Arts Management and Technology Lab: From algorithmic computation to human-machine collaboration, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is reshaping how society produces knowledge and imagines the future. AI-powered robots are now appearing not only in factories but also in art studios, galleries, and museums, signaling a crucial cultural shift, transforming technology from a tool of production to an active participant in artistic creation and curatorial practice.
5 comments:
I really enjoyed reading this article. It touches on several aspects of AI and Arts interaction. The first part of using robotic machines as performers or building blocks of art. I still consider all the technological support and development we can now utilize as tools. Those tech support artists through accomplishing repetitive or basic tasks in the creation process, but it is still human beings who come up with all the creative ideas initially. As I read through the CoFRIDA from CMU Robotics, I realize how smart AI models are right now at fully capturing human needs in human-machine collaboration. The last part with the AI Robot museums, I sense an echo from the past time when post-modernistic arts started to gain public attention. When a random chair or telephone can be considered an artwork that is placed in MoMA, then why couldn’t a robot figure do the same thing? As the definition of art and how people feel differently about art get vaguer, I can feel the trend of presenting our new technological achievements in museums. Personally, I view these as a way of telling the human narrative, and they will soon become the legacy of our time, but they are not artwork right now, simply a mere presentation of a fascinating tech development.
When I first read that this article was about robots and AI in museums, I honestly thought I wouldn’t like it. I’ve never been particularly convinced that AI should take over, or even play a major role in art, and I was skeptical about the value of robots in creative spaces. However, as I read through the article, I actually found it interesting. I appreciated the examples of AI being used in collaboration with humans, like CoFRIDA at Carnegie Mellon, and how robots can function as both artists and cultural ambassadors, rather than simply tools. Even if I don’t think AI should replace human creativity, I found the part about empathy, authorship, and audience interaction really compelling. It made me reconsider the role of technology in art and museums, not as a replacement for human imagination, but as a way to explore new forms of collaboration, engagement, and creative possibilities that push the boundaries of how we experience art.
The idea of ai robots working in art museums was a strange concept to me when i started the article, i was confused on what their role would even be in that type of environment but it seems that they take on a more customer service role as guides and assistants however i still do find myself with apprehensions about it. While i do think tech is a useful tool when it comes to gathering information i think when it comes to art it is human perception that makes it personable which is something an ai robot can't really add to (also tangent here but the idea of their being robotic dancers and musicians like the article said is a really scary concept to me, while do understand why robots can be useful in automation and service work the only reason i can see for using robots in performance would be not wanting to pay an actual person, i just cant support it especially when their are so many performers waiting for opportunities and spend their life honing their talents and their bodies for their craft
The moral reflections at the end of the article seemed to lean more towards the question of can AI create art rather than should AI create art. I should preface this by saying that many of the ideas mentioned in this article did seem novel and innovative to me. However, I think that the novelty comes from AI ultimately being the art piece rather than the artist. Even in the exhibits where you watch AI create art the draw of the exhibit is primarily viewing the AI, not the art that it creates. But back to the moral question: I think that even if AI could theoretically create its own art it should not. AI is ultimately about creating a computer to do jobs that would otherwise be done by humans (there are some cases where AI does things that humans cannot but I will be excluding that because it does not pertain to generative AI). In cases where the job is something that humans genuinely don't want to do I see no problem with this, AI *should* make disaster response safer. But creating art is one of the few things that nearly every person alive enjoys. Why should a robot take over one of the few tasks that people enjoy rather than focusing on taking over things that people don't want to do. As for the empathy paradox, I think that this "paradox" is simply explained by our over-active mirror neurons. If you put googly eyes on a rock and drew a sad face on it most people would feel some level of empathy for it without putting moral standing on it because on a logical level they know that it's just a rock.
AI is such a controversial topic, and right now I am not even sure where I stand on it. On one hand, it can't be ignored. The possibilities of the good it can do are too great. However, it is already being used to replace people when there isn't really a reason for it to do so. When I read about AI in different fields, my first question to myself is always 'why?'. When AI is introduced in something like data analysis it makes sense, the computer can interpret and draw conclusions from data much faster than any human could. However, in many artistic fields, the answer often seems to be that the AI prompter just doesn't want to put in the work, which at least for me and why I enjoy art, defeats much of the purpose. This article also reminds me of another article I read recently where a museum had an exhibit of photos made with AI, and a local performing arts student began to eat the photos.
Post a Comment