The Point of February

A lot goes on in February. 

The month opens with the ancient Gaelic festival of Imbolc, the halfway point between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, marking the returning light and the first stirrings of spring. You could be forgiven for doubting it this year, with the interminable wet grey stretching across most of the winter. 

Mid-month in many parts of Europe and beyond is carnival season. In the Rhineland in Germany, Weiberfastnacht launches the week of street parties, parades and general craziness. Bands of women brandishing scissors storm town halls, ceremonially lopping off men’s ties in a symbolic reversal of power. Traditionally a kiss might be offered in exchange. I suspect there would be little appetite to bestow even a small peck upon the cheek of any of the unsavoury men currently filling the headlines whose ties many would gladly queue overnight to sever. 

Skipping over Valentine’s Day with its plethora of red rose themed flower bunches, heart-shaped chocolates and pink bubbly, on 17 February, the Chinese Zodiac ushered in the Year of the Fire Horse – a harbinger of intensity and fast-paced change on both personal and global levels. It sounds promising. And that day I genuinely felt the stable door to my long, conscious wintering fly open. I bolted like a horse with a rocket up its arse. This equine imagery swiftly morphed, however, into something closer to a headless chicken unsure in which direction to run. A rush of energy is not necessarily the same as orientation.

Then in the final week of the month, came rare sunshine. A morning walk in the woods. Warm breezes threaded with birdsong combed through bare branches quietly filling with sap. Forest floors rolled out green carpets in anticipation of white anemones, yellow celandine, and bluebells. For a moment, I felt the promise the daily news so persistently denies us. 

In stark contrast, I think of the extraordinary advances in AI, building a new world of technological brilliance and mechanised humanity. Social media claims to tailor connection, yet so often blurs our individual and cultural edges into a controllable global homogeneity. We may be more networked than ever, but also more divided.

Each generation pushes against the boundaries of its time: church, family, class, gender. Restriction is perceived as the enemy to individuality. But as boundaries dissolve, are we becoming freer or simply blending? Might we be witnessing not just liberation but a longing? A reemergence of desire for what is elemental, real and rooted? 

My thoughts return to Goethe’s Metamorphosis and Urpflanze – the archetypal plant – concepts he shared in 1794 with Schiller during a short walk between the Town Hall and Schiller’s house in Jena. This conversation would mark the beginning of their lifelong friendship. In short, (very) short, he proposed that behind the myriad forms of plant life lies an archetype: an invisible set of laws that shape their variations. A rose does not rebel against its rose-ness. A beech tree does not experiment with becoming a birch. Even animals – aside from Jonathan Livingston Seagull – remain faithful to the parameters of their species.  

Some of Goethe’s flower specimens, Goethe Haus, Weimar

Humans, endowed with free choice, face a more complex task. We can wander far from ourselves and lose sight of any sense of an archetype.

How then do we like other living beings maintain a connection to our essence? 

Watching The Tony Blair Story on Channel 4 recently, I was struck by his unmistakable sense of destiny. The conviction of a task, sometimes arriving as a premonition. That certainty propelled him toward significant achievements. But also led to the – in my view – catastrophic misjudgement of the Iraq War. Ego, power, entitlement? We are daily reminded all too clearly where those things lead. 

Meanwhile, we are told that 12% of young people are NEETs – Not in Education, Employment or Training – drifting in a culture of instant stimulation but starved of meaning. How can they hear the quiet calling of vocation? How can they imagine let alone explore a destination with smartphones constantly robbing them of the fertile boredom and daydreaming out of which so many creative ideas once emerged?

The French artist Christian Boltanski once said: The best way to make work is to do nothing… and nothing… until you get so bored that you do something. 

He added: All we can do is wait and hope, hope that someday we’ll understand something, that someday we’ll understand who we are.

February, perhaps, is precisely this waiting. Dormancy, not death. Preparation. And then like racers off the starting block, commitment. 

I am now referring to those oft-quoted lines frequently attributed to Goethe – though written by William Hutchinson Murray in The Scottish Himalayan Expedition (1951)

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back… the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred… Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.” 

February holds both truths at once: the necessity of waiting, and the call to begin.

AI… An Artist’s Slippery Slope?

This month I dipped my toe into the brilliant and deeply unsettling ocean of AI’s potential. I’m a bit late to the game, but for fun, I asked ChatGPT to write a synopsis of a piece based on a few scraps of information. Within seconds, it had. Not only that, it praised my “sensitive yet powerful” style and described my opening as “strong and reflective,” – causing a ridiculous flutter of flattery – before offering to adapt the piece into a short radio feature.

Writers are just one of many professions for whom AI is a game-changer: a time-saver, free editor, spell-checker, researcher and source of both inspiration… and misinformation. It was uncannily attuned to the contents of my book, In My Grandfather’s Shadow, which I’ve recently discovered had, along with millions of other authors’ works, been quietly harvested by Meta for AI training – without permission, acknowledgment, or any form of compensation. Authors’ licensing rights swept aside in the data goldrush.

At Bath Literature Festival last week, I interviewed Daniel Kehlmann – “the finest German writer of his generation,” according to Salman Rushdie. In his latest novel, The Director, Kehlmann reimagines the life of G.W. Pabst, a once-celebrated silent film director, tracing the moral compromises he made as he navigated a precarious and murky artistic path through the rise and fall of the Nazi regime. It is a brilliant read and couldn’t be more apposite.

I also watched the newly released film Riefenstahl, about one of the most controversial cultural figures of the Third Reich. Leni Riefenstahl’s 1935 Triumph of the Will is a visually stunning albeit ideologically chilling portrayal of the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Her talent for cinematic innovation is undeniable, but so is her closeness to Hitler and one of the darkest regimes in human history. To the end, however, she insisted she was not a Nazi but merely “an artist,” obsessed only with beauty, form, and structure. She claimed she had no knowledge of the Holocaust and never apologised. 

What links AI, Pabst, and Riefenstahl are questions of artistic freedom and moral compromise. Both directors pursued their creative ambitions under a political leadership that demanded ideological conformity. Riefenstahl willingly. Pabst, more reluctantly. But both became complicit in horror. And that complicity, as Kehlmann skilfully shows, is often quiet, mundane, and all too human.

One scene in The Director stays with me. Pabst’s wife, Trude, attends a stifling book club of wives of high-ranking Nazis. As coffee is served, the conversation drifts to the new porcelain set and a glittering sugar bowl. A flurry of admiration. Silence. Then a quiet, hesitant voice says she’s “seen one like that… but not here… over at the…” The implication is clear: the bowl came from a confiscated Jewish home. Beauty and brutality blend into the everyday.

Another scene captures the power of self-censorship. A member praises a banned play and is swiftly expelled from the group. “A circle like this is based on agreement,” the host says. “On harmony. Where that is not the case…” The others hang their heads and remain silent. Agreement through fear. Harmony through complicity. 

We probably all know such moments. Times we wanted to speak, but didn’t or felt we shouldn’t. 

Eighty plus years on, we are in very different times, but similar dynamics are re-surfacing in modern contexts, not least under Trump’s presidency, and certainly within our digital lives. AI, algorithms and social platforms are increasingly shaping what we see, create, think and consume, often without us even realising. The slope is slippery, not only because of dramatic, evil choices made by tyrants, but because of the many small, unexamined ones made by the rest of us.

I haven’t worked out yet how or where to dig my heels in to prevent what I fear is a downward slide. Ease is such a temptress after all. And maybe some of AI is no more morally fraught than the telephone, which saved – and lost – us the art of letter-writing; or the camera, which snapped rather than painted landscapes; or Google Maps, which delivers us to destinations with little connection to the journey. Our tool kits for life have always evolved with time. So isn’t it right, necessary even, to adopt and adapt?

Maybe yes. But AI has no values. No morality. No nuance. No sense of consequence. Those are ours to guard with vigilance and intention, in the choices we make and the art we create. Because isn’t beauty inseparable from ethics? Aren’t feeling, meaning, soul, responsibility the very qualities that still set us apart from technology; the keys to remaining humane?

Detail of painting by Angela Findlay

I remember decades ago walking into a David Hockney retrospective at the Royal Academy. Near the entrance hung a series of portraits, typical of Hockney’s flat distinctive style, but they felt particularly mechanical, soulless. Inside, I saw the same portraits again, but these positively vibrated with life and presence. The former I learned, were digital reproductions, technically flawless, visually identical, but missing the very essence of art – human creativity, the trace of touch, the soul behind the brushstroke.

That’s how we know when something is real. Our souls have a gauge for truth.

We feel it.

Further Reading and News:

How to Make Art Under the Nazis (Without Losing Your Soul)

Riefenstahl review – nauseating yet gripping story of Nazi poster woman

I am participating in Site Festival 2025 Open Studios: SALE of older work, & new project to view. Sat 14th – Sun 15th June 11am – 5pm; Sat 21st – Sun 22nd June 11am – 5pm. Or by appointment