Frankenstein (038)

Frankenstein is a diptych of an aerial image and that same image re-made from visually similar tiles. Comparing original and re-made, the map examines how the identification of similarity is both defined by, and extends beyond, an extent.

The map is the last in a series of three that explore visual similarity as detected by a machine learning model. The first map exchanged the center tile with similar tiles. The second flipped between center and context to travel from place to place. Finally, “Frankenstein” exchanges all the tiles. As such, it is not a simple comparison with context, but a whole new context, asking, what can be determined as ‘similar’ without context? When all tiles are similar to, but different from the original, is the replaced image the historical context?

In the original, tiles form a continuous landscape. Yet, as the re-made image is derived from similarity within each tile — not the relationship between tiles — these new adjacencies rarely align to form new continuities. The replacements are similar to their originals in different ways.

Depending on scale and extent, the edges of the replacements dominate or recede. When more tiles are used, discontinuity has less emphasis. However, at the smaller extents, the edges form starker boundaries.

As a diptych, the similarity of the re-made image to the original is always in comparison. In one instance, where the original is composed of green-space and housing, the proportion of each is recreated with every cycle.

In another instance, where parkland dominates the entire original frame, the reconstructed image highlights how different “similar” green spaces can be.

Next Steps

Figure out how to do the process at a much larger scale (25×25 tiles)

Compare to
  • Pan Pan Pan (and the relationship between tiles)
  • Back and Forth (and the meaning of context)