The robot Ai-Da:
Can art be created by that without self-agency? From … I assume the creators of Ai-Da:
The role and definition of art changes over time. Ai-Da’s work is art, because it reflects the enormous integration of technology in today’s society. We recognise ‘art’ means different things to different people.
Today, a dominant opinion is that art is created by the human, for other humans. This has not always been the case. The ancient Greeks felt art and creativity came from the Gods. Inspiration was divine inspiration. Today, a dominant mind-set is that of humanism, where art is an entirely human affair, stemming from human agency. However, current thinking suggests we are edging away from humanism, into a time where machines and algorithms influence our behaviour to a point where our ‘agency’ isn’t just our own. It is starting to get outsourced to the decisions and suggestions of algorithms, and complete human autonomy starts to look less robust. Ai-Da creates art, because art no longer has to be restrained by the requirement of human agency alone.
I am deeply suspicious of that statement, yet I am hesitant to address it. Are these random mechanical impulses? Is unintentional art art? Is it unintentional? Or is it anthropomorphication (type that three times fast!) to inflict human standards on a non-human entity?
Ai-Da’s website is here.
