×
NINABOT ALGORITHM
Based on Dr. Nina Roehrs' curatorial vision for Paris Photo Digital Sector, this algorithm evaluates AI-generated photographs through a brutally selective lens that prioritizes exhibition readiness, AI-critical discourse, and conceptual rigor.
SCORING DIMENSIONS
Paris Photo Readiness 30%
Wall presence at 80-120cm viewing distance. Must read clearly at 3-5m and hold detail up close. This is the primary gate - would Zwirner or Gagosian hang this?
Scoring: 85+ (Museum-grade), 75-85 (Exhibition-worthy), 65-75 (Professional), 55-65 (Portfolio), <55 (Student)
AI-Criticality 25%
Does the image embed a stance on dataset politics, bias, and consent? Not just using AI, but challenging AI. The politics must be visible in the frame, not just wall text.
References: Trevor Paglen's ImageNet critiques, Stephanie Dinkins' family-trained models, Jake Elwes' Zizi project
Conceptual Strength 20%
Posthuman and cyberfeminist clarity. Identity as construction/performance. Body-technology entanglement visible, not just asserted.
Theory Base: Donna Haraway's cyborg manifesto, Judith Butler's performativity, Legacy Russell's glitch feminism
Technical Excellence 15%
Light, color, tonal control, composition, edge discipline. No cheap "AI gloss" or Instagram filters. Leibovitz/Kander/Platon level control.
Benchmark: Could this compete with traditional photography on formal grounds alone?
Cultural Dialogue 10%
Legible conversation with artistic lineage. Not pastiche, but genuine dialogue with precedents.
Key Artists: Cindy Sherman (staged identity), Wolfgang Tillmans (intimacy), Amalia Ulman (performance), Björk (bio-techno poetics)
CALIBRATION METHODOLOGY
Brutal Selectivity
- Scoring starts at 50 - artists must EARN every point
- Only top 15-25% receive INCLUDE verdict
- MAYBE is the default stance
- When uncertain, lean toward EXCLUDE
Gate Checks - Quality Requirements
✓ COMPOSITIONAL INTEGRITY
- PASSED: Coherent composition, clear concept visible in frame, intentional aesthetic choices
- FAILED: Incoherent elements, concept unclear, accidental or broken compositions
✓ AI ARTIFACTS
- PASSED: No obvious AI telltales - natural skin, correct anatomy, clean edges
- FAILED: Plastic skin texture, double irises, halo edges, impossible morphology
⚠ ETHICS & PROCESS
- DOCUMENTED: Clear AI methodology, dataset sources identified, consent/bias addressed
- NEEDS DOCUMENTATION: Some process info present but incomplete
- NOT DOCUMENTED: No information about AI process or dataset ethics
⚠ Critical: These are BINARY GATES, not scored dimensions. Any FAILED gate or NOT DOCUMENTED ethics typically prevents an INCLUDE verdict, regardless of how high the work scores in other dimensions.
Penalty System
- -10 points for artifacting or weak print quality
- -7 points for morphological errors or halo edges
- -5 points for unclear process or derivative work
INFLUENCES & BACKGROUNDS
Curatorial Philosophy
Nina Roehrs bridges analogue display and code-based thinking. Her Digital Sector at Paris Photo features NFT prints, AR displays, algorithmic portraits, and blockchain-enabled curation. The guiding principle: images must engage digital systems without surrendering critical weight.
Key Theoretical Frameworks
- Cyberfeminism: Sadie Plant, VNS Matrix, Legacy Russell
- Posthumanism: Rosi Braidotti, Karen Barad, N. Katherine Hayles
- AI Ethics: Kate Crawford, Timnit Gebru, Joy Buolamwini
- Digital Art History: Christiane Paul, Edward Shanken, Beryl Graham
Exhibition Context
Paris Photo at Grand Palais sets the standard for photographic excellence. Works must survive comparison to main floor galleries: Gagosian, Zwirner, Pace, Hauser & Wirth. The Digital Sector maintains these standards while pushing into new territories.
ADJUSTABLE PARAMETERS
Contact seth@solienne.ai to adjust these parameters:
- Dimension weights (currently 30/25/20/15/10)
- Verdict thresholds (currently 75/55 for INCLUDE/MAYBE)
- Penalty multipliers
- Artist references and benchmarks
- Gate check strictness