What Happens When Humans and Robots Create Art Together?

Summary

This discussion focused on the intersection of art, artificial intelligence, and technology, featuring artist Sougwen Chung in conversation with Hans Ulrich Obrist. Chung, a pioneer in human-machine collaboration, shared insights into her artistic practice and philosophy. She described her journey of creating artworks with AI, including training neural networks on 20 years of her drawings to develop a unique collaborative process.

The conversation explored Chung’s latest work, which incorporates brainwave data and robotic systems to create paintings. This approach blends technology with traditional artistic practices, challenging conventional notions of creativity and authorship. Chung emphasized the importance of viewing artworks as living organisms rather than static objects, drawing parallels to biological systems and evolutionary processes.

The discussion touched on various inspirations for Chung’s work, including historical art movements, scientific theories, and philosophical concepts. She highlighted the significance of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing complex contemporary issues. The conversation also delved into questions of agency, particularly regarding the role of the human hand in an increasingly technological world.

Chung shared her perspective on the future of AI in art, stressing the need for balanced collaborative models that don’t simply automate human creativity. She discussed her company, Cilicet, which aims to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation. The conversation concluded with reflections on data ownership, artistic legacy, and the continuing relevance of traditional artistic practices in the age of AI.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Sougwen Chung’s artistic practice of collaborating with AI and robotic systems to create art

– The evolution of the human hand and its role in creativity in the age of technology

– Questions of authorship, data ownership, and the future of AI in art

– The interdisciplinary nature of Chung’s work, bridging art, technology, and science

– The concept of artworks as “living organisms” that evolve over time

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to explore Sougwen Chung’s innovative artistic practice and her perspectives on the intersection of art, AI, and technology. It sought to highlight how artists can engage with emerging technologies in meaningful ways while raising important questions about creativity, authorship, and human-machine collaboration.

Tone:

The tone of the discussion was largely intellectual and exploratory, with both the interviewer and interviewee expressing enthusiasm and curiosity about the topics discussed. There was an underlying sense of optimism about the potential for technology to enhance artistic practice, balanced with thoughtful consideration of the philosophical and practical implications. The tone remained consistent throughout, characterized by mutual respect and a shared interest in pushing the boundaries of art and technology.

Speakers

– Hans Ulrich Obrist: Curator, artistic director

– Sougwen Chung: Artist, researcher, founder of Cilicet

– Audience: Attendees asking questions

Additional speakers:

– Joseph Fowler: Curator (mentioned but not speaking)

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Art, AI, and Technology

This discussion, featuring artist Sougwen Chung in conversation with curator Hans Ulrich Obrist, explored the intersection of art, artificial intelligence, and technology. The dialogue delved into Chung’s innovative artistic practice, her perspectives on human-machine collaboration, and the broader implications of AI in the art world.

1. AI and Art Collaboration

Sougwen Chung, a pioneer in human-machine collaboration, shared insights into her artistic journey of creating artworks with AI. She described training neural networks on 20 years of her drawings to develop a unique collaborative process. Chung emphasised AI as an artistic collaborator and tool for creativity, while Hans Ulrich Obrist highlighted the importance of maintaining human agency and the role of the hand in AI art creation.

Chung’s approach involves using personal data and training her own AI models for artistic practice. She views AI art as a way to explore human creativity and self-knowledge, challenging conventional notions of creativity and authorship. This perspective aligns with Obrist’s interest in how AI can enhance artistic practice while maintaining the human element.

2. Evolution of Art and Technology

The conversation explored Chung’s latest work, particularly her piece “Spectrum” exhibited at Davos. This artwork incorporates brainwave data and a robotic system named Doug to create paintings. Chung uses an EEG headset to capture her brainwaves, which are then translated into movements for the robotic arm. This approach blends technology with traditional artistic practices, exemplifying the evolution of art through technological advancements.

Chung emphasised the creation of new sensory experiences and modes through technology, while also stressing the continued importance of traditional artistic practices. She discussed her fascination with the evolution of the human hand and its significance in her work. This balanced view acknowledges the transformative potential of technology in art while respecting established artistic methods.

3. Artist’s Background and Influences

The discussion touched on Chung’s background, including her bilingual upbringing and the influence of her parents – her father being a singer and her mother a programmer. This diverse background has shaped her interdisciplinary approach to art. Chung also mentioned drawing inspiration from the Gutai art movement and her ancestry of calligraphers in China, highlighting the blend of traditional and contemporary influences in her work.

4. Artist’s Role and Practice in the AI Era

Chung advocated for establishing new institutional models for artistic collaboration, which aligns with Obrist’s view on the importance of artists in shaping the future of technology and society. She discussed her company, Cilicet, which aims to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation as an open system for collaboration.

Questions of authorship and ownership in AI-generated art were raised, with both speakers acknowledging the complexity of these issues. Chung explored the concept of artistic legacy and posthumous work through AI, raising thought-provoking questions about the future of creativity and artistic expression beyond an artist’s lifetime.

5. Societal Impact of AI Art

The conversation broadened to consider the wider societal implications of AI in art. Chung emphasised using AI art to address broader questions about technology’s role in society, challenging the narrative of AI automating human behaviour and labour. She stressed the importance of creating balanced collaborative models with AI that don’t simply automate away human creativity and labour.

Chung also shared her experience during the pandemic and how it influenced her work, highlighting the challenges of creating radical work in today’s age. The discussion touched on how artistic practice can explore and potentially reshape human-machine relationships.

6. Future Directions and Unrealized Projects

Chung shared her idea for an unrealized project involving a “living performance” in a rotunda or turbine hall, demonstrating her ongoing exploration of innovative artistic concepts. She also discussed her approach to data ownership, emphasizing her use of only personal data in her work.

The conversation concluded with reflections on artistic legacy and the continuing relevance of traditional artistic practices in the age of AI. Unresolved issues were identified, including the long-term implications of AI-generated art on artistic legacy, balancing human agency and machine collaboration, and ethical considerations around using AI to replicate or extend an artist’s work posthumously.

In conclusion, the discussion provided a comprehensive exploration of the current state and future possibilities of AI in art. It emphasised the potential for human-machine collaboration to enhance creativity while raising important questions about authorship, legacy, and the evolving role of artists in a technologically advanced society. The conversation maintained a tone of intellectual curiosity and optimism, balanced with thoughtful consideration of the philosophical and practical implications of AI in artistic practice.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. I want to welcome you all here in the room and of course also our online audience to the session today. And we are so delighted that Sook-Hyen Chung is here with us to discuss the amazing artwork they created here for the Forum Spectral. I want to congratulate and thank Joseph Fowler on this amazing piece Joseph curated and all the accuracy here. We should give Joseph a big round of applause. And before asking Sook-Hyen on stage, Joseph asked me to say a few things more generally about AI, art and AI, and also my connection to this topic. Actually, the first encounter with it really began when I was a student in the kind of late 80s, early 90s, when I met the scientist, mathematician and also architect of cybernetics, Heinz von Förster, who in that meeting predicted that the future of art will be more about feedback loops and talked about AI and actually wondered how capable AI will become and what dangers may arise from it. So in a way, that marked the beginning. And so about 12 years ago, we started at the Serpentine with a project with technology, with Ben Vickers, we began basically to build a department, which now has five curators and began with a project kind of initially online, realized that these projects are more like living organisms and then decided to also bring it into the exhibition space. And now more recently, also into the park. I wanted to show you quickly two examples, recent examples of how we kind of collaborate with AI. One is this pathmaker pollinator project with Alexander Daisy Ginsberg. It’s called Pollinator Pathmaker. There is also an online presence of it, www.pollinator.art, where you can actually on this pollinator.art site download instructions to build your own pollinator pathmaker. And what it is, it’s a garden created by an algorithm, a planting designed to attract and support a maximum number of pollinators. So it is basically the artist and designer Alexander Daisy Ginsberg using AI to create a large environmental artwork. In the next image, we see the most recent work. We see Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst’s The Call. It’s basically a project where the artists centered on the collective creation of new vocal data sets, governance frameworks, and the polyphonic AI model. A process really of data collection used for art making. And it really results in an experience of human and machine voices in which the audience becomes entwined and at times also part of the choir. And that’s what you heard when you entered the space. It’s part of this project with Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst. And of course, this idea of sound leads us right away to Sugwen and Sugwen’s practice. Sugwen is an artist and researcher, really one of the great pioneers in the field of human and machine collaboration, showing us that AI can act as a collaborator. Since 2015, Sugwen has actually co-created amazing artworks with AI, trained a neural net on 20 years of their painting. And somehow, when we discussed earlier on Sugwen’s practice, we spoke about Grace Lee Box, someone Sugwen often quotes. Actually, Grace Lee Box says, these are the times to grow our souls. And I think it is very fascinating that that’s exactly what Sugwen does in this collaboration with art and technology. And Sugwen says also that creativity is vital to produce the conditions for our evolution. And that, of course, means that we need artists in society. And that’s why John Latham and Barbara Savini were right that every company, every corporation, every brand, every government should have an artist in residence and an artist on the board. Please give a very,

Sougwen Chung: very warm welcome to Sugwen. Thank you. Thank you so much, Hans. Thank you so, so much. I wanted to ask a question about your beginnings, because we talked about sound and your father was a singer and you initially came in a way to art through music, but then through your mother, who worked as a programmer, you then came to visual arts. Can you tell us about the story of your beginnings? Yes, absolutely. So I was really blessed and fortunate to grow up in a household where the languages of computer science and music and art were kind of one of the same. I’m also bilingual. So there’s a lot of that kind of hybridity in the room. And I, you know, I grew up as very much a digital native, thinking about how I express myself through the screen and what it means to represent myself in digital data. I parlayed that into very much learning about drawing in my own music style through instrumentation of violin, but also that which happened on screen. And, and I realized, like I think many people do, there’s a little bit of a disconnect between what happens in the physical world and then what what you can do in the digital world. And I really wanted to bridge that divide and make that closer together. So that’s when I thought, you know, my

Hans Ulrich Obrist: drawing in real life, my musicianship in real life, needed a space of embodiment. And I thought a robotic unit would be perfect for exploring that kind of a duet, that kind of collaboration, a way in which I could program tools to, to learn about drawing itself and painting itself. Thank you so much. I wanted to ask you also about inspirations from the past, because in a way, the future is often invented as fragments from the past. And at this very moment, that is such a strong focus on art and technology, a strong focus on art and AI. I think it’s important that we remember the pioneers in this space. And you do that, which I think is so admirable very often. You mentioned, for example, Cohen’s project. We could also talk about Lynn Hirschman-Leason with Agent Ruby. These are artists who many decades ago worked with AI. Can you talk a little bit about pioneers who inspired your practice? Absolutely. So I think there’s so much to be inspired by in our art historical past. I think, obviously, Harold Cohen created this extension of his own painting sensibility, which I was really, I love that you introduced this conversation through this dialogue about feedback loops, because I’m bringing that extension back into my own practice. I want it to really change how I draw in sort of like real life. I’m really inspired by artists like Samia Halaby, who’s currently showing at Electric Dreams, who’s some of the early software pioneers, thinking about, again, how do we express our creativity visually and on screen? I think in particular, the Gutai art movement was really thinking about those extensions and how we represent our bodies and how our bodies really change in a technological kind of configuration. So yeah, and I mean, the history of calligraphy, I come from an ancestry of calligraphers in China. So really thinking about the mark, and really what it means to make expressive gestures in 2025. And can you tell us what then happened in 2015? Because in 2015, there was an epiphany. You started to collaborate with machines. You began a journey, what you call a journey of co-creation. And you meticulously scanned 20 years of drawings and created a data set. Yeah, I you know, I was thinking about this so much. I mean, back in 2015, this wasn’t really things like data set and like neural networks and training models were not in the public vernacular. But I was still really interested in, in what happens when you work with these AI systems. And what what do I have as an artist to contribute to this really vast landscape of technologies influence on society. But I thought about the thing that I care about the most, which is my own drawing, what do I have the most of? I’ve been drawing since I was a kid, like many artists. And I really wanted to find a different way to engage with that. I think of it as a different temporal mode. Like how do you look back on and reflect on the sketches you made when you were a child? How do you classify that? What kind of insights can you glean? Is it possible to collaborate with a system that’s really driven from you at six? I think it’s a it’s sort of a fantasy to be able to time travel. But it was my way of time traveling through my my archives. And what’s really exciting about that is, to this day,

Sougwen Chung: now we’re working with three decades of drawing data. So it’s really something that’s constantly being fed into the system and constantly

Hans Ulrich Obrist: evolving. And it’s, of course, fits very directly into the work you you show here, Spectrum in Davos. You described the work as a collaboration with the robotic system, Doug. And there is a connection there to your brainwaves. Can you explain to us how that exactly works?

Sougwen Chung: Yeah, absolutely. So I’m really interested in the future and evolution of the human hands. And obviously, we draw with movement, we think of drawing as physical movement of traces of the hand. But I was thinking of the ways in which the body itself is kind of a generative system. We create electricity, this is a bit this is a bit kind of nerdy, but like we, we create electricity with our minds through different states of meditation, and how that can actually be understood as a way to drive robotic drawing. So there’s the system works in two ways. It works in that when I’m in a heightened state of creative flow, the system’s only able to paint, it’s a system is enacted and able to paint with me. And in that way, I create this reinforcing mechanism, this biological feedback loop, in which I learn about how to dip into a deeper creative

Hans Ulrich Obrist: flow. And it kind of goes beyond, because we began with feedback loop, and it kind of goes beyond feedback loop, because it goes into evolution, it goes into biology, and in a way, I think something is changing in art right now, which is this idea that in a way artworks are becoming more living organisms, and some months ago I was in conversation with Lang Shaoji, the pioneering artist in China, who over the last 30 years has basically worked with silkworms, he’s developed a kind of a theory culture, and explained to me that these silkworms are living organisms, and that of course is also important for you, so can you talk a little bit about this idea that the artwork is in that sense not a finite object, but it’s a living organism?

Sougwen Chung: Yeah, yeah, in that way, sort of designing collaborators, designing collaborative systems becomes a way of, it becomes sort of the art practice itself, I was really interested in learning that the silk that silkworms produce can actually carry electricity, so they can be used into silkworm living circuitry, so in this way, just like I’ve designed these robotic systems, I’m exploring this sort of bio-organic, bio-mechanical way of thinking about mark making, way of thinking about agency, in a way that really challenges what we think

Hans Ulrich Obrist: of as an animal, what we think of as a machine, and what we think of as artistic and research practice. And then of course in the text, because for those of you who haven’t seen it, the work is literally next door, so after the session we can all visit it, there is of course also a video, and in this video you talk about different kind of inspirations from different fields, and your practice is resolutely interdisciplinary, and in a way, this idea that we can only address the big topics, now is our time if we go beyond the fear of pooling knowledge, if we bring fields together, you quote Édouard Glissant, a philosopher, poet and writer, you quote Francisco Varela, the late neuroscientist, can you talk a little bit about also how you bring all these disciplines together in your work as an artist?

Sougwen Chung: You know, that’s such a great question, and one I don’t really get asked that often, and I think when I read scientific texts, when I read poetic texts, I really, I do read it as a kind of poetry, I think that there’s so much about Varela’s work in thinking about cognition and the mind, that is incredibly, it was radical for the time and continues to be radical, really thinking beyond the simple definitions of what it means to be a thinking being, when I think of Édouard Glissant, I think of his book obviously, a seminal book, Poetics of Relation, and so much of what we think of as a feedback loop is actually a really mechanistic way of describing relation, and while the engineer in me loves the idea of designing feedback loops, I think emotionally and as an artist, I think about relationality as its own substrate, as its own sort of clay to be molded, and I think we see that in our everyday lives, we integrate technology, we relate to technology in all these ways that I think sometimes we feel like we don’t have that much control over, and I certainly feel like I don’t have that much control over it, even though I have this background, so I wanted to create a model of shaping that relation myself, and that’s been through this project, Drawing Operations, and much more to come.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: Then of course there is the human hand, as you all see in the sculpture here, in the installation here, and we discussed this yesterday over breakfast, this whole idea that your kind of work is grounded in this question of what becomes the human hand, so I wanted to ask you to talk about that, because you say that it’s about agency, but also thinking about the hand as a symbol of human agency, and I’m obviously very interested in that because I started a movement a couple of years, about 10-12 years ago, you know, to protest against the disappearance of handwriting, so I post handwriting regularly on Instagram.

Sougwen Chung: Yeah, yeah, I love that actually, yeah. You focus a lot on the hand, so I want to hear more about that. There’s so many different facets that I’m really excited about with the hand, I think from a kind of way of thinking about thought, there’s like the napkin sketch that you articulate and show really well in artistic ideas written, there’s so much you can glean from that hand-mind connection that I think still has a lot of inspiration to be taken from it. I think about the robotic hand as a symbol of the industrial revolution, and how that in society has almost been the symbol for automation, and I really want to encourage people to think about not just the evolution of technology, but the evolution of ourselves as human subjects, thinking about how we can draw differently or meditate differently through hand movement and through these traces that drawing and artwork still have so much to teach us.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: And then of course there is also this idea of the visible and the invisible, it’s something we discussed actually here on this very same stage with Rick and Yamamoto a couple of days ago, earlier this week, where Rick and Yamamoto, who won the Chrysler Award this year, talked about the kind of importance in a way of the architect making this invisible of community in a city visible, to make the community visible. And of course that’s an old definition also of art, I mean Paul Klee said art makes the invisible visible. Famous drawer. Yes, and you say that it’s also about the invisible within yourself, can you talk a little bit about that?

Sougwen Chung: Absolutely. So, you know, we’re in an age of rampant technological invention and change, and I think about this quote by Adrian Rich, who says that the things that mark us as human don’t exist or begin existing or end by the calculus of technological change. And I think, as an artist working today, what are the artworks that are only possible in 2025? And I think of that, of brainwaves, right? How can I have a deeper engagement with my own physical processes that allow me to centre myself differently? A lot of what this Generation 4 project was, was incubated during the pandemic. I think I had no creative inspiration during the pandemic. I think we all lose that charge. You were in Switzerland. I was in Switzerland, yeah, I was. I was in a residency, sequestered in a studio for weeks at a time. And I need relation to feel inspiration, but at that time it was really one where I was in a drought. And I thought, what are ways that I can catalyse my own creativity and my own self-knowledge and my own centering through art practice, through these sensors? I think we all want to understand a little bit more what these sensors mean and can do. And this was my way of bringing it into the thing that I cared about the most. And through these reinforcing mechanisms, we’re able to explore meditation differently. I think there’s so much of this technology versus tradition divide that is unnecessary. I think technology can really invigorate these older traditions like meditation and kind

Hans Ulrich Obrist: of movement. Yeah, it’s both and instead of either or. Yeah, yeah, very much. No, no. In French, it sounds also very good. A, A, or you do ooh, ooh. Yeah. Or you do nini. Now, also technology and questions. I kind of think what is so interesting also is that art can ask questions. A long time ago, Cedric Price said technology is the answer, but what is the question? And I wanted to ask you to tell us about questions you think are relevant in relation to AI now, because that’s very much at the center of your writing, but you also have a practice as a writer and at the center of your practice as an artist.

Sougwen Chung: I’m actually I’ve been thinking about writing so much more in 2025, so I’m really encouraged by that statement. I think one of the centering questions is for me, and I think for all of us is, you know, where AI ends and we begin. I think this idea of collaboration can seem like kind of a fantasy and kind of a simple engagement. But I think as anyone who’s really collaborated knows, there’s issues of authorship and power and sustainability within every collaboration. And I think that’s one of the things I’m trying to investigate in the work. How do we create really balanced collaborative models with AI that aren’t simply automating the things that we care the most about away? I think that’s incredibly important in thinking about there’s been a lot of very optimistic conversation about how AI will automate all of human behavior and labor and thought within the next two years. And I and I would say that while I can’t speak to how things will be implemented in a wider scale, there’s so much that we still have to learn from each other and from our practice. And there’s so much we still have to teach AI that I think this narrative of replication is quite something that we should think more deeply about. I think about what are the sensory experiences, sensory modes of the future. I think that’s a direct quote from another writer that I really love, Susan Sontag, who writes about what does it mean to have a GPS system in our phone all the time? What does it mean to be able to send a message across the transatlantic? What does it mean to have access to satellite data? And I think these create extended sensory modes that we understand in product and applications, but in our practice, it’s still unexplored. So I think that’s really very inspiring for me.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: I visit studios and meet artists, you know, very often what is interesting is that we see patterns emerge, you know, patterns that connect. And the pattern of I’ve observed recently is that in the AI space, many artists I meet create their own company, create their own brand. It’s kind of a Warholian thing, but very different. I would say, I mean, Ian Chang at the moment is setting up a company. And you, of course, have for quite some time now, you have Cilicet. I do have Cilicet, yes. And you’re also here as an artist, but also as the founder of your own brand, of your own company. Yes. So I’m very curious. I think it’s for everybody here in the room and for everybody. following us online. Totally fascinating to hear more about Cityset and also how it works artistically, but also economically. Yes, of course, of course.

Sougwen Chung: So I think I can touch a little bit on that. I was, I think in artistic practice, you have several paths, right? Most of the time, the path is a Su Guancheng studio. It’s very much about being at the front and center of a larger sort of organization or creative body. I think that model is somewhat antiquated in today’s landscape. I really love the idea of Cilicet, which is, actually, it’s the insignia for it is a legal term. It’s the actual Cilicet as an icon. But what it is, it’s a open system for collaboration. It’s a new institutional model for thinking about how we can bring things like the arts, the sciences, and more in society into a place where we can create novel configurations. In my past 10 years of working in the way that I have, I’ve had a lot of collaborators, and I’ve had a lot of different ways of making my ideas come to life. And I understand the challenges of creating radical work in today’s day and age. So we really wanna take some of that knowledge and give artists the opportunity and researchers to address similar questions in unique ways. A really inspiring dinner I went to the other day about whether I consider myself an artist or an engineer. And I kind of looked at the person who asked me, and I was like, I actually, I’m not as concerned with labels. I kind of don’t consider myself, or I’m not really strongly attached to either definition. I think both artists and engineers look for different ways to ask questions, and they find the best ways to ask that question. So it’s really interdisciplinary and something that we’d love to grow more in the next few years.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: Thank you so much. A last question before we then open it to the floor for all your questions is actually the question about your unrealized project. I always think it’s really interesting to know more about artists’ unrealized projects. We know so much about architects’ unrealized projects because they publish them, competitions, but we know very little about artists’ unrealized projects. And the range of the unrealized is, of course, very broad. Projects can be too big to be realized, too expensive, sometimes too small, sometimes utopic and unrealizable. Artists’ dreams. Sometimes also forgotten projects. I mean, in the locker, in the studio, on a desk, or maybe also in the laptop, a hidden file. But then also sensor project. And Doris Lessing always told me there is also the projects which are self-sensor. No, these are projects we want to do, but don’t dare to do. So in that whole range of the unbuilt, can you tell us about one? And it’s not just to talk about unrealized projects. I always think it’s important to talk about, actually, in order to make them happen. Of course. So it would be great to hear about your unrealized project, your dream. Absolutely. So I love this question.

Sougwen Chung: It’s so very generous because it challenges artists to sort of dream bigger and share that dream. So I really appreciate that. And I think over the past few years, I’ve had this vision. A lot of what really defines the process is live performance and experiments with designing collaborative systems and exploring what different categories of machine or nature we can really speculate on and embody in different ways. So I’ve been really thinking about creating a piece, a project, in a rotunda or some sort of turbine hall that explores not the idea of a live performance, but a living performance. A living performance that creates an ecosystem of relation in which the audience becomes part of it as spectator, as agent. I think we’re thinking a lot about natural ecosystems and ways in which we impact the climate. And if we could create our own climate in performance, maybe we could think about how we can work together to build and renew a little bit more. So a living performance in a space where the audience becomes part of the artwork would be my dream project.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: Amazing, thank you so much. We now have time for questions. Thank you. For Subran, questions, comments. Yeah. That was a fascinating conversation. Thank you so much. Such a full audience.

Audience: So often artists and creators are thinking about their archives or their authorship or their IP long after a body of work is made. And it feels like you are living it in practice, as a living practice. And this raises to me these questions of synthetics or cloning or what happens beyond your own gesture and just looking to extend in terms of what the machine can do long after you have chosen to engage in your own practice or after you’re able to.

Sougwen Chung: Yeah, I think there’s so much about the vitality of performance and translation through these models that I think when I’m alive, it’s authorship. And then when I’m maybe no longer able to engage in a certain way, it’s what are the traces of artistic practice when an artist has imbued themselves in a system. I think that is hugely interesting. And I think something that’s even relevant today, how do we deal with artistic data posthumously? There’s a lot of models being trained on artists that have passed away. And then in that way, we think about the timeline, the legacy of an artist in a way that I don’t really have any answers for because I’m not quite at that point, knock on wood. But I do think these questions about rights and exhibition agency and life is all sort of part of what I’m looking forward to exploring later on. But they are very, very vital questions today. What is a living estate? What does it mean for an artist to make work after they’re gone? These are really philosophical questions and they’re also really pragmatic questions. And I think in that blurred area,

Hans Ulrich Obrist: I think we find a lot of what makes us most human. Thank you. It’s time for one more question. If there is no question, yeah, there’s a question here. Great.

Audience: It’s really fascinating to see all of this and I am super impacted by the robotic arms. So my question is more like all these AIs are always trying to make you feel personal with the machine and that you discuss and you feel that you’re not talking alone. Yeah. With your robotic arms, for example, do you feel that you are collaborating with them or is more like I’m working alone?

Sougwen Chung: You know, I think the human capacity for anthropomorphization is really, really fascinating. I wonder if it’s unique to our species. I’m not sure. But I do feel like when thinking about the work, there’s sort of a machinic animism at play. There’s a history of this type of projection in religion that I think creates a really interesting dynamic. I think for me, there is an emotional aspect to artistic work that translates to collaboration. Like when I perform, there’s a tenderness and a simplicity to the performance that it helps ground me in that moment of heightened awareness. So it’s a little bit of a mystery to me, if I’m quite honest, but I think I like keeping it that way.

Hans Ulrich Obrist: Thank you. We have time for one very last question. Okay, I’ll ask it then. So there is actually one question here when we worked with Holly Hunter and Matt Reinhart and curator Eva Jaeger on the exhibition in London. One thing which was very central in that discussion is of course, you know, who owns? The data, who owns the work? And so a data trust was formed by the artists, you know, basically collectively owning these works. I love that. By all the choirs. So I wanted to ask you in a way to talk about that, about your view on ownership of data, who owns the data and how can artists, you know, contribute to this discussion? That’s such a great question because I think we are at a fraught time where I think all work that uses technology has become blanketed under this umbrella of AI art. And no one, there’s no one use case UI.

Sougwen Chung: I think there’s one use case AI, I mean. There’s many different ways to design systems that utilize this feedback loop technology. For me, I only use my own personal data and my own training data. I train my own models. We were the first AI model to be collected by a major institution, the VNA. And I think that’s really important in this day and age to think about authorship and to think about why you use the data that you use. Do you use the data to find an easier way to generate an image or do you really use and generate the data to understand a little bit more about your own practice and what you uniquely can bring to the table? I think I’ll, if you’ll allow me, I think there’s so much despair and existentialism around what AI art as an idea has brought into the fore. But I do think that traditional practices like drawing and painting and dance still have so much to say and so much to do

Hans Ulrich Obrist: that I think my way of working with these sensors and data is a part of that exploration. I wanna thank you all for being here on the morning. I wanna thank you also for being with us online. I wanna thank Joseph and the amazing VEF team. And of course, our thanks go to Suvian not only for this talk, but also for creating a soundtrack, especially for today. What you’ve been missing in the background is a soundtrack Suvian created just for all of you for today. Big round of applause for Suvian. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

AI as a collaborator in artistic practice

speakers

– Sougwen Chung
– Hans Ulrich Obrist

arguments

AI as an artistic collaborator and tool for creativity

Importance of human agency and hand in AI art creation

summary

Both speakers view AI as a collaborative tool in art creation, emphasizing the importance of human involvement and creativity in the process.

Evolution of art through technology

speakers

– Sougwen Chung
– Hans Ulrich Obrist

arguments

Creating new sensory experiences and modes through technology

Artworks becoming living organisms through technology

summary

Both speakers discuss how technology is transforming art into more dynamic, evolving creations that offer new sensory experiences.

Similar Viewpoints

Both emphasize the continued relevance of traditional artistic practices and human involvement in the age of AI and technology.

speakers

– Sougwen Chung
– Hans Ulrich Obrist

arguments

Importance of traditional artistic practices alongside new technologies

Importance of human agency and hand in AI art creation

Unexpected Consensus

Institutional models for artistic collaboration

speakers

– Sougwen Chung
– Hans Ulrich Obrist

arguments

Establishing new institutional models for artistic collaboration

Importance of artists in shaping the future of technology and society

explanation

Both speakers advocate for new models of integrating artists into various sectors of society, which is an unexpected area of agreement between an artist and a curator.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement revolve around the role of AI as a collaborator in art, the evolution of art through technology, the importance of human agency in AI art, and the need for new institutional models for artistic collaboration.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus between the main speakers, Sougwen Chung and Hans Ulrich Obrist, on key issues related to AI in art. This consensus suggests a shared vision for the future of AI in artistic practice, emphasizing collaboration between humans and machines while maintaining the importance of human creativity and traditional artistic methods.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The conversation showed a high level of agreement and mutual exploration of AI in art

difference_level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers largely complemented and expanded on each other’s ideas, resulting in a cohesive discussion on the role of AI in art, its implications for creativity, and the evolving relationship between technology and artistic practice.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both emphasize the continued relevance of traditional artistic practices and human involvement in the age of AI and technology.

speakers

– Sougwen Chung
– Hans Ulrich Obrist

arguments

Importance of traditional artistic practices alongside new technologies

Importance of human agency and hand in AI art creation

Key Takeaways

AI can serve as a collaborator and tool for artistic creativity, allowing artists to explore new forms of expression

There is a growing trend of artworks becoming ‘living organisms’ through the integration of technology

Artists play an important role in shaping the future of technology and its impact on society

Interdisciplinary approaches combining art, science, and technology are becoming increasingly valuable

Questions of authorship, ownership, and legacy are important considerations in AI-generated art

Traditional artistic practices remain relevant alongside new technologies

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

The long-term implications of AI-generated art on artistic legacy and posthumous work

How to balance human agency and machine collaboration in AI art

The ethical considerations around using AI to replicate or extend an artist’s work after their death

How to properly attribute and manage ownership of AI-generated artworks

Suggested Compromises

Creating new institutional models that allow for collaboration between artists, scientists, and technologists

Using personal data and training custom AI models as a way for artists to maintain authorship and control over AI-generated work

I was thinking about this so much. I mean, back in 2015, this wasn’t really things like data set and like neural networks and training models were not in the public vernacular. But I was still really interested in, in what happens when you work with these AI systems. And what what do I have as an artist to contribute to this really vast landscape of technologies influence on society.

speaker

Sougwen Chung

reason

This comment provides insight into the artist’s pioneering mindset, showing how she was exploring AI in art before it became mainstream. It demonstrates foresight and a desire to contribute uniquely as an artist to the field of AI.

impact

This comment set the tone for discussing the evolution of AI in art and Chung’s unique approach, leading to further exploration of her methods and philosophy.

I think emotionally and as an artist, I think about relationality as its own substrate, as its own sort of clay to be molded, and I think we see that in our everyday lives, we integrate technology, we relate to technology in all these ways that I think sometimes we feel like we don’t have that much control over, and I certainly feel like I don’t have that much control over it, even though I have this background, so I wanted to create a model of shaping that relation myself

speaker

Sougwen Chung

reason

This comment offers a profound perspective on the relationship between humans and technology, framing it as a malleable, artistic medium rather than a fixed, controlling force.

impact

This insight shifted the conversation towards a more nuanced understanding of human-AI collaboration, emphasizing agency and creativity in shaping our relationship with technology.

I think about the robotic hand as a symbol of the industrial revolution, and how that in society has almost been the symbol for automation, and I really want to encourage people to think about not just the evolution of technology, but the evolution of ourselves as human subjects, thinking about how we can draw differently or meditate differently through hand movement and through these traces that drawing and artwork still have so much to teach us.

speaker

Sougwen Chung

reason

This comment challenges the traditional narrative of automation and suggests a co-evolutionary perspective where technology and human capabilities develop in tandem.

impact

This idea broadened the discussion from purely technological considerations to include the evolution of human creativity and cognition in response to technological change.

How do we create really balanced collaborative models with AI that aren’t simply automating the things that we care the most about away? I think that’s incredibly important in thinking about there’s been a lot of very optimistic conversation about how AI will automate all of human behavior and labor and thought within the next two years. And I and I would say that while I can’t speak to how things will be implemented in a wider scale, there’s so much that we still have to learn from each other and from our practice.

speaker

Sougwen Chung

reason

This comment raises critical questions about the nature of human-AI collaboration and challenges overly optimistic views of AI’s capabilities.

impact

This perspective steered the conversation towards a more balanced and nuanced view of AI’s role in creative processes and society at large.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it beyond surface-level considerations of AI in art to explore deeper philosophical and practical implications. Chung’s insights consistently pushed the conversation to consider the human element in technological advancement, the potential for co-evolution of human creativity and AI capabilities, and the importance of maintaining a balanced, critical perspective on AI’s role in society and creative processes. Her comments fostered a nuanced dialogue that bridged technical, artistic, and philosophical considerations, encouraging a holistic view of the intersection between AI and human creativity.

How can we create balanced collaborative models with AI that don’t simply automate away the things we care most about?

speaker

Sougwen Chung

explanation

This is important as it addresses the need to maintain human agency and value in AI collaborations, rather than being replaced by automation.

What are the sensory experiences and sensory modes of the future, given our extended technological capabilities?

speaker

Sougwen Chung

explanation

This explores how new technologies like GPS, instant messaging, and satellite data are changing our sensory experiences and perceptions, which is crucial for understanding human-technology interaction.

How can we deal with artistic data posthumously, and what are the implications for artists’ rights and exhibition agency after death?

speaker

Sougwen Chung

explanation

This addresses important ethical and legal questions about the use of an artist’s work and data after their death, especially in the context of AI and machine learning.

How can we create a ‘living performance’ that forms an ecosystem of relation where the audience becomes part of the artwork?

speaker

Sougwen Chung

explanation

This explores new forms of interactive art that blur the lines between performer, audience, and environment, potentially offering insights into collaborative creativity and ecological thinking.

How can artists contribute to the discussion on ownership of data, particularly in AI-assisted artworks?

speaker

Hans Ulrich Obrist

explanation

This is crucial for establishing ethical and legal frameworks for AI art, ensuring proper attribution and rights management in the evolving landscape of technology-assisted creativity.