I began this project by exploring ASCII Art, a medium in which images are constructed from characters, symbols and spaces. I was interested in the difference between copying an image digitally and reproducing it by hand. Digital copying appears immediate and exact, while manual copying requires time, observation and physical decisions. I wanted to see what would happen when a digital image was repeatedly traced by hand. I started with an existing ASCII Art image of a horse. I traced it as faithfully as possible, then used that copy as the reference for the next version. I continued this process without returning to the original. Each new image was therefore based on the changes already present in the previous one. Individual characters gradually shifted, spaces became uneven, and proportions changed. However, despite these distortions, the image remained recognisable as a horse. This surprised me because the individual characters no longer matched the original, yet the overall form was still preserved. I realised that my attention had gradually shifted from reproducing each character accurately to maintaining the shape of the horse. This made me question what actually needs to remain unchanged for an image to be recognised. Barbara Bolt’s discussion of material thinking in The Magic is in Handling helped me reflect on this experience. Bolt argues that knowledge can emerge through the practical handling of materials rather than being fully established before making begins. I did not start by questioning whether copying was a form of interpretation. This question emerged through repetition, as I became aware of the decisions involved in reproducing the image. My understanding developed through the act of making rather than preceding it. I then returned to digital ASCII Art. Initially, I assumed that digital reproduction would avoid the changes introduced by my hand. However, I discovered another kind of instability. Even when the character data remained identical, changing the font altered the image’s density and proportions. Adjusting the display width or line wrapping could also disrupt its structure. The characters had not necessarily changed, but the image they produced had. This revealed a distinction between copying information and preserving its visual appearance. In my handmade experiments, the characters changed while the horse remained recognisable. In the digital experiments, identical character data could produce different visual forms depending on how it was displayed. Through iteration, I discovered that copying information accurately does not necessarily preserve an image’s visual appearance. In my handmade experiments, the characters and spacing changed, yet the horse remained recognisable. In contrast, identical digital character data could produce different visual forms depending on the font, spacing and display conditions. These experiments showed me that an image is defined not only by its individual characters, but also by their overall arrangement and visual structure.
Barbara Bolt’s discussion of material thinking in The Magic is in Handling helped me reflect on this experience. Bolt argues that knowledge can emerge through the practical handling of materials rather than being fully established before making begins. I did not start by questioning whether copying was a form of interpretation. This question emerged through repetition, as I became aware of the decisions involved in reproducing the image. My understanding developed through the act of making rather than preceding it.