What remains of me in my work?

AI prompts, educational programmes or protocols to follow…

The answer seems to be predetermined, and all we have to do is follow the instructions. But here’s the thing: life gets in the way, the model reveals a flaw and suggests that we stop, that we start to question things, or that we feel the urge to do things differently.

Yes indeed, it’s not all that straightforward. The prompt or the programme is an ‘other’ that stands between us like an ideal we’re trying to live up to; we then perceive ourselves through a distorting filter, from a distance. And if this ‘other’ takes my place, where is my place, and what is it?

The prompt or the ‘ready-to-use’ programme presents an apparent solution, and thus a resolution within a prescriptive framework. Sometimes, the solution even becomes an unquestionable belief. Should this solution be applied without question, and therefore without being experienced on a personal level?

We have learnt to think in terms of systems, but we often forget that systems are created by humans and that humans are made up of individuals.

True activity is personal; it is not smooth; it partly or wholly defies convention; it reinvents me within a changing reality. In this way, it drives my creative output. In this way, it invites exchange through this rough edge that captures attention and enables encounters centred on what is different.

This rough edge prompts reflection; it is shared; it challenges the obvious.

How many times have I seen these questions turn into accounts of genuine experiences that touch the heart? How many times have I observed that it is precisely when nothing goes to plan that analysis and creativity come to the fore, along with a rediscovery of one’s true self and, through this, a rich and productive exchange in which everyone finds their place?