UK-based Daria Jelonek (DE) and Perry-James Sugden (UK) are Studio Above & Below. Researchers at their core, the duo’s work consists of holistic art projects that combine technology, mixed reality, user interaction, live data, and digital art.
After meeting on a course at the Royal College of Art in London, the pair fell in love with a then-budding form of XR technology. While difficult to use in most instances, the duo has spent the last five years experimenting with ideas around augmented reality and the perspectives it can offer us.
Established as a fully fledged art studio in 2020, Above & Below uses the world around us as inspiration, incorporating materials such as tidal currents, physical objects, and pollution and layering them with digital overlays to share stories of our world and how it works, revealing its secrets in a digital form.
Educated by pioneers of the Speculative Art movement, their works are multidisciplinary in their nature. Installations such as their 2022’s Semi Dinural Spaces combine live tidal and atmospheric data with particle systems and graphics engines, resulting in stunning audio-visual displays of the South Wales coastline.
Another of their works, Digital Atmosphere, homes in on their fascination with augmented reality. Inspired by the historic use of Canaries as air quality sensors, the project utilises audible Canary calls and graphic elements that direct the viewer to areas of London with better air quality.
Despite their love of technology, however, the pair have begun to hit a wall. Their works could be described more as experiments than anything else, and this inquisitiveness into the usability of modern technology has led them to question their view on what technology is and the ethics surrounding it’s use.
Their current research is based on what they call a slowing down of technology. As they examine pre-existing systems, such as those found in nature, the pair looks to step away from the constraints and difficulties of using newer innovations in the hope of finding more efficient systems that bring us closer to the world we inhabit.
What are your backgrounds, and how did you two meet?
//Perry: In university, I studied a bachelor’s in fine art and history of art. Back then, I was interested in making sculptures and physical works, but I also worked a lot with technology. I self-taught via the internet through a rich number of tutorials and eventually began to learn logic and programming languages.
From there, I began creating interactive works and successfully applied to the Royal College of Art to study. Initially, I was going to study a course called Design Interactions, but the course ended the year I went.
Can you remember what the course consisted of?
//Perry: The course was run by two artists and researchers, Dunham and Rabie, who are now based in the US. They wrote a book called Speculative Everything, which is quite popular in the field of speculative art and design. They were at the forefront of this like 20 or 30 years ago.
I ended up moving to the School of Communication to take a course called Information Experience Design. The students in that course were from various backgrounds, from architecture to art and graphic design. Daria and I met in that course.
//Daria: It was very much like a media art course where you engaged a lot with theories and critical perspectives on technology, as well as exposure to working with data, information, and experience. The projects usually ended up with us building immersive or multi-sensory work, which is now still part of our collaborative practice.
I am originally from Germany. I did my BA in visual communication at [] art school, where I was interested in interaction design. From there, I joined the course at the Royal College of Art, where Perry and I met. Throughout the course, we mostly worked on our own projects, but we did one together in what could be called the early days of VR around ten years ago.
After finishing the master’s degree, we developed a collaborative practice while still having our own projects and other jobs. Above and Below started with the first fellowships we received, which slowly turned into a full-time practice, which is where we are now.
We officially set up in 2018 on paper, but the full, full-time job is where we have not had any other side jobs since 2020, so it’s coming up five years. With the interest of still working with technology in a critical and artistic way, we joined forces and created Studio Above and Below, which is now an established art practice. We’re happy that it gives us the freedom to engage with different topics in a critical way and in a public-facing way to discuss other uses of tech, data, and research.
//Perry: In terms of how we got here, we received grants for art science and art technology residencies, which are mostly across Europe, and we’ve also worked with several partners and donors to help develop these projects. Many of the things you see on our website were developed over two to eight months. These projects were collaborations between groups of experts such as science departments, technologists, policymakers, and the public engaging with these works. It’s like a collective experience and a collective learning when it comes to making these works.
Over the years, we have gained new skills regarding what we can achieve technically and conceptually with each project. We’ve just continued to build this portfolio of work.
How did this network of partners develop?
//Perry: It’s a mixture of different things. The main thing is that we both work very hard, but we are also quite lucky to have projects, but things have snowballed over time.
At first, we had a lot of ideas, and then with those, you may have a 1/15, 1/20 success rate in terms of receiving a project or grant. At first, it was really about balancing things between our other work, as we both worked for different design studios, freelanced for other artists, or produced work for others within a studio context or a larger team.
We were also really determined to go in a specific direction. Other than that, it just takes time. You can’t expect stuff to happen overnight. For us, it has been around seven to eight years, and constantly making work is paying off.
//Daria: When you start, you go all in and apply for all the smallest things, but whenever I read an article about the most successful artists, it usually comes down to producing work.
When it comes to the network, it’s about finding the right partners. You must also be passionate about the residencies or networks you apply to. I think we found a few really good networks within Europe, such as EMAP and IMAAR, which also have many sound and media artists.
Being part of those networks really helped us because they can reach out to you again, leading to further collaborations. It’s not just about the network of funders or commissions but also about the network of artists you can reach out to.
I look at it like this: if people you apply to look you up on Instagram, for example, they want to see who you look up to or are connected with. It does make a difference.
It’s also great to have a network of friends who work in the scene and with whom you can have inspiring conversations. For example, we once did a residency in Berlin at Factory Berlin, which was sponsored by Sonar + D. It was during COVID-19, and it was one of the best residencies we worked on. We were in a group of 10 artists from different backgrounds, such as art, tech, and music, with whom we still have ongoing relationships.
What did the early days of the studio look like? What was captivating you? Were you already on the augmented reality train, or did other things lead to that?
//Perry: One of the first projects we got was exploring augmented reality. Say you have a physical object similar to graphic design or print. We then ask: What if multiple augmentations could be impressed over it? An example we had was everyday items like a cup. If you just had one cup in your house and then used augmented reality, how could it have a different daily affordance with different overlays?
Back then, we also considered physical materiality and how digital overlays could extend an object’s life cycle. We mostly thought about artistic trends or how physical objects can go in and out of having a use because maybe they don’t have that affordance due to how they look. Having a digital layer may bring back a desire for different objects. This thought captivated us at first, so we developed the concept and eventually received a grant for a project to create this work.
//Daria: Before this AR bubble came around COVID, we were already interested in the technology and how augmented layers could be integrated into the everyday experience. Mixed reality always fascinated us; we loved this approach over virtual reality. I think we liked the idea of the physical environment merging with the digital one. Many of our early commissions followed this theme, and it’s still evident in our current work.
In a recent project, we used Apple Vision Pro to create a mixed-reality experience in which you still see the real world, but a quantum layer is introduced that you wouldn’t usually see with your normal eyesight. This is an ongoing interest for us.
//Perry: Another way of thinking about this is with sound. Say you had a speaker set up in a room. Through augmented reality, you could change the speaker system or the arrangement of sound in real time. I guess you could say that we are kind of thinking about things in a visual way.
What were your experiences working with that type of technology? Did you manage to expand the limits of the headset while you were using it? Also, how practical are the applications for this sort of device in the real world?
//Perry: Over the last few years, we’ve done a lot of experiments and produced a lot of work within game engines and app development for artworks. It’s still a super experimental space within the arts. I think it’s kind of dystopian if people are walking around with headsets everywhere. Similar to mobile phones, I feel like we have gone the wrong route in terms of how we consume content now, and we don’t know the long-term effects on people. We’re all currently stuck in this experiment around how these technologies are used.
When it comes to using XR and immersive tools, we try to make them site-specific or location-based to the best of our ability.
//Daria: Whether it’s easy to work with this stuff or not, the answer is no, it’s not easy. All those tech trailers always show how polished and great everything looks, but the reality of working with those tools is often very messy and frustrating.
It’s all still very experimental, and that’s why we’re happy to be within the arts, to be allowed to experiment with them, to be critical of them, and to be able to push the boundaries of what’s possible with those tools. I’ve seen it more as a vital research tool than anything. We are interested in an extension of those tools to experience different worlds or worlds that are invisible and to create cultural and audio-visual experiences within them.
Perry: As artists, I don’t think we have the responsibility to say, “Hey, you should buy this product.” Our ideal scenario is to create these experiences to plant a seed that people can interpret or think about in their own way. It should be a collective thing how these technologies and tools are used.
What considerations do you go through when creating these installations or concepts? What considerations do you put towards the presentation?
//Perry: We have a lot of ambition when it comes to making these live data-driven works, but we tend to think about creating slightly controlled environments so things can’t completely break. Most people will have some understanding of how to use these technologies or tools. Our most recent project, Quantum Lens, consisted of a seamless experience and app, but there is some guidance around setting up the headset for the first time. As Daria said, not everything’s as seamless as we think or see in videos, but we’re aware of this. It doesn’t put us off using the technology – we are experimenting with it.
//Daria: Going back to how we conceptualize it and finding the right audio-visual languages, I think we try to research very deeply into different themes, or we explore in sync with other scientists and really find elements in the research that can inspire the visual language of it. For example, in the first project you mentioned, Digital Atmosphere, we found this element of a canary bird, which was used underground as one of the first pollution sensors. We took this inspiration from a canary bird and the sound and swarming of birds as inspiration for the visual language and for the actual audio. For example, you would hear more canary birds when there’s better air quality than not. It’s about finding those little hints and poetic elements that also drive the visual language of it.
In the video for Digital Atmosphere, you said that you were excited to push the medium of augmentation, not to make something appear but to create reactive digital spaces and that you were interested in using live data or other inputs within that realm. Three years on from that, what are the key things you’ve learned concerning your practice and has your mindset changed at all?
//Perry: I wouldn’t say it’s massively changed. We are still working on this idea. Technology has changed a lot, and the way you produce work has also changed, especially in the last three years. As we’re a small studio, I guess there have been elements of us using automation or vibe coding, which has become very popular now.
What is vibe coding?
Perry: It involves starting with an idea and using a large language model to assist with producing the project. This is a new way of using datasets, but we’re critical about it simultaneously because it involves a lot of data exploitation on the web.
There are problems around ownership of work and where ideas came from with these bigger data sets of large language models. We’re exploring this slowing down of technology and how learning and long-term memory should still be important within the arts.
From experience, with some projects, you start to forget about processing the arts. It’s really about getting to the end goal as quickly as possible because of tools like automation. This is thinking about data in other ways, how data shapes our process, and how we make it work.
//Daria: The underlying and ongoing thread throughout our work is to create those living artworks, as we call them, where we take live data that influences some of the works. What if actual external forces such as the weather, title data, or anything biological can be introduced? How can we introduce chaos into the really controlled environments of digital spaces of technology and disrupt us?
This year, we’re with two partners exploring the idea of slowing down technology, as Perry said, and looking into low-tech technologies and low-tech versions of AI. The aim is to get out of this oversaturated digital bubble and ask how we can slow down those systems. This is a counterintuitive process we are exploring conceptually, and hopefully, this will lead to some technical solutions.
//Perry: Maybe, just like trying to communicate, it is safe to slow down. I think art has the space to do this.
I’ve seen your talk about the A State of Growth project you collaborated on in 2021. In the talk, you said that you would be open to collaboration again if the project needed new data sets, which got me thinking about the broader societal impact that this art can have. When it comes to datasets, what do you do with them? Do you use them for future projects or work with researchers outside of the arts?
//Perry: Regarding that project, we didn’t take it further. I guess that was one of the more speculative projects we’ve worked on that explored emotions in space and how we could augment that or kind of leave, or project, emotion within a place.
This kind of ties into the work we’re doing now with health spaces and using visual language and sound to try and project a feeling onto somebody. Aside from that, many of our works are open for interpretation. We try not to force something on somebody too much, but I think it’s okay to do it in a space where you’re trying to improve somebody’s health or benefit them somehow.
//Daria: I think your question can be answered in two ways. Firstly, the systems we built are parametric and generative in some way. Regarding the project you mentioned, we collected some EEG and EMG data of different participants in the city, but this can then grow further and involve more people and other stimuli in your head. Projects like those live on because they are fed with these data sets. We either create it ourselves or allow it to be generated through a set of external forces such as the weather or other ongoing natural phenomena.
On the other hand, however, I believe our projects have an impact on society. We have worked with this organization called STARTS three times (Science, Technology and Arts), and they are pretty good at exposing you to scientists, policymakers, and general audience members to really discuss different topics. I do think our work then resonates with a variety of people, not only with people within the arts or culture space but also with the public, scientists, and policymakers. On that side, I would say that it also has an ongoing impact.
One of the conversations I’ve had with other artists is about archiving methods for digital art. Many of these digital or installation-based works can’t be archived in a traditional sense, but I guess sharing datasets that can be used in future work across different disciplines is one way your work can live on.
//Perry: How we archive or sometimes show work is through a timestamp. Say we have a data set that lasted X amount of time; the artwork is based on that data set. Then, a series of work becomes a period in time, so as the dataset evolves, it changes.
Our project, Semi-Diurnal Spaces, was based on tidal, atmospheric, and wind data. This means that the work itself can be shown using live-streamed datasets, but we can also make recordings of periods of time so they can be displayed as a series covering a certain period. This is another way work can be archived and reused.
For the Digital Atmosphere project, we have been collecting pollution data in the UK for the last four years. By storing that data, we now have a collection of material that the algorithm can react to historically and in the present, which is quite interesting.
What’s next for Studio Above and Below?
Perry: As Daria said, we have a few more research projects coming up. We’re working with the University of Edinburgh on a project called Braids that examines responsible AI. Through it, we are going to explore slowed-down systems of AI and try to bring back the magic of time and this less-thinking kind of real-time reaction. That’s the beauty of these systems. It’s like exploring a sort of deep time. Starting from the beginning, showing how minerals were created and how they came to be used for computation and electrical energy in the modern day. These systems have been here for billions of years, but now they’re being used for computation. We’re exploring these bigger ideas of time and how it comes to the present of the tools we use now.
//Daria: Our main focus this year is to continue our research on low/slow technology because it’s the year of quantum. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but it’s been a hundred years since quantum research and technology began, so there is a lot of engagement around this, which has led to commissions. So, on the one hand, we are working with high tech, but through our research project, we are also looking into low tech. We are also exploring more public or permanent public artworks.
//Perry: Yeah, and I think with this high-tech/low-tech thing, we’re trying to be critical about what that is. Many of the tools we use are high-tech, but they’ve only existed for 30, 50 years or less. Are they that high-tech in terms of what they do for humanity? Are we using them responsibly? Maybe some other things within nature and natural systems are more high-tech.
//Daria: As Perry has said, the perspective of using this technology has only existed for a few months or years versus other indigenous technologies that have existed for thousands or millions of years.
