared to all of 2024. And this is, you know, very

evidently drawn in by the tariffs like spiking the cost of fertilizer and making the input cost of production for farmers so expensive that they're barely

making anything in return. And Trump

kind of put in this solution to address this um the family farmer relief act.

And basically what it did is it raised the debt cap for farmers to qualify for chapter 12 bankruptcy. And what chapter 12 bankruptcy initi like what it means

is that it's a very special US law created in 1986 just for family farmers and fishermen. when you declare chapter

and fishermen. when you declare chapter 12, it's not liquidating like you don't have to like sell everything, but rather it's kind of just more so it gives a chance for the farm to reorganize if

it's struggling. And it essentially

it's struggling. And it essentially proposes a 3 to 5year plan to repay part of the debts while still being able to keep your land and your equipment and

your business running as a farmer. also

to note a a really important and great channel speaking on this topic right now that I can't recommend more than enough is Farm to Taber. Her name is Sarah Taber and she's someone who speaks on

very incredibly personal anecdotes and well-versed knowledge on this and how current policy and culture is impacting small rural American agriculture in real

time. So he raised the eligibility from

time. So he raised the eligibility from needing to be $4.1 million in debt to over $11 million in debt, which seems, you know, in prospect like, you know,

kind of good because it's like, oh, more farmers are in debt. So let's make it so that if you are in more debt, they can get more help. Like it's easier for them

to get more help. But actually Sarah in her videos clarifies that these family farms that are benefiting from this increase in debt cap are actually mostly

the large agricultural corporate companies and very disgustingly asset rich. While in reality the true small

rich. While in reality the true small farmers actually they totally lack the actual borrowing power and resources to even be in that much debt in the first

place. like a small farm. There is no

place. like a small farm. There is no reality in which a small farm will ever be $11 million in debt. It lets these huge large agricultural corporations and

holdings stay in business despite being in debt and kind of furthering their hold and their grip and their advantages against smaller farmers um positing the

small farms to go even deeper and suffer more during this crisis. All this

craziness combined with this new wave of the relentlessness of tech companies to seek like open land, you know, this usually being farmland to colonize for

their data centers that they so need to constantly be building. I mean, there's is it's already crazy that there's already this thing called Virginia's data center alley, which already has 199

facilities and represents 25% of like the global data center capacity. And

it's really even more disheartening to see that they are very clearly exploiting the lack of education that is served in these rural communities and towns because they're kind of like

taking advantage of the fact that these people, they have like a little bit more of a lacking understanding of what having a data center in their town truly implies, like the environmental and

social and economic consequences of this. and are often really undersold on

this. and are often really undersold on this by these tech companies promising like if you let us put this shiny new data center in the middle of your farmland, guess what? There will be a

lot more jobs for you. Um, it's going to help your economy. This data center is really going to help you guys. But what

happens is instead is that the data center just [ __ ] drains all your groundwater and pollutes your agricultural land and also doesn't even give you that many jobs. Like the whole

fact of the day under is that it's like pretty like self operating except for the fact that it just needs like a crew of maintenance. Like that's not that's

of maintenance. Like that's not that's not offering anyone anything or any form of economic prosperity. So after after all this after all these see another

hard thing about these videos that's like making a lot more difficult for me to make is they're getting more and more sporadically far apart in terms of subject matter. So, but they connect in

subject matter. So, but they connect in my head. It all goes back to something

my head. It all goes back to something very simple but large and in itself I think it's huge how I think we need to change how we understand the self and

the other because what I think what makes you really think when you watch like you know whether it be like this very explicit reactionary performance

art piece or this new story about speculation and how the AI bubble is going to [ __ ] impact everyone and everything once it pops. It is very

strongly felt that you are not just a neutral observer. There is no choice in

neutral observer. There is no choice in your own lifestyle and the way that you conduct it that will not be implicated without larger consequence in the scheme of things. And obviously it's really

of things. And obviously it's really difficult not to think about the implications and like larger external consequences of like very small actions

that serve you so well in the temporary now. Like I don't know. I'm thinking

now. Like I don't know. I'm thinking

about like AI usage and this is obviously something some people talk about all the time. Like I'm not saying anything new here, but I think when we're living this age, especially as

young people, like the adrenaline of the satisfaction of everything being convenient, the satisfaction of convenience is so addicting by the

devices and the algorithms and the methods that allow us to supply this level of convenience without really thinking about the implication of it.

And I don't mean to say this to like pause it or elicit some like pointed finger of guilted shame at you, but I just I think it's really important to bring up and think and talk about in

this age of convenience what it means to embrace and accept responsibility that inevitably burdens you with more time.

But to finish off, I think, you know, I hope we are more understanding and more aware of ourselves. Like I say at the end of every video, thank you so much for watching. I hope you learned

for watching. I hope you learned something from this. I hope you took something away from it. I hope you were able to make coherence of the very like

vastly spread apart subjects that I wanted to bring together and it made sense to you somehow and you made it to the end of this video. So, thank you for

watching and as this break comes up for me, I hope to be reading a lot more and I hope to see you in my next art history lecture.