#They use tertiary evidence in their analysis and very rarely provide an actual report on their methodology - which is horrific

[a-very-tired-jew]

I was just reminded that the art collective Forensic Architecture exists and once again I’m disgusted.

For those of you who don’t know, it’s a collective of various artists who play at forensic science, conduct “forensic investigations”, and then make art exhibits of their “results”. Their reports and exhibits will make statements such as “the evidence shows that X is linked to Y” but the statistical output that they share will show something like a 5% confidence in the match.

That's right. They make art exhibits of their "investigations".

You want to talk about fandomizing tragedy? Making “forensic investigations” into art exhibits is the bougiest version I can think of, and it's only to serve an echelon of people who enjoy that kind of stuff. If any of the people in this art collective had a background in forensic science they would have taken ethics courses that would tell them how horrid putting on an art exhibit like this actually is. You don't honor the victims by putting on an art show for the rich and powerful to gasp and faint over so that you can fundraise for your next show.

Their founder has even stated that they’re not in forensics but “counter-forensics” and "counter-investigation". They eschew the practices and norms of the scientific community for telling their own version of investigative “truth”. They’ve even gone so far as to quote post-truth philosophies in their work and the controversial Nietzsche quote about there being no facts, only interpretations. Both are dangerous philosophies to hold in forensic science as it presents the evidence as subjective rather than objective. This is why they're an art collective and not a forensic science research group as they purport, they're rejecting objective scientific outcome for subjective interpretation.

You can go to the group's website and they have profiles on all of their team members. Almost every person is labeled as a "researcher", but once you click on their profile it quickly tells you that they're an artist, designer, activist, or some combination of the three. No mention of any scientific background whatsoever. That indicates their ability to actual conduct forensic science research is not great as they don't have any training or education on the methods involved. In fact, their entire program and personnel are out of an arts college with no science programs or faculty outside of anthropology.

That's weird, right?

A group that supposedly made a new discipline of forensic science, according to them, has no members with actual backgrounds in forensic science or scientific disciplines relating to it?

None of the team member profiles detail any scientific background that would be relevant to forensics outside of a few people with engineering and computer science degrees. Neither of the aforementioned disciplines typically train you in forensic practices anyway unless you take certain courses. Because these profiles are public you can go and checked LinkedIn profiles and find the CVs for each member as well. Guess what? No forensic science or relevant scientific backgrounds listed there as well.

But for some reason this art collective has received funding from governments and NGOs for "creating" a new discipline of forensic science. They're a "trusted" source for forensic investigations. That's worrying. That's terrifying.

I'm a forensic scientist and to make an objective field based upon methodology and empirically supported practice into one that is subjective and throws out the empirical aspects is terrifying. Everyone should have klaxons going off in their head whenever they see Forensic Architecture's name appear in a publication. I've reviewed a few of their "investigations" and they are rife with bad practice, manipulation, and misinformation. In fact, it appears that they present their work in art exhibits more than they testify to it in court due to their methods being questionable and their intent being not to help the investigation but to be a "counter-investigation" that can be judged by the court of public opinion. What do I mean by this? In many of their investigations the collective does not actively have personnel at the scene. Meaning they are not getting first hand physical evidence and measurements. Now, it's not always possible to be there personally and as such you rely upon crime scene techs, investigators, and other personnel to collect this stuff. Typically if you're a consultant or outside firm you are getting the evidence after it has been collected for analysis. You want the physical evidence in your hands as much as possible so that you can analyze it properly. Sometimes you have to request going to the scene yourself to get the measurements and evidence you need. The worst type of evidence to receive is honestly digital images of the scene as you are now having to analyze something a general investigator, who likely does not have specialized training, took a picture of.

In situations where you cannot have the physical evidence for analysis and you are left with only photographs then a forensic expert should be tempering their responses and conclusions. You cannot confidently come to conclusions based simply on looking at photos. This is something that is hammered home repeatedly in forensic programs and professionals.

In the case of warzone crime scene analysis, as FA typically does, they are, typically, not collecting evidence first hand from the scene, nor are they receiving evidence secondarily from actual trained investigators (when they are there first hand they also rely excessively upon expensive technology instead of best practices). They rely upon third party photos and satellite imagery to do their analysis.

Time and time again, forensic experts who rely solely upon digital photos and media to make their analysis get ripped apart by a good lawyer. Being confident in conclusions based upon photographs is the easiest way to lose your credibility. But again, the art collective playing forensic scientist primarily puts their work in art exhibits where they are not scrutinized by experts. Hell, I don't think I've ever seen them present at one of our professional conferences nationally or internationally (I would love to be a fly on the wall when that happens).

And finally, if this was an actual credible scientific group that produced credible investigations and had created a brand new field with methodology that stood to scrutiny there would be publications in the forensic journals detailing this. Especially from the "creator" of the field Eyal Weizman.

Guess what there isn't?

But in the end all they’re actually doing is crime scene reconstruction from people who want to cosplay as forensic scientists.

(for more reading on the group see this article that highlights issues with FA from another perspective https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/forensic-architecture-fake-news-1234661013/)