Computers, as a Tool for Creativity, Can’t Replace the Artist
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releasePeople & organizations named in this document
Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.
Document text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Computers, as a Tool for Creativity, Can’t Replace the Artist.
Rachel Rose, a video artist who thinks about the questions posed by AI, employs
computer technology in the creation of her works. Her films give the viewer an
experience of materiality through the moving image. She uses collaging and layering of
the material to manipulate sound and image, and the editing process is perhaps the most
important aspect of her work.
She also talks about the importance of decision making in her work. For her, the
artistic process does not follow a rational pattern. In a converation we had, together with
the engineer Kenric McDowell, at the Google Cultural Institute, she explained this by
citing a story from theater director Peter Brook’s 1968 book The Empty Space. When
Brook designed the set for his production of 7he Tempest in the late 1960s, he started by
making a Japanese garden, but then the design evolved, becoming a white box, a black
box, a realistic set, and so on. And in the end, he returned to his original idea. Brook
writes that he was shocked at having spent a month on his labors, only to end at the
beginning. But this shows that the creative artistic process is a succession whose every
step builds on the next and which eventually comes to an unpredictable conclusion. The
process is not a logical or rational succession but has mostly to do with the artist’s
feelings in reaction to the preceding result. Rose said, of her own artistic decision
making:
It, to me, is distinctively different from machine learning, because at each
decision there’s this core feeling that comes from a human being, which has to do
with empathy, which has to do with communication, which has to do with
questions about our own mortality that only a human could ask.
This point underlines the fundamental difference between any human artistic production
and so-called computer creativity. Rose sees AI more as a possible way to create better
tools for humans:
A place I can imagine machine learning working for an artist would be not in
developing an independent subjectivity, like writing a poem or making an image,
but actually in filling in gaps that are to do with labor, like the way that
Photoshop works with different tools that you can use.
And though such tools may not seem spectacular, she says, “they might have a larger
influence on art,” because they provide artists with further possibilities in their creative
work.
McDowell added that he, too, believes there are false expectations around AI.
“Tve observed,” he said, “that there’s a sort of magical quality to the idea of a computer
that does all the things that we do.” He continued: “There’s almost this kind of demonic
mirror that we look into, and we want it to write a novel, we want it to make a film—we
want to give that away somehow.” He is instead working on projects wherein humans
collaborate with the machine. One of the current aims of AI research is to find new
means of interaction between humans and software. And art, one could say, needs to
play a key role in that enterprise, since it focuses on our subjectivity and on essential
human aspects like empathy and mortality.
147
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016367
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents