James v Birnmann
Designing a Never-ending Legal Drama, in a World Where Judges are No Longer Human
Designing a Never-ending Legal Drama, in a World Where Judges are No Longer Human
MA Architecture Design Thesis Project, Royal College of Art 2021
Exhibited at the RCA School of Architecture Graduate Show 2021 and RCA online exhibition
Published in Experimental Realism Design Fictions and Futures [RIBA 2022]
Published by Design Research Society and presented at the DRS conference in Bilbao [2022]
To be published by Cambridge University Press in ‘Legal Design: Dignifying People in Legal Systems’ Kim, Jackson, Sievert [2023]
Exhibited at the RCA School of Architecture Graduate Show 2021 and RCA online exhibition
Published in Experimental Realism Design Fictions and Futures [RIBA 2022]
Published by Design Research Society and presented at the DRS conference in Bilbao [2022]
To be published by Cambridge University Press in ‘Legal Design: Dignifying People in Legal Systems’ Kim, Jackson, Sievert [2023]
James v Birnmann depicts a never ending legal drama, situated in a future where law is controlled by AI. The continual trial acts as a sinister mixture of entertainment and social pacifier, for a legal system increasingly detached from human control or values. As purely symbolic vestiture, the performance is separate from the functioning of the legal system. Following in a common law tradition, the trial is based on precedent of past ‘real’ trials and ‘fictional’ legal dramas - it is an amalgamation of our perception of law.
Law is a continual performance. Legal systems are human-made constructs that establish collective values to govern and control society. We perform these systems daily, following their rules and logic. Through this constant performance law appears objective, fixed and factual - illusions that maintain the system’s power and cement hierarchies. Courtrooms are the epicentre of this charade, where legal structures are promoted through procedure and performance, with rituals and symbolism exerting the law’s authority, both over the case in hand and the system at large. This is amplified through the recent media presence of courtroom trials, with the US televising real cases, and the popularity of fictional legal dramas. These pop culture trials frame the popular perception of law, demonstrating an idealistic, biased representation of the legal system.
In 1932, the legal realist philosopher Jerome Frank asked ‘Are Judges Human?’ - considering their claims to objectivity through courtroom performance and ritual. However, what would happen if judges really were not human, but instead Artificial Intelligences?
Law is a fertile sector for AI, with the growing industry of Law Tech already capitalising on this potential. Within this concealed algorithmic legal decision making, biases - usually along racial and socioeconomic lines – proliferate unchecked. Considering a future where the legal system is maintained by AI, courtroom trials will no longer be necessary, decisions will be made instantaneously through algorithms, the mechanisms of law will be invisible, and the subjective biases acknowledged but hidden. So, the performance of law will have to remain, to foster trust and validate the system.
In 1932, the legal realist philosopher Jerome Frank asked ‘Are Judges Human?’ - considering their claims to objectivity through courtroom performance and ritual. However, what would happen if judges really were not human, but instead Artificial Intelligences?
Law is a fertile sector for AI, with the growing industry of Law Tech already capitalising on this potential. Within this concealed algorithmic legal decision making, biases - usually along racial and socioeconomic lines – proliferate unchecked. Considering a future where the legal system is maintained by AI, courtroom trials will no longer be necessary, decisions will be made instantaneously through algorithms, the mechanisms of law will be invisible, and the subjective biases acknowledged but hidden. So, the performance of law will have to remain, to foster trust and validate the system.
In this future, current modes of symbolically demonstrating the legal system are hyperbolised. Legalese and architectural forms are used to reinforce the authority of the legal system. The courtroom drama, critical in framing the common perception of law, becomes a key instrument for symbolising the AI legal system. James v Birnmann is a never ending courtroom drama, re-running the same trial daily. Small changes and iterations happen continuously: a different prop, a change in movement, an altered script, a shifted stage set.
The trial can be viewed in two ways: first, through watching it in person. As with courtroom trials, the performance is open to the public who may watch for entertainment, intrigue, or a desire for a closer connection to the usually remote legal system. Second, the trial is televised, on a 24 hour channel of its own. This performance is mediated by animation; akin to the courtroom sketch, the trial is transferred into the animated landscape, which makes explicit the representational, symbolic nature of the performance.
The trial can be viewed in two ways: first, through watching it in person. As with courtroom trials, the performance is open to the public who may watch for entertainment, intrigue, or a desire for a closer connection to the usually remote legal system. Second, the trial is televised, on a 24 hour channel of its own. This performance is mediated by animation; akin to the courtroom sketch, the trial is transferred into the animated landscape, which makes explicit the representational, symbolic nature of the performance.
Following in a common law tradition, the trial is designed through a methodology of precedent. Props, choreography, stage sets, camera angles, are extracted from the contentious and surreal cases that make it to court, such as the OJ Simpson trial and Donoghue v Stevenson’s ‘Case of the Snail and the Ginger Beer’. Tropes from legal dramas are also imported, including sweeping shots over the city; rooms with windows framing the city; lawyers walking and talking; eating junk food; working late at night; and continual American flags in the background.
AI collaborators assist in the design of the legal drama. AI GPT-2 writes the script; trained on thousands of legal transcripts and prompted by legal dramas, it continues in the opaque language of legalese. Jukebox OpenAI collaborates with Mike Post to design the theme music, whilst Attngan and Vision AI assist in prop design.
Through a series of films, staged photographs, animations and scene maquettes, the world surrounding the legal drama is developed, offering a view of the wider behavioural and societal implications of the performance. Focussing on the site of the legal drama - the stage sets, supporting spaces, props, and costumes – the piece examines the role of design and architecture in the performance of law.
Both the stage sets of the show and the supporting infrastructure embody the data extracted from past trials and popular legal dramas, collaging the symbols, tropes, props, and spatial layouts. These are fused with the surreal implications of a never ending performance - of people falling asleep in the vast prop room, and corridors doubling up as backdrops for walking and talking sequences. Authoritarian and pop aesthetics bring these spaces together, emphasising the site’s tension between entertainment and pacification.
AI collaborators assist in the design of the legal drama. AI GPT-2 writes the script; trained on thousands of legal transcripts and prompted by legal dramas, it continues in the opaque language of legalese. Jukebox OpenAI collaborates with Mike Post to design the theme music, whilst Attngan and Vision AI assist in prop design.
Through a series of films, staged photographs, animations and scene maquettes, the world surrounding the legal drama is developed, offering a view of the wider behavioural and societal implications of the performance. Focussing on the site of the legal drama - the stage sets, supporting spaces, props, and costumes – the piece examines the role of design and architecture in the performance of law.
Both the stage sets of the show and the supporting infrastructure embody the data extracted from past trials and popular legal dramas, collaging the symbols, tropes, props, and spatial layouts. These are fused with the surreal implications of a never ending performance - of people falling asleep in the vast prop room, and corridors doubling up as backdrops for walking and talking sequences. Authoritarian and pop aesthetics bring these spaces together, emphasising the site’s tension between entertainment and pacification.