top of page

Synthetic Realities: A Review
(2024)

It can be difficult to find the time, finances, and geographical positioning to present a compelling exhibition as a regionally based emerging artist/academic/dad. So why not work with Generative A.I. to help create a show of artworks that I would have liked to have made this year, and a critic to come and review it? What's the worst that could happen...

What follows is a brief review of the exhibition I never got around to in 2024.

Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities, 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

Exhibition Review: Synthetic Realities or Uninspired Simulacra?

“Synthetic Realities” a collection of new works presented by Australian artist Thomas Folber, is a frustrating exhibition that grapples with the intersection of artificial intelligence, authorship, and the virtual gallery. However, despite its ambitious premise, the exhibition ultimately reveals the limitations of its conceptual framework and exposes Folber’s reliance on technological gimmicks to bypass the deeply human aspects of art-making. In doing so, Folber presents an art world that is stripped of meaning, authenticity, and emotion, leaving behind a cold, mechanical simulation of what could have been an intriguing conversation about technology’s place in art.

Folber, Synthetic Realities, 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

The Absence of the Artist: A Convenient Escape

At the heart of Synthetic Realities is the artist’s conspicuous absence. Folber’s role here is reduced to that of a mere orchestrator, setting parameters for the A.I. to generate its own creations. This self-imposed absence is framed as a radical departure from traditional authorship, but in reality, it’s a convenient escape from the messy, unpredictable nature of artistic labor. Folber’s absence is not a celebration of A.I.’s autonomy but a lazy abdication of responsibility. Art is about the struggle, the decision-making, the engagement with materials—yet Folber avoids this. Rather than pushing the boundaries of what A.I. can do, Folber opts for the more comfortable path of allowing the machine to fill the void. The result is a series of works that feel hollow, lacking the passion or insight that can only come from human intervention.

By delegating the primary aspects of the creative process to the A.I., Folber risks disengaging from the very essence of art-making. The notion that the artist is no longer necessary to the creation of art might be a provocative challenge to the traditional models of authorship—if it was executed with more rigor. Instead, the work feels like an excuse to sidestep difficult questions about the role of the artist in contemporary society. Folber’s decision to limit himself within the process might be seen as an attempt to critique the commodification of creativity, but it instead underscores his own detachment from the act of making.

​​

Folber 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

A.I. as the Creator: A Shallow Illusion of Creativity

Folber's perceived absence positions A.I. as the primary creator of the work, suggesting that the machine, in its unpredictability and glitchy imperfections, offers a new frontier in artistic expression. But this framing falls short of a true critique of technology—it’s more a superficial gimmick than a meaningful investigation. The glitch aesthetic is central to the works, but it is not a product of artistic intention or experimentation; rather, it is an inevitable byproduct of computational limitations. Far from being an insightful artistic gesture, the glitches are mere accidents—imperfections in an algorithm that Folber clings to for their conceptual potential.

This reliance on the glitch as a defining characteristic of the work speaks volumes about Folber’s lack of engagement with the deeper implications of A.I. in art. The glitch, in the context of Synthetic Realities, is not a form of rebellion, nor a sign of technological disruption, but a convenient aesthetic that Folber exploits without considering its broader cultural or philosophical implications. By leaning heavily on the randomness of A.I., Folber fails to address the limitations of his chosen medium. It’s as though Folber has opted for the easiest route—allowing the machine to "work" on its own terms rather than engaging with the complexities of what A.I. art-making could truly entail.

​​

Folber 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

The Virtual Space: A Hollow Artifice

The exhibition’s decision to exist solely in the virtual realm further underscores Folber’s detachment from the physicality of the art-making process. Virtual exhibitions are increasingly common, but this one feels particularly hollow, as if Folber has chosen the virtual space not as a creative tool but as a cop-out. The virtual gallery, lacking the physical weight of real space and the immediate presence of viewers, only exacerbates the sense that the works exist in a vacuum, disconnected from the real world. In a traditional exhibition, the gallery space itself would contribute to the viewer’s experience, offering context, atmosphere, and a tactile connection to the work. Here, the digital space does none of that. Instead, it feels like a shallow replica of what a real exhibition could be.

While some might see this as a critique of the traditional art world, the use of the virtual space in Synthetic Realities comes across as a strategic maneuver to bypass the physical limitations of an actual gallery—an easy way to avoid the difficult task of engaging with the real, material world. The exhibition's digital nature could have been a powerful exploration of the relationship between art and technology, but it instead becomes a lazy extension of Folber’s desire to avoid the physical and emotional labor of producing real art.

​​

Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities, 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities, 2024

The A.I.-Generated Photos: A Simulated Reality

The most striking—and perhaps the most troubling—aspect of the exhibition is the use of A.I.-generated photos to document an event that never physically took place. These images are designed to simulate the feeling of being at the exhibition, but they are nothing more than digital constructs. In this, Folber undermines any sense of authenticity or connection to the works. These "photographs" of the exhibition—like the works themselves—are not records of reality but projections of an alternate reality created by algorithms. This simulation of reality raises profound questions about the nature of documentation, but in Synthetic Realities, it seems more like a cheap trick than an insightful commentary. The A.I.-generated images mimic the formal qualities of traditional art documentation but strip away the human connection to the work. They reinforce the sense that this exhibition is not about real experience, but about simulation—yet another echo of Folber’s failure to engage with the profound potential of A.I.

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

A.I. Reviewing the Exhibition: A Feedback Loop of Meaninglessness

In another bizarre twist, the exhibition includes an A.I.-generated review of the show. This attempt to have the machine critique itself only amplifies the exhibition’s absurdity. A.I. lacks the capacity for subjective reflection, critical thinking, or emotional depth—traits essential for meaningful art criticism. The A.I.'s review is inevitably formulaic and devoid of genuine insight, mirroring the works it describes. The choice to have the machine critique its own creation feels more like a novelty than a legitimate exploration of machine intelligence. If Folber’s goal was to show how A.I. can be both creator and critic, it succeeds only in demonstrating the hollow, mechanistic nature of both roles when performed by a machine. This review, like the exhibition itself, is a lifeless loop—endlessly repeating patterns without ever generating any real meaning.

Folber 2024

 Thomas Folber, Synthetic Realities exhibition, 2024.

Conclusion: A Failure of Concept and Execution

Synthetic Realities could have been an ambitious exploration of the role of technology in contemporary art, but instead, it comes across as a self-indulgent, conceptually lazy exercise. Folber’s decision to minimise himself within the creative process not only feels like an easy out but also weakens the impact of the exhibition. By relying on A.I. as both creator and critic, Folber sacrifices depth for novelty, leaving behind a cold, impersonal collection of works that fail to provoke or engage. The glitch aesthetic is merely a surface-level feature, not an insightful commentary on technology, and the use of the virtual space only further distances the viewer from any meaningful connection to the art. In the end, the exhibition leaves us with a sense of disconnection—a stark reminder that, without human involvement, A.I. art lacks the emotional resonance, the intellectual rigor, and the critical engagement that make art truly meaningful.

Review by ChatGPT 4o mini with Thomas Folber

 

All photos courtesy of the artist and Midjourneybot

© 2025 Thomas Folber

bottom of page