Post
Algorithms and nature meet: interview with Entangled Others
Liquid Chimeras
From February 5, 2026
Thursday to Sunday – 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
MEET Digital Culture Center
Viale Vittorio Veneto 2, Milano
Exhibition curated by Eleonora Brizi
Under the patronage of Fondazione Cariplo
Over four thousand Argo buoys float in the oceans as a network of distributed scientific instruments. By periodically diving into the depths, they collect essential but inevitably fragmentary data on the composition of the waters. Between one measurement point and another, there are gaps in knowledge that do not correspond to lifeless spaces, but to complex ecosystems that remain invisible.
Liquid Chimeras by the artistic duo Entangled Others (Sofia Crespo and Feileacan McCormick) stems from this condition: where information is lacking, spaces for creative possibility open up. Just as in the Middle Ages the absence of scientific knowledge was filled by monstrous and imaginary creatures, today the attempt to make visible what exists but escapes direct perception opens up a space for what art has always been able to do: imagine speculative forms that do not explain reality but question it.
On the occasion of the exhibition, we interviewed Sofia Crespo and Feileacan McCormick.
The creative process behind the creatures
When you create these hybrid organisms that look alive but don’t exist in nature, where do you start? Do you collect images of real animals and then “teach” them to artificial intelligence, or is the process different? And how much control do you have over the final result—do you decide every detail, or do you let the AI surprise you?
“These works take shape through what could be described as a partly performative process. The conceptual focus of the work is used over time to construct a set of rules that, in turn, determine how the work is created. Some of these rules guide the creation of the necessary datasets, others guide the selection criteria and aesthetic choices, and still others translate into code and determine the algorithmic approach taken. In the context of works involving machine learning or more complex algorithms, these tools mainly allow us to distill essential visual patterns from a given dataset, thus making interfaces more tangible to what would otherwise remain intangible due to distance, complexity, or the simple fact of existing outside what our senses can perceive. The combination of the elements that make up this framework then allows us to explore which configurations emerge. In most cases, something fails and the work does not resonate with the initial concept; however, through a careful process of trial and error, we can approach the appropriate form in which the final work takes shape. Of course, serendipity can come into play, but it is not a random process: rather, it is a process that exploits natural phenomena, such as randomness itself. The notion of so-called “artificial intelligence” is not particularly relevant in this context, as it often ends up obscuring rather simple processes. Working with the natural world means observing how many complex structures are composed of small, understandable parts that, when viewed on a large scale, generate very different behaviors and results”.
Why nature through technology
Your works explore life forms through artificial intelligence. Why choose technology to talk about nature? Doesn’t it seem paradoxical to use algorithms and computers to reflect on ecosystems, plants, and animals?
“What are computers, if not minerals, chemicals, and metals electrified to perform calculations at the speed of electricity? The distinction between what we consider natural and what we do not is itself completely arbitrary and constructed. We are not even the only species on the planet to use tools. It makes much more sense to accept our human condition and the cultural and structural context in which we exist, and to explore in a site-specific way how to use what is already present to talk about what we consider important, relevant, and worthy of influence within the more-than-human domain. After all, the natural world is profoundly and negatively affected by all these layers of culture and technology: why not question and explore alternative ways of using these same tools and this same momentum to try to change their direction?”
What do you see that we don’t see?
When you look at the digital creatures you generate—these impossible insects, these artificial underwater landscapes—what do you see that perhaps escapes those who view your work? Is there anything specific you would like the public to notice or understand?
“There are many layers that are not immediately tangible; many relate to research, reflections, and nuances not only of the subject but also of the medium. However, once the work is complete, it no longer belongs to us: we welcome the idea that others may see and find perspectives and details within the work that we ourselves were not intentionally aware of”.
The process
How do you interpret the role of friction, failure, and resistance in working with digital technologies in your practice?
“There is a widespread misunderstanding, especially around digital technologies, partly due to the strong focus on the product that characterizes most of our cultural encounters with them: we expect them to be frictionless. Encountering resistance is often considered synonymous with bugs or system errors. In reality, friction is not simply an error, but a moment capable of triggering new reflections and trajectories in our daily lives. When working to create systems as a means of questioning the world around us, we rely on things not working, breaking down, or producing unexpected failures. Because giving meaning does not mean accepting things at face value. Much of our work is not tied to specific tools: technology is, in fact, irrelevant if it does not help the work achieve some form of resonance. Just as some brushes cannot produce a certain type of stroke, we can decide to change brushes or explore how those deviating lines can open up a new understanding of how to render a subject. Code works in the same way: it is simply the digital organization of virtual atoms into forms that open or close possibilities, just as brushes or chisels of different sizes change the way we operate in the physical world. Considering the digital as a necessary component of any attempt at site-specificity, it therefore becomes important not only to accept resistance, but to cultivate it: to create pockets of “useful friction” that force us to question the process and, hopefully, lead it into new territory. The orchestration lies in the first attempt to build a framework; what follows is to bring the consequences of those choices to their natural conclusion”.
Technology as an organic extension
You argue that technologies are “organic products of the life that created them, not separate objects.” This genealogy links microscopes, cameras, and neural networks as tools that have progressively transformed our perception of reality. In your recent work Structures of Being for Casa Batlló, you engaged in a dialogue with Gaudí through 3D scans and collaborations with the Barcelona Supercomputing Center. Do you believe that the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” is still valid, or are we witnessing a convergence where AI already operates as distributed intelligence, analogous to biological systems?
“The distinction between “natural” and “artificial” is entirely constructed and, from the perspective of our practice, extremely problematic, as it allows us to defer responsibility and impact in the fields of ecology, sustainability, and motivation. If we reframe everything we have created as part of a global ecosystem, we are forced to look very carefully at the role that technology plays in the long-term health of ourselves and the more-than-human domain of which we are a part”.
