Assignment on Artificial Intelligence

By
Tanzeel Bey
( 22-Arid 4724 )

Assignment for Artificial Intelligence

( introduction, Abstract, Background Knowledge,
Interview, Conclusion )

Bachelor of Science
In
Computer Science
Tanzeel

Abstract—In the past three to five years there have been significant improvements made in
AI due to improvements in computing capacity, the collection and use of big data, and an
increase in public interest and funding for research. Programs such as ChatGPT, DALL•E,
and Midjourney have also gained tremendous popularity in a relatively short amount of time.
This led me to this project in which I aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these art
generator AI and where they fit into art as a whole. My goal was to give recommendations to
museums and exhibits in Omaha on what role AI art should play in their experiences. To this
end, I investigated the popular opinion of the use of AI in art through articles in conventional
newspapers. I conducted my own research and experimentation into how these AI work and
how to use them (specifically, I experimented with the Midjourney AI). In conjunction, I
researched opinions and academic papers on how these AI should fit into the current art
culture. Finally, I conducted interviews with local experts in the fields of AI and Art to
determine the perspective of those who have worked in their respective fields and may
understand the trends where things are going, and where they are coming from, more
accurately. This paper summarizes this process and provides insights into what was learned as
well as opinions on the topic.

 ITRODUCTION
TODAY , there are many AI programs available to the public, including autonomous vehicles, voice
assistants, facial recognition, chat bots, and now art generators. All these technologies have come to
prominence within the past 10 to 20 years. In the case of AI art generators, popularity has exploded
in the past three years with DALL•E 1’s release in 2021. Since then, art AI has improved even
further; however, AI art originated much earlier than this. The pioneers of AI art have been working
with it since the 1970s. One of the most influential of these pioneers was Harold Cohen, who worked
on a project called AARON, which was a series of programs that would create drawings and
eventually full pictures for Cohen. In [1], Cohen describes how AARON functions,
It was intended to identify the functional primitives and differentiations used in the building of
mental images and, consequently, in the making of drawings and paintings. The program was able to
differentiate, for example, between figure and ground and inside and outside, and to function in
terms of similarity, division, and repetition.
Cohen attempted to replicate his own processes and styles of art. He did not give the program
detailed instructions on how to draw specific objects, or other information regarding the physical
world. Instead, he gave the program an internal model of the art and used rules to create. These rules
included elements such as drawing closed shapes outlining four legged animals or people. Most of
the drawings it created were similar to those Cohen drew himself. This is an interesting example of
collaboration between man and machine where the artist has worked at every level to create the AI,
which produces art, and then collaborated with it in the creation of the art itself. Early in the life of
AARON, it could not draw with colors. This was a much more difficult implementation of an already
simple program. At first, the robot would draw in black and white while leaving Cohen to edit the
Tanzeel
drawing and fill in colors himself. Later, as the project grew and changed, Cohen was able to add in
the ability for the program to use colors. This is a particularly interesting period of AI art where man
and machine worked very closely to create art.
From here, AI art breaks off into a multitude of directions as artists were experimenting with
possibilities and finding small niches for their works. From the early 80s to the early 2000s, artists
experimented with different ideas. There was a so-called AI winter during this time as AI could not
advance very quickly due to hardware limitations. Funding and research in the field decreased and
there wasn’t one specific direction of focus for AI and art.
A real space for AI generated images and paintings didn’t fully emerge until the mid-2000s and
early 2010s. During this time, computing power increased at a fast pace and research into AI began
to receive more funding. Around 2014, the first Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) were
created [2]. This was a type of AI program which can be used generally to train AI, but which has
found the most success in art generation. As [3] explains in greater depth, the program is comprised
of two parts. The first is called the generator, which learns to generate plausible data from a training
data set. The second part is called the discriminator; it learns to distinguish the generator’s fake data
from real data. The generator attempts to maximize the probability of the discriminator making a
mistake. The discriminator estimates the probability a sample came from the training data rather than
the generator. These were mostly research projects until recently with the release of several of these
AI to the public from 2021 on.
The newest technology is the diffusion model. [4] explains the theory, math, and practical
application in great depth. The images are represented mathematically, then noise is iteratively added
to them. On the images themselves, this is random, off- color pixels which give the appearance of a
static on a TV connection. Then, the AI is taught to remove this noise and return to the original
image.
Both programs are trained while including the image description as an input. Then, once training is
complete, the program can generate an image from a prompt alone. This emphasizes the importance
of the data used in training. If the AI is trained on images of cars that are described as trees, it will
generate images of cars when given a prompt including trees. When AI was first considered and
used in art, it was a collaborative experience where the artist created AI, as can be seen with Cohen,
who built AARON over the course of his life. He collaborated with AARON, at least in the
beginning, to bring color to the black and white drawings AARON generated. Many also used AI to
pose questions or provoke conversation about AI itself. As AI has become more advanced and
independent, it has begun to produce art by itself with less human dependence. While a prompt is
still required, many questions are arising as to how this art should be viewed and what we should do
with it. This paper aims to review literature and theory on art and AI, dig into the popular opinion of
this art along with what those within the world of art think, and give recommendations to museums
and exhibits in Omaha on the role AI art should play.
Tanzeel

POPULAR OPINION

One of the reasons for this project was an image generated by AI won the digital art category of
the fine arts competition at the Colorado State Fair in September 2022. Up until this point, AI art had
been treated as an interesting concept, but not much more than a novelty. This win, coupled with the
release and subsequent boom of ChatGPT in the following November, caused AI to skyrocket in
popularity. The reactions were almost as diverse and widespread as humanity itself. However, a large
portion of these responses questioned these new technologies and their ethics. Many articles
appeared only days afterwards with titles like:
AI-Generated Art Won a Prize. Artists Aren't Happy.
– By Kevin Roose (New York Times) [5]
AI won an art contest, and artists are furious
– By Rachel Metz (CNN) [6]
He used AI to win a fine-arts competition. Was it cheating?
– By Drew Harwell (The Washington Post) [7]

Overall, there seems to be an interested but negative attitude towards AI. A lot of these articles
reporting on the boom in popularity quote public comments from social media criticizing these AI.
The articles also provide commentary from artists. The sentiment ranges from criticizing a perceived
lack of effort involved in using these AI to calling this the end of art itself.
Upon digging a little deeper into the AI and how they work, I was able to find more thoughtful
articles, which, while explaining the technology, provide a commentary into some of the more
positive usefulness of it. For example, AI can democratize art and give those who don’t have some of
the more technical skills a chance to create something. It can also be a useful tool for artists to
prototype concepts or to generate ideas for art.
EXPERIMENTATION

While working on this project, I was able to experiment with one of the AI myself and I found that
it takes more skill than you may think to get an image to look like you want. That says nothing about
the skill required to generate many of the more complex images that are shown online. It’s important
to understand how the AI works to see how they would attempt to create an image from a specific
prompt. I entered “University of Nebraska Omaha” expecting to see one of the more prominent
buildings on campus or maybe the logo or mascot. However, I got some nondescript and random
buildings with nonsense written on them as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Tanzeel

Fig. 1. Images generated from the prompt “University of Nebraska Omaha”

I had failed to consider how the AI was trained. The images that are used to train the AI are taken
from a large set of images with descriptions written for them. When creating these training sets,
instead of having images from many specific universities, there was probably a set of images that fell
under the category of university. Perhaps there were some images from very popular universities, but
I wouldn’t expect many images of specific universities. The images that it was trained on probably
showed images of buildings or maybe classrooms, and many of the buildings probably had some sort
of name on them.
However, the AI doesn’t understand how to form words. As I explained in the diffusion model, it is
taught to remove noise from images. In doing this, it works with a probability that the pixels around
each other will look a certain way. When working with text, it probably gets started with a letter, and
then the probability that the pixels around it are part of the letter get assigned. So it attempts to
generate something like a letter. But without understanding language, it can’t create a word that
makes sense and most of the time it can’t even create a normal letter. Even if it may be able to learn
to generate a full word, it probably would take even longer for that word to make sense in the context
of the image.
A similar issue occurred when I attempted to use a reference image as shown in Fig. 2 and change
its art style using Midjourney.
Tanzeel

Fig. 2. Arts & Sciences Hall (ASH) Reference image, credit: Fox 42 KPTM [8].

I placed this image in and entered “in the style of Salvador

Dali”. I expected to see something representative of Dali’s art style. However, what I got was Dali’s
head over the image as can be seen in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Images returned from Midjourney using the reference image in Fig. 2 and telling it to do
it “in the style of Salvador Dali”.

Again, this generation shows what the AI has been trained on and what it has understood. From the
key words “Salvador Dali”, it has most likely associated with images of the man himself and not so
much his art style. Therefore, there was a high probability that his face was in the image somewhere.
It attempted to keep the original image as well and it also was able to change the style as there was
probably a sizable portion of the Salvador Dali images that were his artworks.
Tanzeel
Upon realizing this, I decided to try to be more specific, narrowing it down to a single artwork to
try to capture that style. Scream by Edvard Munch was chosen for its prominent style. Using the
same reference image, Midjourney was told to generate it “in the style of Scream”. Again, the central
figure of the artwork was overlaid on the reference image as can be seen in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Images returned from Midjourney using the reference image in

Fig. 2 and telling it to do it “in the style of Scream”.

There was more success in changing the style of the reference image. However, the keyword
“Scream” was still greatly associated with the central figure of the painting, meaning Midjourney
associated a high probability that this figure would be in the image.
Finally, a landscape painting was chosen so there would be no central figure. This time, Midjourney
was told to do the image “in the style of Wheatfields with Crows by Van Gogh”. This result was
much better as can be seen in Fig. 5. This generation kept the building while changing the style and
adding a wheatfield and crows to it.

Fig. 5. Upscaled image returned from Midjourney using the reference image in Fig. 2 and telling
it to do it “in the style of Wheatfields with Crows by Van Gogh”.
Tanzeel

Another similar generation was created using the following reference image in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Clock tower Reference image, credit: University of Nebraska Omaha

This image was entered with the prompt “in the style of Van Gogh Starry Night”. The images in Fig.
7 were returned.

Fig. 7. Images returned from Midjourney using the reference image in Fig. 6 and telling it to do it
“in the style of Van Gogh Starry Night”.

This again worked well to change the style of the image while keeping the clock tower as the
main subject. These images generated from the reference images show that the AI often takes the
most prominent parts of the prompt given to edit the reference. Salvador Dali was present in many
images with his name as a descriptor. The main figure in Scream was the most present in training
images with that descriptor. For Wheatfields with Crows, it was the crows and the wheatfields and,
for Starry Night. it was the night sky. These are limitations that must be taken into account when
Tanzeel
generating content. Then there are the many settings and keywords that can also influence the way a
generation comes out. All of this makes it an acquired skill to formulate quality prompts in order to
receive the generation imagined. This also means there could be deeper meaning found in work with
AI art generators.
RESEARCH

The research done for this project focuses on understanding how AI fits into the culture of art. It
was undertaken to incorporate the opinions of experts who have studied AI and art extensively and
published on the matter.
Dejan Grba’s work Deep Else: A Critical Framework for AI Art [9] provides just this. It first
explores AI generated art from an artistic or poetic standpoint looking at how this art appeals to us.
Then it discusses major issues on the topic, including both limitations of the programs as well as
ethical, economic, and cultural problems. Finally, it presents prospects for the future of the
technology, giving insight into how it may impact the way we look at art and creativity as well as
how it may impact culture and commercialization of art. Overall, it provides a variety of views on
the critical discourse surrounding AI art. It stresses keeping a somewhat open mind and thinking
critically about the impacts.
The New York Times article in [5] provided a look at how people responded to a work made by the
Midjouney AI winning the art competition in Colorado. The article included quotes from Twitter.
One user said, “We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes”, while another
wrote, “This is so gross, I can see how AI art can be beneficial, but claiming you’re an artist by
generating one? Absolutely not.” It appeared that there were many others who initially shared this
sentiment. A lot of the criticism came from the idea that these AI are trained on current artists and is
copying them while taking their jobs. The idea that the AI is copying other artists or stealing their
work is a misconception as explained above. Instead, training is done to get the AI to associate
descriptions with what the objects probably look like. They don’t necessarily steal the ideas of other
artists but attempt to “understand the world” through them. With this in mind, the training sets are
probably not trying to find artworks specifically, but most likely include a broad range of more
general images. While many criticized the technology, this article also highlighted those who
defended it. These people argued that, as I found in my experimentation, there is still skill and
creativity required to write quality prompts to get such a piece.
[10] gives more context into how AI are trained. It specifically explains the process behind
diffusion models in a simpler way than [4]. It also explains that even though the training and image
generation processes are known, the parameters and decisions done behind the scenes by the AI are
not known. These are formed by the AI as it is trained and can be very complex. It is difficult to
predict how well an AI will work or explain why it does work, meaning the outputs are the most
effective way of judging one. This creates a somewhat complex perspective on the AI, giving them a
mysterious quality. It also makes it more amazing that these AI work and draws attention to those
working to build the AI. Interestingly the creation of a good AI seems almost like an art itself.
[11] is an article written on an interview done with the founder of Midjourney, David Holz. He
provides many perspectives on AI, how it’s used, and how it works. Holtz discussed the future of the
technology; "But the human ramifications of that are so hard to imagine," he said. "There's
something here that's at the intersection of humanity and technology. In order to really figure out
what this is and what it should be, we really need to do a lot of experiments." I found this
particularly interesting as this aligns well with many of the other sources I’ve found. I disagreed with
some of Holz’s thoughts though. "The majority of people are just having fun," said Holz: "I think
Tanzeel
that's the biggest thing because it's not actually about art, it's about imagination." Through more of
the research done, I’ve found that there can be more art there.
The article also discussed how people are using Midjouney. A lot of the users, about 30
percent, have been using it to help quickly develop concepts as part of their creative process. Finally,
Holz explained a bit about the AI itself. He talked about challenges with the AI. "The challenge for
anything like that right now is that it's not actually clear what is making the AI models work well,"
he said. "If I put a picture of a dog in there, how much does it actually help [the AI model] make dog
pictures. It's not actually clear what parts of the data are actually giving [the model] what abilities."
This confirmed some of the other information I’ve read about some of the difficulties with working
with these AI and the art of making them. Holz also discussed the improvements made recently. "If
you look at the v3 stuff, there's this huge improvement," he said. "It's mind-bogglingly better and we
didn't actually put any more art into it. We just took the data about what images the users liked, and
how they were using it. And that actually made it better." This again reinforced ideas I was
formulating on the interactions between people and AI.
[10] details a decision made by the Copyright Review Board on the initial refusal to
register a copyright claim to a work of art generated by a “computer algorithm”. This decision was
upheld due to the way the copyright law was written. The decision cited the wording on the law that
stated works must be created by a human and cannot be created without any creative input or
intervention by a human. I don’t agree with this decision as there is normally input from a person on
the works created, such as a prompt in the case of most generators. However, I do not know the exact
program that was used to create the work. I would still argue that the program that created the work
was built by a person and that person does have a claim on the works created by the program. This
ruling displays how new the technology is and the adaptations that must be made to deal with it.
[11] is an article that asks if AI generated art should be considered real art. It’s difficult to qualify
what is real art and what matters in deciding this. Many agree that AI lacks emotions when it creates
art. It is also accepted by some that AI art isn’t original. I disagree here. I will give them the fact that
there must be a prompt and it must have some knowledge of what it is trying to create. However, the
AIs appear to work in a way that makes art not seen before. In the case of
DALL•E and Midjourney, they create each piece separately. It’s not as simple as pasting pieces of
artwork in. In this case, it can also be said that humans aren’t original. We have to have knowledge
of what we want to do before we must do it. Still, do I think that an AI could make The Persistence
of Memory without having been exposed to something similar? Probably not. So this is hard to
quantify. Still, this development of the AI’s art skills is something very human. The art can also
inspire the viewer. Much of art is rooted in how the viewer will see the art and what emotions they
may gain from it. So that seems to have some value. Overall, it seems as though people are having an
initial reaction to the blow up in popularity the AI generated art has gained and there is still some
time to see how we will settle.
[12] asks 10 main questions on generative computer art. The one that stood out to me was: can a
machine originate anything? It has been shown in many cases that the AI programs in use become
extremely complex, so that a person cannot predict what it will output. These programs are also self-
modifying so as it works, it evolves. This allows the program to exceed their programmer’s
expectations on what they may produce. The more difficult thing is to originate something of artistic
meaning. One argument against this that the paper proposes is that art exists only in human
experience, and it requires this meaning behind it. A computer can only derive these results from
taking from existing information.
There’s no reason to completely dismiss the possibility there could be a meaningful connection
between a person and art generated by AI. One could also argue that people also draw on others for
inspiration and creativity so AI art could require a similar context.
[10] attempts to define AI art from three different viewpoints. The first part explains that “AI arts”
could refer to humans programming computers to create with a significant degree of
Tanzeel
autonomy new artifacts or experiences that professional members of the art world recognize
as belonging to “contemporary art.” It goes on to say that a sort of Turing test on AI arts
could be if art historians mistake objects a computer creates after training for the original
artifacts from some period, and if these objects are not simply slightly modified copies of
existing artifacts, then such a computer passed “Turing AI arts” test. But this approach
ignores how art has developed, which has been by pushing the boundaries of what is
considered art. An understanding of this can’t be programmed into a computer yet. Looking
at the art created by AI, it seems to be imitations of the styles and abilities of artists from the
past. Using this definition, AI art just seems to be simulations of art already done.
This second point discusses the element of human control in AI arts. This ranges from the training
pieces used to the prompts used to create the art. With some AI there are even more inputs used in
generating art. Due to these inputs, the author doesn’t consider the artwork to be truly of the AI. I
tend to disagree with this notion that just because humans had a lot of control on what the AI paints,
the result is not art. I think that there is some merit and beauty in this interaction.
The third view is interesting. It goes into how AI are trained to find patterns in art, whether that is
one artist or art around the whole world. But the outputs are reflections of the inputs used for
training. The author finds this repetitive and perhaps wasteful. They ask: are we really using the AI
to its full capacity just by teaching it to create like us? What if we were to try to get it to create in
ways we can’t or ways we’ve never even imagined?
This makes a lot of sense to me; it also seems to be very difficult to do. It might also be the
way forwards. Perhaps the museums should stay away from AI art unless it can do things that
humans can’t?
INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with those in fields involving art or AI. It is important to get the
perspective of those who are close to the work that is being done and have seen the current trends
about the topic.

A. Methodology
I asked ten common questions to each interviewee on art, art history, and AI. Then follow up
questions and explanations followed. I will also mention that it is important to keep in mind that
these discussions revolve around opinions and information which is subject to change. Taking in new
information and reviewing is important for learning, and this paper and its conclusions are time
limited. The interviews were conducted and recorded over Zoom. A transcript was then created using
the Descript app; while the transcriptions are not perfect, they worked well enough for my purposes.
Full interview transcripts are available in the appendix, and the interviewees were all associated with
the University of Nebraska at Omaha:

Dr. Deepak Khazanchi, Professor of Information Systems and

Quantitative Analysis
Dr. Dario Ghersi, Professor of Interdisciplinary Informatics Dr. Todd Richardson, Goodrich
Professor, English
Alexandra Cardon, Gallery Manager and Assistant Curator,
Samuel Bak Museum: The Learning Center
Dr. Adrian Duran, Professor of Art and Art History

The common questions asked were as follows:

1. Can you give me a definition of what art is to you?
Tanzeel
2. Where do you find meaning in art? In your interpretation and connection to a work? Is it
directed by the artist? A combination of both?
3. Is there value in the effort put in to create art? Does putting more time in increase the value?
4. Is understanding the history of art, where art is today and how it got there, important when
creating new art? 5. Is pushing the boundaries of art important when creating it? 6. Have you ever
heard of AI generated art? If so, what are your thoughts about it?
7. What do you see as strengths and weaknesses or opportunities and threats of AI art?
8. How do you see this technology being used in the future?
9. Does the ability to use AI to make many works from many different styles endanger
individualism in art? Does it devalue individual human creations? Or make them more valuable?
10. Does human knowledge and/or creativity limit AI?

The first five questions were asked as a baseline for the interviewee’s perspective on art and how
this may also influence their perspective on art created by AI. It aimed to discover if they held a
more rigid perspective on the quality of art, as in ideas such as “art for art’s sake” or placing art into
categories such as high art and low art. Then the questions shift towards AI by first establishing a
baseline of what they knew about it and introducing it to them. I then wanted to ask some open-
ended questions on what they thought about the possibilities of the technology by asking for the
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, which some may recognize as a SWOT analysis,
a common analysis tool in business. One of the main concerns I saw from the popular opinions I had
read was a perceived danger to individualism in art. Question 9 directly addresses this. The final
question is based on an opinion that the way we are trying to use AI is constrained to our abilities as
humans. It criticizes our tendency to create AI which copy ourselves and proposes trying to create AI
that can do something different from what we can.
B. Insights
First, I am happy to report after talking with those who have experience in AI, that computers will
not be taking over the world any time soon. Deepak Khazanchi explained it well, “I build flawed.”
He continued, “So, so, so I think that, you know, I think the hoopla and the news media and all the
stuff that you see is a little exaggerated, right? You know, AI will replace this. AI will replace that. I
mean, Or, I mean, I get it. I get it. I mean, I think there is a little bit of concern, but that used to
happen even in the industrial revolution.” He said “In revolution and the information age revolution.
We always talked about this. Oh my gosh. You know, but the thing, what, the amazing thing about
this is that this is created by human beings and the machine. Uh, is just a way of automating our
thinking as far as it can take it. Right? It's ultimately fundamentally mathematical and it's based on
patterns.” My own experience with some of the art generators confirms this as well. This is a relief.
Secondly, I found out very quickly that art is a very broad subject, which makes it difficult to
define. Almost everyone I talked to agreed that we shouldn’t put restrictions on what is art and what
isn’t or what is good or not. When I asked Adrian Duran if he could give me a definition of what art
is to him, he said, “No… I don't believe that art has a definition and I don't believe that any one of us
has the right to put a fence around it.” He continued to say, “I think that art is what an artist intends
to do with their creative energies. And I don't think any of us have approval rights.” There is a place
for many different types of art from pieces that are just meant as a simple entertainment, to those
which are carefully crafted by the creator to have many meanings and interpretations. Perhaps rather
than finding one type more important than the rest, it is important we have each—that there’s a place
for everyone.
On the side of AI, many agreed that machines on their own cannot be “creative”. They learn to
follow patterns, so they can mimic creativity, but they aren’t really creative on their own. So it’s
really quite important to have people there to provide the creativity of the prompt for the AI.
There were some who were worried about the copyright of images used in training the AI;
however, others who were more familiar with AI argued that we as humans also gain our own
Tanzeel
inspiration from each other and past works. Dr. Duran was very familiar with this: “I'm teaching a
class on Baroque art right now. And one of the first things we had to talk about was this idea of
copying because our idea of copying in 2023 is not the idea of copying in 1590.”
The main threat from these AI seems to be their ability to create very convincing fake images,
voices, and even videos very quickly. However, I was also reminded that even while AI are being
developed that can be used to create incredible fakes, others are also being developed that can detect
AI created content. Dr. Khazanchi told me: “there was this grad student in New York who produced
this, uh, algorithm that actually tells you 93% of 95% of that text is actually produced by
automation.”
Several also welcomed the idea that we should watch closely for art that is a collaboration between
people and AI and that the process for creating art can also be an important part of the art. Dr.
Khazanchi was one to jump on this straight away: “What it does is that it offers two avenues, I think.
One is this collaboration between the human being and the machine could develop something new,
something out there.”
AI systems and I know that they're fundamentally Finally, there were many times during the
interviews where the fact that this is a very new technology was brought up. We are right on the front
of this new technology so it can be difficult to predict where it will go or where we will take it. This
could become very big, but it could also be a short-lived trend.

CONCLUSIONS

AI is a rapidly changing technology, an important fact to keep in mind when examining its
implications. We must try to keep up with the pace at which the field will change. After analyzing all
the information returned in the process of this project, I came to the conclusion that most art exhibits
should refrain from collecting artwork generated by AI for now. It isn’t that the art isn’t good or
creative. It can be very good. However, sometimes the process is more art than the final product. I
feel this is the case with current art generators. The images that the AI can currently produce are
mimics of what can be made by people. While there may be a place for this type of art, it isn’t suited
for display in an exhibit. However, I believe that an interactive exhibit where people are allowed to
use an AI to generate artwork while they are taught about AI art or how the AI works could be a
useful introduction to using AI and computers in art. I would also encourage exhibits to keep an open
mind and look out for other artworks that incorporate AI or computers, as this is an expanding field.
Perhaps engineering and art are such different and distinct fields.

Hayden Ernst: some ways, right.

Um, yeah, I bring that up because I read, there's this paper that I read, um, that sort of said that a lot
of what, um, d i I is doing right now is, um, [00:34:00] sort of copying what humans can already do.
Um, and I, I mean, I wanna stay realistic about what we can do with AI and what AI can actually do.
Um, but the point that they brought up is that, um, We should be using it to, um, go past our limits
and go past the limits that we've placed on it.
Really. Um, and I don't really know how possible that would be, you know, in the, you know, future
in our lifetimes. Right. So I was just kind of wondering about that.
Deepak Khazanchi: You think? Well, I mean, I think you have to have guardrails though. I mean, so
I think the ethics of, uh, AI is, you know, and, uh, the other aspect that like I have a patient who's
working on the whole notion of fairness. You know, not just fairness of the machine itself, but
fairness of how we perceive the output, [00:35:00] uh, from so, so I think ethics and fairness are
important, critical issues in. In automate AI in general, which we, we have to consider and think
about. Uh, and also I think the whole idea that, you know, are there certain guards and the
professional disciplines that constitute art, right?
Tanzeel
I mean, I think are there guards that you want to have, you know, and you compete, uh, with a purely
computer generator, AI in, uh, in the marketplace of artwork. Right? I mean, so I think there has to
be some professional ethics, which we have in every profession, including in computer science. So,
mmhmm. , like, uh, you know, we, and we all struggle with this question of.
It's a philosophical question. It's a metaphysical question in some ways of, you know, what is right
and what is wrong, and uh, you know, [00:36:00] where, where do we draw the line, right? So I think
the ethical challenges. Uh, are more at the professional level, at the discipline level than at the
individual level, right?
You'll always have used our salesman who are gonna sell us, uh, you know, uh, a fraud, right? ,
right? Same thing is true with art. And so, and there's more likely with machines that this will be. So
it's also behooves the technologists who are building AI systems to, you know, build solutions. Uh,
and that's what's happening already.
You know, there are people who are building ethical solutions on at least trying to distinguish, uh,
products of machines. Right? Right. So I think those are part of the whole evolution of ai, you know,
mentioned and in any field,[00:37:00]
Well, uh,
Hayden Ernst: thank you. Um, that's all I really have for questions right now, so, um, that was
awesome. Uh, you answered a lot of them and gave me a lot of new ideas too. Um, good. And for
help. Yeah. I will, uh, keep in touch with you about the paper. and, um, I'll let you know maybe when
I'm finished and you can come and see the Honor Symposium too. I'll have a, uh, poster there too, so
that'll be awesome. Okay,
Deepak Khazanchi: excellent. And I look forward to it. I'd love to hear, hear what you have to say
at the end of this. . Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Um,
Deepak Khazanchi: and if you have any other questions or things that come up after you listen to
the recording, you know, just send me an email.
Hayden Ernst: Okay. Of course, of course.
Yeah. Um, and just to explain my, uh, paper a little bit, I'm sort of [00:38:00] looking into what, um,
art galleries or museums in the Omaha area should, uh, do regarding this AI art. And, um, that's kind
of what I was looking at for. , an exhibit would be, you know, something collaborative where people
can come in and learn about the AI and, you know, sort of make their own art there.
Um, So that's what, at least what I'm looking at initially, and maybe while I'm writing my paper, I
will, uh, change my opinion.
Deepak Khazanchi: But no, I think that's a great idea. I mean, maybe there is a section on AI art,
like Joslyn, you know, you have right these different sections. Well, you may have a special section
on AI art and have people play with it and so on. You know, create your own Renoir, uh, or. I mean,
the fact is that that's, that's the way to leverage, I think, rather than just kind of say, oh, oh, what do
we do ? You can't be handing, this is good. This, the bus has left the [00:39:00] station and it's, it's
way far ahead of us.
Alright, Hayden, thank you so much for your time.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah, no, thank you so much. This was a great talk. I loved having it. Um, have a
good day. Have a good, um, spring. You too.
Deepak Khazanchi: Enjoy some. Please enjoy some of the days. Those favorite, yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Ill, ill have a couple set of talk to you. Yeah, great. Uh, bye.
Deepak Khazanchi: Bye.

Interview with Dr. Dario Ghersi

Dario Ghersi: [00:00:00] Um,

Tanzeel
Hayden Ernst: okay, great. Uh, so I have a couple of questions here. Um, we're gonna start off with
a little bit of, um, stuff on art mm-hmm. Uh, before then going into more of the AI questions. Okay.
Um, but could you first, uh, maybe give a short introduction of yourself?
Dario Ghersi: Yeah, yeah. I'm Daniel Garcia. I'm an associate professor of biomedical informatics
in the college of ISNT at UNO.
Um, I've been at U N O for about 10 years. My background is actually in medicine. Early on I was
trained as an md, um, got my PhD in in bioinformatics, um, from NYU and moved to Princeton
University. Did a fairly long stint as a postdoctoral fellow. They are working on cancer informatics
and bioinformatics.
In a computer science, uh, department. I mean, we are a computer science professor, and then I
moved to u now about 10 years ago, and I'm, uh, currently a, a faculty. So my, um, my research
interests are primarily in, in the world of [00:01:00] bioinformatics. And so we do a lot of, um,
computer science applied to, um, biomedical data.
Uh, so that's sort of the background I, I, I come with. Um, but, but of course I have several interests
and, uh, I'm, you know, very passionate about music. I'm. Can consider myself a sort of an
intermediate slash advanced guitar player. I've, you know, played for almost most of my life. Uh,
and, um, yeah, I've, in, you know, it's been about three years since I started teaching this, uh, honors
course, which I.
Deals with complexity in general. And one of the topics that we talk about is also, um, um, digital art
and the contribution of, uh, technology and in particular computational approaches in, in developing
things that could be considered art. So that's, I guess, what I might bring to the conversation, not the
medical part necessarily. Maybe that too as well, I dunno.
Hayden Ernst: Right. Uh, great. Um, [00:02:00] so. Guess we'll just jump into the questions here.
Mm-hmm. First off, could you gimme a definition of, uh, what art is to you?
Dario Ghersi: Well, I have to say, you promised you send me some questions on Friday. I received
them, so I'm just going to improvise. Do like, I guess improvise a little bit. I mean, it's a very tough
question. I think the, the word art means different things to different people and also in different.
Periods of our history as, you know, human species, I guess, um, in, I, I would say, you know, I, I
was also classically trained, like I went to, uh, the equivalent of grammar school, what would be
grammar school in, in England.
But, um, so I studied, you know, Latin and Greek for many, many years. And their idea of art, I think
had a lot to do with beauty. Proportions, harmony. Um, and uh, and, and I think that's, that's certainly
one way to look at it. Um, I think in modern days we, we sort of included other definitions that are
definitely more [00:03:00] porous, um, and.
An artist might want to just shake, uh, the public consciousness about particular issues and may, they
may do it in a way that has really little to do with beauty. Um, so I think we, it really depends who,
who you are asking and also what historical period you're looking at. I think today. Art is definitely
not just about beauty.
And that I think is very related to, um, you know, machine learning and all that stuff that we can do
with, with art because a lot of it is trying to really replicate, uh, certain concepts that are actually
older than, than modern day art, I would say. But maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Intro.
Interesting. Um, Yeah, I decided to, uh, surprise you a little bit with the questions, so I haven't been,
uh, sending them to anybody yet. Um, so jumping off of that, where do you find, um, meaning in
art? Do you sort of find it in, uh, your interpretation or your [00:04:00] connection to, uh, work? Or
is it more directed by, uh, the artist and what they want to, uh, sort of bring to it?
Dario Ghersi: Well, I think, you know, it very much depends on the medium. I would say. Um, my,
my passion is music, so I come with that strong interest. So I definitely, the type of art that resonates
the most with me is music. I certainly like visual arts as well. I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as
Tanzeel
I am in music for music, you know. It really depends on the, on the period again. But when I think
about modern, uh, art form is really the emotional connection. Uh, to me that is a primary, um,
component. So it has to appeal to a certain, you know, emotional, uh, Uh, well, in a sense it is in, in
humans, I think. Um, but, um, and so for example, when I listen to, you know, I, I love the blues and,
[00:05:00] um, blues guitar, you know, and, and mm-hmm.
It's not overly complicated stuff. It's not overly technical. I mean, it can be technical, but most of the
times, you know, you can do a lot with a minor pentatonic scale. Something that is pretty basic, but
you know, The way that the tone, the emotional content of even a single note, um, is, is enough for
me. That that is art, you know, and it's more primal form. But at the same time, I also like baroque
music, you know, like the music of for example. And there is a lot of technical stuff going on, and at
the same time, There is the element of surprise. So the music of back and composers of his time, I
think lives at the edge between highly structured, uh, order.
Uh, and at the same time you have the element of surprise and sometimes bordering on, on, I
wouldn't say, um, randomness because there is certainly not a lot of randomness in that music, but
it's certainly the element that takes you by surprise because if we, if you can predict everything,
[00:06:00] uh, I, I don't think you can.
Necessarily call that. Interesting. Right. So, so I think I, I resonate a lot with the emotional content of
a piece and also with the, the intellectual, but at the same time, with a surprise, with a twist. And I
think that's where real art lives, you know, at the, the, you know, the tension between predictability
and complete randomness, right?
That's music. I mean, in visual arts it really very much depends, uh, on, on again, the period that.
Okay.
Hayden Ernst: Um, so then going off of that, um, is understanding of like the history of art, where
art is today and how it got there, um, important in creating new art. Um, should you really have to
build upon what your predecessors and peers are doing, or could you make like, meaningful art
without any background knowledge at all of what, um, sort of came before. Dario Ghersi: Well, I
mean, [00:07:00] I, I think, um, historically it's always been the case. Mostly, most of the time at
least, it's always been the case that, uh, people were sort of, were very aware of the conventions of
their predecessors. Now, whether they decided to build on them or shatter them, Um, sometimes they
did both. Um, but they, they, they were still very aware.
Uh, and I think there is something to be said about that. I mean, it happened in music, you know,
if you think about Arnold Schaumberg, you know, um, uh, and, and the innovations of the 20th
century music and that really does away with. The ideas of, of a, of a tonal center, of a piece and
things like that. The, these musicians were very aware of how to write, you know, in, in a more
traditional fashion using harmony and counterpoint and all of that, and they just decided to take a
different route. So I think there is, it's very important to, to be aware of the. Of the conventions and,
and what came before us, in a sense, the language of, of the discipline and then bend it in [00:08:00]
new ways and, and twist it and maybe even completely replace it. Uh, you, it's hard to replace
something if you don't know it at all.
Um, but, you know, I think there are plan. I mean, you could probably find a lot of exceptions of, of
artists that were not necessarily aware. Of what came before them. And they were not formally
trained or anything like that, and yet they were able to, to produce, um, pretty amazing things. Um,
so I, I don't think it's, it's necessary.
Tanzeel
I just think that it, it was very common in the past, certainly for the sesh forms of art. Um, but I don't
think it's, it's necessary.
Hayden Ernst: Okay. Okay. Uh, son, do you think that, uh, pushing the boundaries of art is
important when creating it?
Dario Ghersi: Mm-hmm. I think so. I mean, I, I think, um, sometimes, you know, it, it's not always
overtly pushing the boundaries, you know, it can be very subtle.
Um, but, but at the same time, I think it's very important that artists have their own voice. You know,
nobody wants to [00:09:00] music. Especially, you know, we, these days with YouTube and
Instagram, you know, you have all kinds of these bed, you know, bedroom players that are excellent
that just. Playing just like X, y, z, you know, replace your favorite musician and they're incredibly
talented.
But, but at the same time, you know, you go back the real thing if you want that particular version of
the music, right? I, I think it's important to, to have our own voice, um, in music, in, in digital, in, in
visual arts, in any form of art. Uh, just parroting what, who came before us is not. To me, particularly
interesting, although that requires also a lot of talent and skills. But I wouldn't say that's the most
exciting thing in art, so,
Hayden Ernst: right. So maybe not as much pushing the boundaries and doing something crazy,
you're just finding your own niche, finding your own place. Yeah. Uh, great. Um, so looking at, uh,
AI generated art, um, what do you know about it [00:10:00] and, uh, kind of what are your thoughts
on it?
Dario Ghersi: Yeah, it's a, you know, a very interesting topic. I, I don't think it's a new topic. I
mean, I think you can find, uh, artists that were experimenting with the ideas even in the late fifties
or early sixties. So, as most of AI is not new. Mm-hmm. Uh, the concept is not new. Some of the
techniques, maybe obviously more recent, but, um, I know that, that there has been several
approaches to it.
Uh, I, we can talk a little bit about visual arts and then maybe, um, Discuss what, what, what
happened in music. But, uh, I think for, for visual arts, again, there is the traditional approach, which
is the pro, the pro the approach of a computer scientist In computer science, you know, we tend to
like to solve problems. We have problems to solve, right? We want to optimize the function,
maximize it, minimize it. So we treat a lot of things as a, as a problem to be solved. And machine
learning, which is obviously a subset of ai, uh, is. Just designed to solve problems. And so that's, that
was [00:11:00] one way that people took say, okay, I want to.
Train a machine to produce art just like Vangogh or, uh, Rembrandt or, you know, whoever your,
your favorite paint painter is. Uh, and so they went about the problem that way, right? So you can
either use a training set or, or you can use generative adversarial networks when you, you are trying
to produce a work of art that another network is unable to tell from the real thing, right?
And you have these two networks that compete with each other. One is producing. Something. And
the other is trying to, to tell it, uh, from, from, you know, fake versus real. Um, and you can get, you
know, pretty cool things done that way. But again, we are back in the mold of imitating what went
before. So is that really something new?
Uh, I think more recently people have taken different approaches. They just explored the process as
opposed to the product. Uh, so using artificial intelligence or, or machine learning more specifically.
Uh, and looking at what it say, a neural network that is, will train for other purposes, can actually
[00:12:00] do and look at the process as, as it's learning and use that as art.
You know, that I think is very cool because it's, it's something that we haven't seen before
necessarily. How does a machine learn? Is that cons? Could that be considered an art form? Well,
perhaps. Right? If you, if you show it in a certain way. I think it can produce very interesting things.
And so we are not concerned about the final product being like a painting that we know, but we are
Tanzeel
really going outside the traditional and, and, and I think that's where most of the interesting stuff is
taking place really in looking at the process versus the final product. Um, so that is obviously, um,
Interesting in the word of music. I mean, again, going back to the parroting stuff, there is something
called deep back, uh, deep neural network that is pretty impressive. I mean, you can play with it.
Um, you can, you know, easily go to the GitHub repo and have it up and running in a few minutes,
you know, on a, on any Unix space machine.
And [00:13:00] you can produce, you know, four bars of, um, music that really sound a little bit like,
have written, uh, corals, for example, corals, um, and stuff like that. A little. I mean, it's fascinating. I
find it very interesting. But I, again, I'm less interested in that because it's just showing us, yes, we
can replicate some of the, the things, the patterns that were there. But, eh, I, I don't, I wouldn't
necessarily call it art. Um, In the word of music, there has been other things that I think are
interesting, um, in which is not maybe a bit, little bit more niche in the field of artificial intelligence,
but, uh, pattern based stuff like the word of cellular, automata, um, uh, that have generated a lot of
interesting visuals, uh, and music as well.
So you can use it for more naturally for visuals because cellular automata usually represented as, you
know, um, things happening on a grid, on a lettuce as they update right? Um, and then in music you
can also [00:14:00] encode certain pitches and produce music with them. I think those are very
interesting because they're completely unsupervised, you know, and you are just as a, as someone
who is appreciating it. You're sort of selecting what you like, uh, and what you resonate with. Um,
but, and that I think is the exciting part because it's a machine producing something in a completely
unsupervised way with minimal human supervision, and we respond to it. I think that is where the
excitement is really not so much in trying to replicate.
Oh yeah. The machine can actually paint just like vangogh or compose almost like ba eh, interesting.
But technically interesting. I wouldn't call that art.
Hayden Ernst: Right, right. Um, so you're talking about the process and um, some of the artists or
some of the people working in ai mm-hmm. Um, in the past, I was wondering if you've heard of, uh,
Harold Cohen.
Yes. Think I did Aaron,
Dario Ghersi: I was reading Yeah. Was [00:15:00] mentioned. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. And so he, uh, he actually programmed this entire AI himself and he worked
on it throughout his, uh, life. And then he worked in collaboration with it a lot too. Um, so I was just
wondering what do, what do you think about that?
Dario Ghersi: I think, yeah, I think I'm, I was reading a book called, um, art in the Age of Machine
Learning, I believe, which came out last year in m i t press.
And they were talking about that, um, that how long it took him to, uh, to do this. Um, what was the,
um, it was not, it was good old fashioned ai. What was the, the, the medium that he was working
with? I kind of forget right now. I'm, I'm, I'm not exactly sure. Yeah, I don't remember exactly. I
remember I was impressed by the fact that this person had been working on, you know, on this for
such a long time.
Right. I can't remember exactly what medium.[00:16:00]
Hayden Ernst: Um, alright, so what do you see as like some of the strengths and weaknesses or
opportunities and threats of AI art? Uh,
Dario Ghersi: well, I mean, I think the threats are pretty apparent. Um, it, it's just very difficult
these days to, um, I mean there are, for example, journals. I was re uh, I have, you know, friends that
are writers and, um, they were telling me that some journals actually had to shut down cause of
submissions.
You know, they were overwhelmed by submissions that were of stuff that was generated by, um, Ai.
So I think there is, there is a problem of, of, um, of this deluge, of, of information or, or artifacts that
are very easy to produce, you know, so almost mass produce and noise and, you know, noise can be a
Tanzeel
problem, um, especially for, for this kind of art form where it's, it can be, it can take [00:17:00] time
to tell things apart and at the, and at some point it really.
The boundaries are very, very porous, again between human creativity and machine aid stuff. And so
I think there are some dangers in terms of, um, just we are not quite ready yet. Um, we don't know
what to do with it. We don't know what to call it. Um, right. There is a real danger for artists, you
know, that are making a living sometimes not maybe, uh, getting rich or anything, but trying to, to
survive with their work and.
So I think, um, that could be a new, certainly I can see that as an issue. Um, in terms of the
excitement, I think there is new opportunity for having a new tool. Uh, photography was the same
thing. You know, it was considered, you know, dangerous to painters and that was. Who prompted
the impressionists, you know, to do something different.
Say, okay, well you can do a very good job at capturing reality as it is. Let me do something
different. Let me tell you about how I see it. And [00:18:00] uh, and so then you have all these
impressionists that came along after photography in a sense, sort of prompted maybe some would
argue, uh, by that. So, and that was great.
Of course. So I, I think there is a lot of opportunities whenever a new medium or a new approach
comes into play. This might be a little bit different though. Um. Because of human intervention, the
amount of human intervention that is needed, photography is still needed to point your camera,
right? Something particular time of day. The, you know, you had a lot of control and some of these
things that we are seeing now could potentially just be, press a button or you don't even need to press
a button. So there is a level of automation in all this that is, um, quite different from all the tools that
have come along, you know, in the history of the human pieces.
So, Okay. It's hard to tell whether it's good or bad. I think it's a, it's a mix,
Hayden Ernst: right? Um, so like, do you think that this ability of the a of AI to make [00:19:00]
many works, um, for many different styles and even combined styles and do all this, uh, does that
endanger the individualism in art? Um, does it devalue individual human creations or does it make.
Than more valuable. And do you see that, see people, uh, sort of creating a reactionary form of art,
um, more different and more out there to ai maybe something that AI can't even copy?
Dario Ghersi: Uh, I, I find it hard to imagine something that AI could not possibly copy. Right? I
mean, yeah, it seems like given enough examples, we might be able to pretty much copy everything
and that is potentially the problem.
But, um, Individualism. I think that there is always the per as as we were discussing when, uh, in,
you know, when people were trying to discern, you know, of, of all the cellular automata, which
ones, which of the patterns look nice or be, or pretty or even beautiful, uh, or, or meaningful in some
sense. Um, I think [00:20:00] the individual is still there.
The one that is perceiving and, and processing, uh, and consuming the art. I think that is still there.
It's still us, right? Um, now the role of the artist is different. But the individual response, I think is
going to be there. Um, so the individual appreciation of art, I think is still going to be there. Um, the
role of the artist might change, of course, and, and yes, it might, it might be harder to discern than
the individual.
Um, but I think, you know, not necessarily, I mean, it doesn't have to be like that. It doesn't
necessarily, I think, you know, individuals always have a way to, I mean, artists always have a way
to, to put their signature on things. I would imagine they will keep doing it even with more standard
tools. Even if you get some tools that are widely used by people, you can still, um, you can still
have your own voice.
Going back to that, having your own voice, I think you can still do that. It might be a little harder,
but I don't think it's impossible. [00:21:00]
Hayden Ernst: So you think that people will still be able to find individual meaning in, um, all this
art that can be created by
Tanzeel
Dario Ghersi: ai? I hope so. I mean, the, the, the problem is, um, I mean it's a more societal, I
mean, a big societal issue in terms of how are we going to educate ourselves, you know, and how
are we, how are we going to use our time, you know? Um, there are some things that, I mean, some
art forms that are, um, fairly immediate. I mean, you could. You could argue that a people in the
middle Ages might not have been all of them, you know, extremely knowledgeable about Arba.
When they saw a painting, you know, in a church or something, they, they could immediately see
this was, you know, masterpiece.
And, and, but they could probably tell, uh, painters were not so great from, from the, the, the
geniuses in a sense of their time. But, you know, as we move closer to our times, I think, um, Art
has become, in some sense, a little bit more difficult to appreciate immediately. Right. I mean, I can
give you the example of jazz music.
I used to [00:22:00] not being able to understand it really. Um, like bbo or, or stuff that was a little
bit more technical and, and harmonically adventurous than, you know, new Orleans Jazz. That is
definitely, you know, more immediate. Uh, and yet, you know, with, with like, you know, gave it a
try and. You know, went to to, to gigs and, and and shows.
And I lived in New York for many years, so I, I had access to all kinds of amazing stuff. And, and
after a while, I mean, I, I, I couldn't get enough of it. So I, it became an acquired taste in a way. It
wasn't something that I immediately responded to. So the, the reason why I mentioning this is the
way we are using our time will also affect the way we will, uh, Appreciate art, right?
I mean, it's, some things are appre appreciated immediately. Some things require a little bit of
education, not traditional education necessarily, but some kind of education that involves time and
patience and, you know, willingness to listen or, or [00:23:00] look at things or observe. So I think
AI is not happening in a vacuum, right?
There is a, I mean, digital art and all that is not happening in a vacuum. There is this constant.
Bombardment of, you know, information and sensory, uh, overload, whatever you wanna call it. And
so I'm wondering what that will do to us and our ability to appreciate art. So it, it's a much more
complicated problem than just having a new type of medium or, or tool coming along, but also major
changes, um, in our brain and our, you know, the way we just.
Use our time. So I think that would be interesting to see. I don't know if anybody can, can predict,
you know, in any accuracy right now.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. So with just so much, um, available art that can be produced by AI that just
looks, you know, good. You think that, um, will sort of move away from a more nuanced approach, a
[00:24:00] more acquired taste approach to art.
Dario Ghersi: Yeah, I mean the, the, I, I think the cherishing of, of something that is hard to get
and hard to find is also part of the, of the pick of the problem. Uh, not problem, but of the issue. Um,
I mean, going back to the, the, the, to music, you know, I old enough to remember, you know, um,
the times where we didn't have any availability of music, right? And we just had to go to our
collection. Some had, some people had a lot of records, some people had very few. And some people
are none. And, but no matter what, I mean, nobody had what we have today, right? So how do, did
we discover new music through friends, right? And through relatives or acquaintances. And so it was
a very personal thing, uh, as opposed to just a playlist and suggested recommendations from
YouTube or Spotify or what have you.
Tanzeel
Um, and that, that I think makes a difference. I mean, I think listening. Um, to a playlist, like little
[00:25:00] snippets of songs versus whole record makes a huge difference in the way we appreciate,
uh, sustained attention, you know, all of that. And I think the same goes for, for Digi, for visual arts. I
mean, we have access to almost everything now.
We can go to the louver, you can go to the, you know, national Gallery, you know, click of a mouse
and you can see all these masterpieces. Not the same thing as being there, but I mean, if you have a
TV or something, high definition, it's, it's pretty good. So is it desensitizing us? I don't know. But I
think there is something to be said for, for stuff that is more cherished
because it's hard to get,
Hayden Ernst: um,
uh Right. So, um, do you see a difference in like, the effort put into creating, you know, a painting or
a song, um, versus, you know, being able to have an AI do it? Um, and do you think like that sort of
difference in effort, uh, makes a difference in value of the [00:26:00] work?
Dario Ghersi: It's a great question. I think it's, um, it's a very important question that is probably on
many people's mind right now.
Um, it's not unique to, um, I wouldn't say it's unique to, to, uh, machine learning or artificial
intelligence more broadly in general. I mean, the availability of, especially in the world of music, of
these. You know, digital audio work stations and things like that have made it easier for sure to do
certain things. Um, I, I am a little bit old schooled that way. I still think there is great value in, in the,
the trade, you know, in the, in the skills, um, that are needed to, um, the technical skills and, um, For
me, I mean, for that emotional content to, uh, to really be there, I, I need to see a human, you know,
uh, in some sense, or at least something that looks like a human, I guess it makes no difference if it
isn't, but, but as long as there is that the, also the, the [00:27:00] element of imperfection that, you
know, you can definitely detect in, in, in live performances or things like that, where there is.
No room for, for fixing mistakes. And those mistakes are actually part of the, of the beauty, you
know, of the, of the piece or whatever that might be. So I think there is a, certainly there is a problem
if you're just pressing a button, you know, and, and paddling that as masterpiece. I mean, I don't
know. I think it's, it's in terms of value as I do personally, I would value less.
Something that is extremely easy to make. Uh, it might be a, you know, an old-fashioned way to look
at things, but I just, you know, maybe that's cause we grew up in that kind of world, you know,
where making music or making art was difficult, you know, and it wasn't really readily available.
And so again, they're hard to get button to, to get, you know, that kind [00:28:00] of idea that.
Which is, you know, the way the market works, you know, something that is rare is more
valuable usually, right? I mean, it's pretty, pretty basic thing, but maybe it doesn't apply one-toone to
art. But I think if something is extremely simple and to make, or is mass produced, and I, I don't
know that the has the same value.
Right?
Hayden Ernst: Um, okay. Uh, so. Do you think that human knowledge and or our creativity, um, is
a limit to ai? I know that a lot of ai, you know, it only, uh, works because we fed it, training
information and that sort of stuff. So depending on what training information we feed, it'll come out
differently. Do you think that we limit it in that sense?
Dario Ghersi: I think so. I definitely think so. And I, I think the same goes for science though. I
mean, it's not limited to, um, the word of art. I think, um, I'm, [00:29:00] you know, a huge fan as an
app, as a style of approach, um, in the work that I do for, you know, my scientific, uh, work, which is
my day job really, um, in, in genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation, you know, that kind
of.
Paradigm where you are, instead of necessarily defining all the constraints of your problem, your LE
solutions evolve, emerge in a more se, certain, more natural way. Not, not exactly like nature does,
Tanzeel
but a little bit more similar to what nature does than using, you know, more traditional optimization
approaches. And you know, people that do this kind of work, you know, they will tell you that and
oftentimes they get surprised. Right by solutions that they didn't think, uh, will work and actually
work better than their solutions. I mean, we, we have seen that in, in, in, even in this arcade playing,
uh, deep networks, right? That playing video games mm-hmm. And using techniques that are
counterintuitive or we wouldn't think of and score more points [00:30:00] than humans really can
score. Um, and it's not just the physical ability. I mean, yes, of course the perfect control is
something to do with it. Mm-hmm. But it's just a strategy.
It's just different, right? The ball bounds between the wall and the, you know, we've seen that even in
stuff that is not necessarily art. So I think human creativity is human and as such as parameters and
constraints. And we have a medium that is capable of going beyond what is the boundaries of what
we think or most of us would think.
So I think if we are willing to let ourselves be surprised we, we, we can be surprised easily,
Hayden Ernst: naturally. Right. Yeah. Like, uh, with the games, um, in chess, uh mm-hmm. You
know, the greater chess players were saying when they played, um, some of the better ai, you know,
they made moves that wouldn't make sense as chess moves at all in, you know, conventional
strategy, but they were just winning by so much.
Dario Ghersi: Yeah. Yeah. And the funny thing is that they, they aren't even saying that that is bad,
Chas. I mean, they're saying this is [00:31:00] surprising, but it's actually quite a beautiful move, you
know? Right. They can appreciate the beauty of it. So it's not just oil machine, you know, it's just
very cold and all of that. I mean, as humans, we respond to that. Wow, this is surprising. But it's
actually going back to the idea of being surprised. Right. But it's actually quite beautiful as, you
know, masterpiece, this move is great. Right. So it's, it's interesting.
Hayden Ernst: All right. Uh, so how, uh, do you see a lot of this technology being used in the
future? I know you talked a lot about how. Um, the interactions between, you know, people and AI
could, um, be more art itself, uh, rather than sort of the artwork that it's trying to produce or that it's
trying to copy. Dario Ghersi: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, I think, um, there is going to be for sure, a lot
of people are, uh, just going to go for the, oh, I'll give you the best possible painting that looks like.
Michelangelo painted it, you know, that, that, that's stuff. I think we'll see that, we'll [00:32:00] see
that in music. You know, I can surprise you by producing a symphony that sounds just like
Beethoven wrote it, you know? I'm sure. We'll, we'll see a lot of that to me, where the, the
breakthroughs will be. I mean, this is, again, amazing from a technical point of view. I don't want to
discount it. I mean, it's, it's just amazing that we can do it or you are getting close to being able to do
it. Um, but I think the most interesting stuff will be when we sort of, uh, take a peek into these
processes, you know? And really do something more creative with this and sort of let it, um, let it
flow a little bit more with our, the constraints that we impose on them, on what's been done before.
I think that would really potentially open up a whole new avenue. And that might be bringing in also
different forms of, you know, sound and, and even smell and flavors and visuals. I mean, we, we are
just beginning to, uh, to see this, um, Synesthesia, you know, whatever you wanna call it. Like the
con conflating of different senses that we [00:33:00] can do, right?
We can, we don't have to limit ourselves to just one type of delivery at a time, like visual versus
sound versus, uh, texture. You know, we can all, we can do everything at once. So, so those are some
things that I, I, I mean, I would predict might become, Um, might, might, might be, I wouldn't say
popular, but you might see more of it.
Tanzeel
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, so the, the paper that I'm writing has an element of sort of what should,
um, sort of art galleries and museums in Omaha and in surrounding areas, uh, do, uh, due, uh,
regarding this, uh, AI art.
And sort of one idea that I've been looking at preliminarily is, uh, You know, allowing people to
interact with it and sort of allowing them to, you know, collaborate and make maybe our work of
their own or just kind of see the processes behind it [00:34:00] more. And so I was wondering what
you think about that idea and if you have any other ideas about it? Dario Ghersi: No, I think this is,
um, I think this is great. Um, interaction is, is key. Um, I think also not just humans interacting with
ai, but also the AI interacting with humans.
There's, I think there was a sort of an installation years ago that I read about, which, uh, I found, I
found, you know, very interesting. I think they sort of trapped a robot between a wall and a, and a
fake wall that was pretty easy to, um, to pierce. Uh, and, and so they equipped this robot with
cameras and my, and, you know, microphones and things like that and, and a little hammer or a drill,
I forget what it was. And so the, the rubber was sort of, Exploring and then reacting to, uh, to the, to
the reactions of people in the room. And so at some point it was also drilling holes in the wall to just,
to take a better look what was going on.
So I think that is very interesting, right, to, to, to [00:35:00] have a mutual interaction, not just
the humans interacting with the, the ai, but the AI also. Given in a safe way, uh right. Maybe it really
is not necessarily a good idea, but something less dangerous, um, to have a mutual sort of a two-way
street as opposed to a one-way street.
Right.
Hayden Ernst: Uh, that's all the questions I have, uh, right now, so thank you very much. It's, uh,
been great talking to you. We brought a lot of interesting and new ideas. So Dario Ghersi: I'm glad I
could talk to you. And, and by the way, if you're interested, if you have the time, you know, I would
love you to, uh, for you to come to, uh, to the honors class and, you know, just give a short
introduction to the work you're doing.
I think it would be very nice if you, if you could do it, uh, no pressure. Know you're busy, but.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Yeah, definite. I would, uh, love to if I have time. Uh, so yeah, let me know,
uh, when, when I can do that.
Dario Ghersi: Yeah, I can send you an email. I mean, the schedule is pretty flexible. I think. Uh, we
meet, [00:36:00] um, Tuesday and Thursday from 10 30 to 1145, so that's the time. Um, but you
know, if you, if you, I can send you an email, uh, later in the week. Yeah. If you, if you have the time
and you know, it doesn't have to be very long, but just to introduce this project, I think it will fit very
well with what some of the things we're talking about right
Hayden Ernst: now. Yeah. Sounds, uh, great. I think that, uh, Thursday would probably Dario
Ghersi: work great.
Great. All right. Sounds good. All right. Yeah. Thanks
Hayden Ernst: again. I will, I'll keep you updated on, uh, sort of my paper, how's it, how it's going,
and um, you can come and see. I'll be at the honors symposium and everything with, uh, um, my
project and a poster, so Oh, sure. It'd be awesome Dario Ghersi: to have you. Perfect. Thanks again.
Nice talking to you. Yeah, yeah. Good luck. See you soon. ByeBye. Bye.

Interview with Alexandra Cardon

Hayden Ernst: [00:00:00] Great. So then I guess, could you gimme a short introduction of yourself?
Yep. Um, so I can have that too.
Tanzeel
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah. Okay. So my name's Alexandra Cardell. I am an art historian. I am
currently the curator at the Samuel Bach Museum at the University of Nebraska Omaha. And, um,
my focus, uh, has been on postwar European painting. Um, I also study, um, 18th century French,
um, architecture. So, um, a little bit varied there. And I have taught contemporary art classes at U N
O and a variety of other universities.
Hayden Ernst: Uh, great. Um, I'm not a professional interviewer by any means, so I'll just, um, just
start just asking you questions and we'll see where we go from there. Yeah. Um, first off, could you
give me a definition of what art is, um, to you? Okay. Well,
Alexandra Cardon: solves the tricky one because there's so many definitions. Um, and
[00:01:00] ultimately if you want to talk about what art is, it's an activity that's done out of a desire
to communicate through predominantly visual meat. Um, it's, uh, generally design, uh, designated by
the art maker as art. Um, Uh, we could also say that it expresses, uh, an emotion or, um, a
worldview. Um, ultimately it is, uh, generated, uh, by someone to create, um, a ways of opening
communications and other word, other ways to use in words. Um, Now, uh, I also believe that art is
ultimately a component of culture. Um, and that it reflects the socioeconomic and political
background, um, and, um, situates the maker, uh, in that way.
So, um, you can talk [00:02:00] about how it translates ideas of, um, And values, um, of a specific
culture across space and time, but that's getting into sort of more historical, um, reading of the work
of art.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Yeah. I, uh, art is a broad category, so I was expecting, uh, many different
answers for that. Yeah. Question.
It's, it's a
Alexandra Cardon: difficult one. Um, right. The answer in a single sentence.
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, So where do you find, um, meaning in art, um, in your interpretation of a
piece or like, do you think that is really directed by the artist and what they wanted you to, uh, pull
from that
Alexandra Cardon: piece? Uh, I think it's a, um, it's a combination.
Yeah. Um, you can't, um, deny that the artist is communicating an idea through the production of a
work. Um, but you can, you also have to recognize that you will come to that work from your own
space of [00:03:00] understanding with your own ideas and, um, uh, bring that to, um, the piece and
to your interpretation of it.
Um, I think it's really important to also speak about the social weight. Of a work of art. Um, and by
then, I mean like the place that it occupies within society, um, and have that will influence
interpretation.
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, so like place in society, what, what do you mean by that?
Alexandra Cardon: Well, like, um, how, where the work is located. Um, Will, um, in, uh, influence
this meaning, so if a work is in a museum and you come across it because it's in an institution, you're
gonna think that that work is more important than, um, say the graffiti piece, uh, that was done, um,
by Hugo, uh, underneath, uh, the passageway [00:04:00] by the bike line, which also has incredible
social value, um, but might not be viewed within the same.
Um, Parameters. So depending on where the piece is located, um, that you have an an interpretation
that's put on that off and that sucks.
Hayden Ernst: Right, right. Okay. Um, so how, um, do you rank like the value, um, in the effort put
into creating art? Um, do you think that like something someone put a lot more time into is more
valuable than something.
Tanzeel
Someone put a little time into, um, and I also wanted to say like that or effort being sort of relative.
Um, I know that, you know, you could draw something or you could be talented in painting and you
can paint something very quickly, but that doesn't reflect maybe the time spent, um, thinking about
it.
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah. [00:05:00] Yeah. I said yeah, time, time and value are somewhat
relative here. Um, So something that people put little time into in terms of the prospect. The act of
making, um, they could have take taken a long time to think about it. So you think Master Shaun,
who takes a bottle rack and um, put signs in, puts a new title on it and it goes, um, it no longer is a
battle rack because he places it within the gallery space.
So comes a s work of art and people are like, oh, you, you spent no time. Um, working on this piece,
it has no value. It has no intrinsic artistic, um, value. Um, and that's been proven to be wrong, um,
because it is part of the formulating and the transformation of the object, the pre-made object into
something, um, artistic that was important.
Um, that was, um, the process of making, but still today, you'll have people like that will say
something along the lines of, oh, my kid could have done that. And you mean my immediate
[00:06:00] response is, yeah, but. Your kid didn't. Right.
Hayden Ernst: So that's what I listen to
Alexandra Cardon: like this is, um, there, there's a purposefulness in the act of creation, um, you
set out to create. And I think that's the most, that has, um, holds the most value.
Hayden Ernst: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Um, so do you think the understanding, um, the
history of art. Where we are today, how we got there is important when, um, creating new art, um, do
you kind of have to maybe build upon what your predecessors and peers are doing? Um, or like
even, you know, go, like against what they're doing? Or can you make meaningful art without any of
that background?
Um, knowledge.
Alexandra Cardon: I think no one exists in a vacuum like we all have, um, like. Right now
statistics is are that we see over 10,000 [00:07:00] images a day. There is no way that you're not
aware of the production of other artists, um, even if you don't know them by name, even if you
haven't gone to an art history class and learned like every single artist from the Renaissance to now
by art and know all the tape.
Titles and dates, et cetera. Um, you will still recognize, um, things like Michelangelo, assisting
Chapel ceiling because it's part of our visual language. Um, it is part of our shared understanding of
the world. Um, so even if you don't know your history like an A to Z, um, you will, um, You'll be
basing it upon something or another.
Um, you'll be in reaction too. So, um, I don't think you can actually, um, say that you have no
background mention because I mean, uh, we, we have common culture, however we look at it. Um,
yeah. Uh, [00:08:00] so. I knows three year olds that can recognize poll, right. Um, because of the
baby books that were, they were given.
Um, even if their parents weren't art historian, they still like, oh, there's Apollo. And you're like,
okay, that's crazy. So,
Hayden Ernst: so how useful is, um, sort of the history of art, um, and talking about different styles
and that sort of thing when, um, looking at artists' work?
Alexandra Cardon: It depends on the artists. Certain artists are history, history of graphs, so
they're really basing their art on a conversation With past artists, um, other artists are moving away
from that tradition and refusing to make reference to the past and are looking for new forms of
expression. So I think it just depends what you're doing. Um, if you're someone like Alo for Eli and
Tanzeel
you're really looking, um, at. Sort of the engineering, the world you can create through engineering,
um, and through technology, [00:09:00] rather than thinking, oh, I'm gonna make a classical version
of Sunset. He's making it out of light bulbs and mirrors and smoke and it's fantastic.
Um, but I wouldn't look at, um, the depiction of a sun in the Renaissance and compared to all of her
Eli. Does that make
Hayden Ernst: sense? Uh, yeah. Yeah. Makes sense. Um, right. Uh, is pushing the boundaries of art,
um, important when creating it.
Alexandra Cardon: Um, I, I would hope that, um, everyone is trying to, in their, uh, approach to
communication are trying to find the language that serves them best.
Um, I don't know if it has to be boundary pushing. Um, I think the idea has to that you're, the idea is
that you're conveying should have value and weight and add to the conversation. And I think in that
way you're gonna push boundaries. [00:10:00] Um, but you could be like a really old school classical
oil painter.
Um, and yet, um, your ideas are the ones that are gonna move you forward because you're using this
sort of technique that's been in, in use since the 15th
Hayden Ernst: century. Right. Uh, yeah. So have you heard of, um, the AI generated art or what do
you know about it and what are some of your thoughts on it?
Alexandra Cardon: Well, I have been reading up on AI generated art.
Um, uh, mainly, you know, every, every article that I read is, um, how scandalous it is that an artist
won a prize, um, having declared his art to be AI generated. Um, And, um, how other artists are
complaining that, um, you know, they're basically bread and butter has been stolen through an act
that is not, that they don't qualify as creative, right?
So there's, [00:11:00] there's a lot of naysayers. Um, um, you know, For me, artists are really quick
to deriv any new technology. Um, and it comes out of a space of fear. Um, painters were deriding
photography, um, when that came about because they felt that they could no longer be realist painters
if, um, Photography was about because it had no purpose, um, which we all know is different.
And it's the same. When Photoshop came out, people were freaking out. Photographers were
freaking out saying it was gonna destroy photography as new because it was no longer composed
image. It was something that someone could bring together through an Allegion and, um, They were
really di um, disdainful of, uh, that whole practice. And so to me it's like, uh, we have to see what
direction it goes, [00:12:00] what people can do with it. Um, I'm almost excited to expand, um, the
definition of art and like what it means to the process of creation and how it comes about. Um, I
think there's some cool applications that we can look forward to.
Um, that we haven't considered because we're too wrapped up and like whether or not it can be art.
Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: So, um, kind of looking back at the questions I asked about art in general, um, what
do you think about the value of the sort of effort put into create ar or generate this AI art?
Alexandra Cardon: Well, you know, it, it goes back to that issue of, um, you know, the prejudice of
the viewer who judges the value of the work of art according to their understanding of labor.
Um, you know, a farmer will judge art harshly because it doesn't involve the same amount of labor
that does too, like, um, work [00:13:00] like. For 14, 15 hour days, um, and really struggle. Um, but
some, a painter will look at AI art and judge it in terms of their production. And so if you can get
away from that idea of production and value, um, I think we can start, um, being a little bit more
open to, um, the possibilities of ai.
Hayden Ernst: Right. So holds a different sort of value.
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah. Yeah. We don't, you don't give value based on different merits.
Hayden Ernst: Uh, right, right. Um, okay. So what do you see as some of the strengths and
weaknesses or opportunities and threats of AI art?
Tanzeel
Alexandra Cardon: Okay, so like the, the immediate like, um, strength is that it's democratizing like
anyone can make art. It's really exciting, it's super accessible. Um, it will allow people, um, from all
walks of life to come together and, um, and the act of creation, you know, [00:14:00] in some ways
you could compare it to like a paint by number.
Um, where you can come in and everyone can like color the numbers in. Um, everyone has the skill
to do that, to create something beautiful at the end of the day. Not everyone's paint by number looks
the same because they all choose different colors. Um, I think there's a lot of applications in a non-
artistic sense, um, that can be cool.
Um, uh, but the biggest issues with AI for me is, um, how it pulls from across. Um, You know, the
internet, um, basically that pulls images. Um, and so it doesn't give any credit to the artist whose
images it's pulling. Um, it offers 'em the compensation and the creation of, um, the work. Um, it's
based on the known, so you could argue like, how truly revolutionary is this?
Um, form of art when it's just pulling from what's available. Um, and then of course [00:15:00] you
have the issues of rights and licensing and copyright and, um, how it offers a problem really for
digital artists, um, by, um, taking their work because it's readily accessible, um, and, um, making
something that can be in some cases very similar, um, and therefore causing them loss of income.
So,
Hayden Ernst: right. Yeah. Um, I was just sitting in on, um, on office hours for, uh, one of the AI art
generators. Um mmhmm. It was called Mid Journey, and they were talking about, uh, words and, uh,
phrases that they had to ban, um, from their generation, um, because Oh, really? People abuse them
bad. Yeah. Uh, which is interesting.
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah, the production, I think you could easily produce art that can become
really offensive. [00:16:00] Mm-hmm. Like type in bodies, Auschwitz, and you'll get something
Right. Truly horrendous. Um, so it can populate images, um, that are incredibly problematic. Uh,
and, um, there is a question of ethics here. Um, but at the same time, They're pulling from existing
images, you can easily type the same thing in your browser and print.
Um, so right. Having not played around with it enough in the terms of writing offensive things in the
search part and, um, pressing populate, I'm a little stumped, um, of how different it is than, um,
sharing images that are already offensive
Hayden Ernst: to people.
Um, so what do you see as, or how do you see people using this, um, technology in the future?
Alexandra Cardon: [00:17:00] Um, okay, so there's one case in point that I thought was really
exciting for me. Um, it's been used in a memory ward. Um, At a, um, nursing home where they were
asking individuals, um, to give some descriptors of a place, um, where they had grown up or
something, you know, after sharing a memory.
And the image that was populated out of their choices of work was really close to, um, what that
person had experienced. And so it allowed them to create. For people who didn't have forcibly
photographs of those particular memories. And it allowed them to create a visual world, um, that,
um, they hadn't inhabited since their youth.
And so as people who were struggling with memory, it was like really moving, um, and supportive
of, um, their, uh, happiness basically, [00:18:00] um, as they live in this nursing home. So that's also.
As far as I'm concerned, I just think that's so exciting, um, that we can like, deal with it helping, uh,
people suffering with dementia or Alzheimer's and, um, Getting them into this like better space, um,
through helping them generate regenerate memories.
Um, I think it could become this really cool idea generator, um, where you can rapidly type
something in and create visuals that will allow you to. Make a better painting or, um, allow you to
play around with, um, visuals, um, to, in the construction of an exhibition, for example. Um, for, I
mean, I'm thinking about it in my world, but I'm also thinking, um, For filmmakers if they have to,
like prep scenes and, um, you know, or Disney when they're creaming, um, the frames for, um,
Tanzeel
[00:19:00] animation, it could be a really fast way to populate images. Um, so I think for time it
could, yeah, just, it would save a lot of time tell for people.
Hayden Ernst: Right, right.
Um, Yeah. One thing that I see a lot of people are worried about is, um, just it being used to create
different sort of, um, copies of styles and stuff. Mm-hmm. Um, so do you think like the ability to use
AI to make like, You know, hundreds of different works over, you know, many different styles and
even combining styles and doing all that.
Um, does that endanger sort of individualism in art? Um, and it, does it sort of devalue this
individual human, uh, creation and art, or does it make that aspect, uh, more valuable as it was
created by a person? I mean,
Alexandra Cardon: I would say it would make it more [00:20:00] valuable. Um, individual
work will, um, uh, All those remain the property of the individual in so many ways. But there are
plenty of artists that have already proven that appropriation is a form of art. Um, and so for me, the
people who are really complaining about it are people that are not conceptually, um, aware. I'm
trying to be really polite here. Right. Um, but like they're, um, they're not playing in a 21stcentury,
um, like art field if they, um, are not aware that appropriation is a form of art.
Hayden Ernst: Okay. Um, could you like explain that a little bit more?
Alexandra Cardon: So, um, you have plenty of people, um, That have used, um, the artworks of
others. Um, you can think, uh, going back to, uh, you know, artists [00:21:00] used to study the art of
other artists in order to move forward. So you can look at Renaissance's artists going and studying
the work of, um, their predecessors, um, to.
Better their own art to make it, um, to, to figure out where the predecessors had gone wrong, how
they could become more realistic, how they could model bodies better. Um, and, um, it goes all the
way to the 21st century with artists, um, taking images off of Instagram. Um, Like, um, Richard
Prince, uh, to print them on canvases and present them as his own work and galleries.
Um, the Art of appropriation is an art form in itself and allows for us to have conversations about
what it means to have an authentic work of our quote unquote. I'll add the quote unquote there for
your transcript. Right, right. Um, Because, yeah, this, the whole idea of au [00:22:00] this is all
based on an idea that there's something authentic.
Um, and, um, you know, the boundaries of authenticity have already been tested. Time and again, the
20th and 21st century. And the original idea, like what does that mean in today's day and age?
Hayden Ernst: Um, yeah. So do you see like, um, maybe a reactionary, um, you know, style of art
appearing, um, from this for a little bit at least?
Um, you know, art is trying to be more out there, um, to try to be more different, to kind of create
works that maybe AI can't, uh, copy as easily.
Alexandra Cardon: Sure. I mean, there's always gonna be a reaction to, um, something. Um, this is
how, how we function. We're always sort of pitting ourselves for originality sake [00:23:00] against
one another and saying, I can do this better. Um, you know, the, um, I think that the, the space of
tension exists very much between digital artists, um, with ar ar ai artists, um, who, uh, whose work
can look very similar. You're not gonna get an oil painter really upset about AI technology because
there's no way you can recreate, um, the brush stroke, um, in ai.
Like, that's like until you get printers that will come up with exactly the same pigment and exactly
the same brush drawer, exactly the same canvas. Um, you know, this create like, you know, you
know, you know when you see canvas art at, um, target, um, It doesn't look like it was made by a
human. It looks like it's been fronted by a machine.
Um, and so painters are probably completely un [00:24:00] fussed by this debate and thinking,
oh God. And now I understand what was going through the mind of 19th century painters when they
Tanzeel
saw the arrival of photography. Um, so, but ultimately, like. Barring has all has taken place and, um,
this concern seems right to be incredibly monetary right now. Mm-hmm. With, um, AI polling works
that other people are putting for sale and, um, creating images that are incredibly similar to theirs.
Um, and so it's a concern about how their intellectual, pro property and, um, finances are gonna be
affected. Um, and so it's, yeah, I, I mean, I feel for digital artists, basically.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Uh, okay. So do you think that. You know, human knowledge or creativity,
um, is a limit to the art that, [00:25:00] um, is created by ai. You know, we're pulling images and,
you know, stuff that we've already done. Yeah. Um, so it's more or less, you know, kind of copying
what we can do. Do you think that's a limit that we're putting on it, that maybe we should look and
try to create differently?
Alexandra Cardon: Um, As a non computer person, I don't really know how to answer that
question. Like this idea of like, it's pulling from all these artists from around the globe, um, and
creating a composite of their image, um, in some way limits the abilities of ai, but ultimately does
create a new image, um, from. All of this polling It does.
Um, so in many ways, like our human, the more humans add to this, um, online world, the more AI
can pull for me and, um, the more creative it can get, um, [00:26:00] Ultimately, um, from what I've
read, AI struggles just like humans with the creation of hands and feet. Um, so, um, I think we're
always gonna be faced with like, that's, that's our human limitation of ai. Um, that we haven't, um,
figured out the programming yet so that I can do hands and things. But, um, yeah, um, I think as long
as it's, um, based on. Um, it's pulling its imagery, uh, by, uh, from, uh, human imagery. It's gonna be
limited them in some way.
Hayden Ernst: Right.
Alexandra Cardon: Um, well, but ultimately we'll never know because there's no way on earth that
we'd ever know who all these artists were like, right.
Uh, like I, you know, they're pulling from artists from everywhere. So like, how will we know if it's
limited?
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, [00:27:00] so I was, uh, talking to, um, somebody else earlier and they
said that they like the, uh, human aspects of art. Um, you know, whether that is a mistake in a live
performance or mm-hmm. On a piece of, um, art, um, And you know, like we just said, AI isn't
exactly perfect either. It sometimes makes mistakes. Do you think that that, um, sort of brings a
human aspect to it?
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah, absolutely. It's, there's something really endearing. Knowing that AI
can't, is struggles. Just like a first year art student with hands and feet. Like, I find that really
charming. Um, um, But there is, I think, um, you know, there's something about the human touch.
Like, um, looking at a Cezanne painting for me is like absolutely mind blowing, just seeing how he's
applied paint to the canvas. I don't get that feeling when I'm looking at his paintings on the screen.
Like, it's not [00:28:00] until you're in front of it in person that, um, it gets really exciting. Um, and
so seeing something.
That's AI generated for me. It's like, oh, that looks cool. Um, but ultimately, like. I think I, I remain
really old school where I say that there's like, the thrill in art is, um, in, uh, witnessing the
performance of it. Um, even if it's, you know, a past performance, uh, as with an oil painting or, um,
you know, watching someone spray paint, um, the side of a building or, um, put up a mural.
Um, Or perform within the museum space. Um, an activity like those things are kind of what make
art the most exciting for me. Um, is that like how we can come together as a society, um, in these
spaces and witness and see. [00:29:00] Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Um, well that's all the, uh, questions I sort of had written down at least.
Okay. Um, so. As the part of my paper is looking at how, you know, galleries and museums should
look at AI art. Mm-hmm. Um, sort of moving forward, I've been sort of working with the idea, um,
Tanzeel
preliminarily of, you know, instead of, you know, acquiring pieces that somebody generated through
ai, uh, museums and galleries should look at.
Allowing people to interact with the AI and mm-hmm. Generate and work with their own works and
understand that process a little bit better. Yeah. And then, you know, really sort of look into how AI
and humans can interact together instead of Yeah. The results of ai. Yeah. And I was just wondering
what she thought of that and if you had any other ideas too.
Well, I
Alexandra Cardon: think, I think that's actually a brilliant idea because, um, like how do [00:30:00]
we engage in the digital age? Um, like how do we feel most comfortable? It's an entire generation
that's been like basically four years being online. Um, and so it's exciting to be able to enter into
spaces of communication, um, that don't forcibly demand our presence. Um, In a particular space.
Um, I find ai, as I said, incredibly democratic. Um, and this idea that everyone can create and people
can come together and like pull ideas, um, as a new form of communication. That's super cool. Um,
I'm always pro that, um, and what museums can do with it, you know, museums like, um, are, are
becoming, uh, far more nimble than they used to be, where it was just like mm-hmm.
Put something on the wall, um, and, um, are always interested in, in like new technologies and I
think this is a great opportunity for them to create some inventive
programming.[00:31:00]
Hayden Ernst: All right. Uh, great. It was, uh, great to meet you and great talking to you. That's all I
really have. Yeah, you too.
Alexandra Cardon: Go ahead. Maybe I'll see you on campus on real Realiz, but yeah,
Hayden Ernst: I'll, uh, keep you updated with, uh, how my paper is sort of coming along and let
you know, um, sort of what parts I'll be using, um, from this interview.
Sounds good. Uh, just so I don't end up misquoting you or Okay.
Alexandra Cardon: Yeah, just, just send me, I'll, and, and I'll tell you. Yeah. Actually I totally don't,
didn't mean to say that.
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, alright. And yeah, it would be great. I'll be at the honors, um, symposium
at the end of the year with my, uh Oh, nice. A poster and everything.
So if you wanted to come and see me and talk to me in person, that would also be Yeah, a great time.
Alexandra Cardon: That'd be great. Thank you for inviting me to that. Yeah, I'll, I'll keep Lucy all
sends me the note and, oh, okay. Yeah, so I'll be sure to come this start. All right, C bye.[00:32:00]
Interview with Dr. Adrian Duran

Hayden Ernst: [00:00:00] Uh, automatically take the notes or something, so, oh, yeah. Right. That,
that'll be interesting to see if it, uh, works.
Adrian Duran: You mean like this thing, it, it effectively does like close captioning and like
transcribes what we're saying? Uh,
Hayden Ernst: supposedly it does. We'll see how it works. Cool. Um, yeah, so I kind of have, uh,
like 10 or so questions that I would, uh, I'll ask you here, uh, if it's okay, go.
Yeah. Um, well actually first could you kind of just gimme a short, uh, kind of introduction of
yourself and kind of what you do and everything?
Adrian Duran: Sure. Um, my name's Adrian Duran. I'm a professor in the art history program over
in the School of Arts in CFA m here at U N O. Um, I'm an art historian and critic, um, have been
doing this for like 20 years, I guess.
Okay.
Hayden Ernst: Uh, [00:01:00] Great. So, um, I guess before we get, uh, started here, what do you
kind of know about, uh, sort of ai, uh, generated art and how that kind
Adrian Duran: of works? Um, well, I mean, I, I guess I'm, I'm as up on it as the news cycle keeps
me. Um, I can't say that I've ever used it. Um, I've never really been tempted, but a lot of that is
Tanzeel
cause I'm not necessarily, I'm not an art maker myself, so I've never really like, Had occasion to play
with it.
Um, I've played with like chat g p t a little bit, um, which I guess is the writing version of this, which
is, I don't know, not nearly as spooky as I think everybody wants it to be. Also, I think quite hilarious
because it, it has a number of tells that if you've read student papers for more than a couple of years,
you can sniff it out, you know?
Um, Uh, I don't know. I, I mean, like, I know that, you know, artists have been using tools to make
art since the beginning. Um, AI to me [00:02:00] is a, is the current new tool. But even that's kind of
absurd because, you know, artists were using computers to make art 40 years ago. Um, AI is. I don't
know. It's another tool to me.
I don't like, you know, I don't, I don't see it as a threat in the way some people are seeing it. I don't
see it as anything at all yet. Because quite honestly, I don't trust humanity enough to not make it into
a fad that will die off some point quickly. Right. Um, it's cool right now and it's, um, fascinating and
all of that is very true, but what kind of longevity will it have?
I'm not sure yet. Right, right. We're, we're at the beginning of the game. So it's hard. It's like what I
think I know today might be proven wrong tomorrow. That's kind of the fun of it. Yeah. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Um, right. So I just want to [00:03:00] be clear about the way that it sort of
works. Um, and so there are some kind of misconceptions, um, going around that I've heard about
that this, uh, is sort of taking artwork from other people. Uh, and that may be true in the sense that it
is looking at other people's artworks and looking at the captions that come along with them and
saying, okay, this is done in futuristic style. Maybe steam punk style, something like that. Um, but
really it's looking at the objects in the art. So maybe if you say, okay, this is a car.
Mm-hmm. It will then learn how to draw a car. And it will make something different than, you know,
what has been sort of shown to it. Um, right. So it's not, it's not taking like other people's pieces.
Actually. It's um, kind of [00:04:00] interesting that it sort of like us, you know, we gain like,
inspiration from other pieces.
Adrian Duran: No. Yeah. You're like, uh, I, I don't, um, how do I say this nicely? We're currently
taught in an ownership pissing contest. Yeah. Um, this is, this is currently the terrain of intellectual
property lawyers and copyright people. Right. People like me are much less worried about that
because it's not really my priority.
Right. You know, like you're a hundred percent right. Artists just have been borrowing from each
other for centuries. There's nothing new about that. And the idea that. A computer program would
look at a bunch of art and synthesize it into its own imagery is effectively a recreation of what artists
have been doing with their eyes and brains forever.
Yeah. Problem being, we now live in this very egoistic, uh, litigious society that has been convinced
that everything [00:05:00] must be monetized. And so there's a kind of. Uh, combination of fear that
people will be losing money to this somehow, but also a very real fact that, um, the art world and the
art market is not always fair to artists by way of finances, right?
And so I think this, this is part of a bigger title shift in the art world that has to do with who gets
what resources when not only about AI specifically, you know, Yeah. Yeah. But like, I don't know to
tell you, like I'm teaching a class on Kart right now, and one of the first things we had to talk about
was this idea of copying, because our idea of copying in 2023 is not the idea of copying in 1590.
It's a very different game, and we are just not agile enough to understand it instinctively. But once we
learn about it, it's all very, I think it's actually all very instinctive to like, Have you ever made a
meme? [00:06:00] You know, like it's, it's not, it's not impossibly different than that on a conceptual
level. Um, but I think that, I think people are fearful. I think we are. You know, like we, we live in a
world like, I dunno how to say it, like I've seen the Terminator movies. Mm-hmm. In the back of my
Tanzeel
mind, there is a fearfulness of the moment in which we lose control of the machines. Is that a real
fear or is that a kind of Hollywood infused paranoia?
I don't know yet, but I'll be damned if it's not already happening, you know? Yeah. There's
algorithms everywhere in our lives. Some of them are great, like the one on Spotify is lovely. The
one that steals my writing and gives it to somebody else's undergraduate paper is not, but when was
the last time revolution happened? Without some discomfort. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Um, [00:07:00] so jumping into sort of some of the
questions that I've planned to ask you, uh, Could you gimme like a definition of what art is to you?
Adrian Duran: No. Um, and, and I mean, not like an asshole. I mean that like I don't believe that art
has a definition and I don't believe that any one of us has the right to put a fence around it.
Right. Uh, I think that art is what an artist intends to do with their creative energies, and I don't think
any of us have. Approval rights. I think that that power resides in the artist and the rest of us are
secondary. So the best definition I can ever have about art is what an artist does, and I don't really
like it. And I, I, I kind of don't wanna define it more than that. Cause I think that's reckless and
shortsighted.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. No, that's a, that's a good way of putting it. I've, uh, run into this, uh, when I
was asking this question to other people too. [00:08:00] Uh, it's, uh, It covers a lot of different things.
It's a very broad topic, so you can't really, well, the idea that it's
Adrian Duran: one thing, like, it's just like the idea that one definition is gonna fit all art is
ludicrous.
You know, it's like, define to me a human. You know? It's, it's that, it's that same level of complexity.
Yeah. And so it's, it's honestly, I think it's a fool's errand because the definition of art will be different
tomorrow and then it'll be different on Friday and Saturday and every day until we all die.
Right.
Hayden Ernst: Um, so going back to sort of, you said art is what an artist, uh, does, and we don't
really, um, we can't tell them that it's not art. Uh, where do you find the meaning in art? Do you think
that it's in your interpretation of it or your connection to a work? Or is it directed by the artist? Uh,
maybe
or maybe some
Adrian Duran: combination.
Yeah, both. Both simultaneously. I don't, those are not mutually exclusive categories. I think that,
um, This [00:09:00] is a false dichotomy that we've been given by people who will want simple
answers, quite honestly. Right? It's a combination of all of that. Um, I very much like to give the
artist First Voice because they know the work more intimately than I do by way of motivation and
content.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the work of art from my very subjective perspective. I have to
just kind of regulate those things. Okay. You know, like when my students say to me like, art is in the
eye of the beholder, art can mean anything. I look 'em at the eye and I say, well I think your art's
about bullshit then.
And they always spook because they're like, what do you mean? I was like, well, I think you're
leaving it up to me and I think you are a fraud. So I think your art is about bullshit. Um, I think that,
I dunno how to say it, and this is like, this is very, a very me answer, but I think like artists do that. I
think it's an act of cowardice.
To be honest, I think that artists [00:10:00] don't always like to explain their art and they find it
uncomfortable, and so sometimes they refuse to, and it's not about anything but refusal. I think the
best artists are willing to acknowledge that they have a very significant role in what the meaning of
the art is, and that hopefully they will play some ping pong with you, you know? Yeah. Cause I'm
Tanzeel
wrong half the time, like, don't be fooled. Just cause I'm an art historian doesn't mean I get it. Right.
I need the artist's voice to help kind of keep myself focused.
Hayden Ernst: Right? Yeah. So you
Adrian Duran: context, but I reserve the right to say whatever I want. It just might not stick, you
know? Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: I, uh, I understand that.
Um, there's definitely been music that I've, uh, listened to where. You know, I find sort of my own
thoughts in it at first, and then I, um, have gone back and heard some of [00:11:00] the artist
meaning and their context to it, and it just gave me a whole nother perspective on it
Adrian Duran: too. Right. But like, it's another perspective that's, I think the key is like, it doesn't
necessarily invalidate your response, but we have to acknowledge like, that's your response.
I might have a different response, somebody else might have a third response. And somewhere in
the middle of all of this, there is common ground. Right.
Hayden Ernst: So would you say that art can't really exist in a ?
Adrian Duran: vacuum? No, I don't think it can exist in a vacuum at all. I think people try and put
it in a vacuum, like, oh, it's just about aesthetics.
Yeah. It's like, okay, that's fine. But given the opportunity we have to talk about many other things.
Limiting it to aesthetics feels to me like. A bad appetizer before the meal. Okay. There's so much
more to be done and to think about. That's the beauty of art, is it? It it is [00:12:00] omnivorous and
all-encompassing and it what it, what it's concerned with.
Somebody might care a lot about the color blue, but somebody else might really care about gender
rights. You know, all of that. There's room for all of that.
Hayden Ernst: Right, right. Um, So going back into the history of art, do you think that, um, the
artist's, um, sort of understanding of that is important when, uh, creating new art? Um, do you think
that they sort of may build upon what their predecessors or peers are doing or, um, even, you know,
sort of go against. Do the opposite of that, have some reaction to that, or do you think that you
could sort of make meaningful art, um, without even knowing that if it's possible to not know or
understand where art is today?[00:13:00]
Adrian Duran: I mean, this is co that's a complicated question, like, yeah. Do I think you can make
meaningful art without knowing what's going on today? Yes. But I'd be willing to argue it's going to
be less impactful than if you do know what's going on today. I'm a big believer that art, whether and
any artist, whether they want to or not, is going to be part of a conversation that extends backwards
into the past and forwards into the future.
Um,
some people like to live in denial of that. I just don't see how it's possible, like, I don't know how
like, uh, We live in a very visual world. Whether the influences you're getting are from the Joslyn Art
Museum or Westroads Mall, you're still intaking visual information that's gonna impact what you do
as an artist. So I think like the notion of making art that isn't really because, okay, sorry, I don't mean
that's like an ask. Like some of my students have asked me [00:14:00] that same question. They've
just been like, no. That's naive if you like, for you to think that you exist in some sort of bubble of
safety where influence and culture around you don't impact you is like, it's just so naive.
It's almost ignorant, right? I mean, you can refuse it and deny it, but that's still doing something. You
know what I mean? It's like nothing is still something, otherwise we wouldn't have to name it. Zero
is still a number, even though it represents nothingness. It's the same thing here. Like you can
pretend like you're not part of the world around you, but nobody's gonna believe you.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah, uh, for sure.
Tanzeel
Adrian Duran: Um, Or at least I won't, maybe I'm not the only person you should ask, but, uh, like
I, like I any art historian who's worth a damn is going to question that instantly. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: That's, um, that's sort of the response I've been, uh, receiving when I've asked this
story. I mean, like,
Adrian Duran: it's my job to [00:15:00] make sense out of art. Like, you coming up to me and be
like, oh no, it's just about like what I was thinking that day is like, okay, um, yeah, sure. Understand,
you know,
Hayden Ernst: Do you think that pushing, uh, boundaries in art is, uh, really important when
Adrian Duran: creating it? Oh God, yeah. At least for the last few hundred years. Absolutely. Um,
but it's not the only thing I think that, you know, like in, in like in my art history classes that do 19th,
20th, and 21st century art, We put a lot of emphasis on innovation because it was one of the driving
forces in that, those periods.
Right. But it certainly existed in the Renaissance. It certainly existed before that in just different
versions of innovation, you know? Yeah. Like there was a time where innovation meant looking
backwards at Greek statues, but then there was another moment where innovation meant making art
out of tires, you know?[00:16:00]
Right. Like everything's kind of relative in a way to the moment. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: That's, uh, that's also, you know, what I've been sort of hearing and sort of Yeah.
Adrian Duran: Discovering and, well, some innovations aren't really big ones either. You know, like
sometimes Exactly. An innovation is more kind of like finessing of something and so it doesn't startle
you in the same way.
Yeah. You know, like Picasso spooked the shit out of people cause it was so different. But you don't
have to be the, you know, an earthquake to be felt. Right.
Hayden Ernst: Um, yeah. What I've been sort of coming up with is, you know, the subtle
differences, the subtle changes in, you know, how people do art. It can be, you know, pretty
impactful in the actual Yeah.
Uh, art itself and the
Adrian Duran: reception of it. Totally. Like a small step forward is still a step forward. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Um, so looking sort of at some AI. Uh, what do you see as strengths and weaknesses
or [00:17:00] opportunities and threats
Adrian Duran: of this? My understanding of ai, I got, I have to confess to you is, is art oriented. I
am like, I'm pretty worthless when it comes to like computers, you know, like, yeah.
I would imagine the AI is as good as the coding. Which means it's as good as the person who writes
the code and as good as the people who created the agenda for that writing of the code. If your
agenda is to find all the puppy dogs in the paintings, it's only gonna do that. If your agenda is to
make it expansive and innovative and omnivorous, you're gonna get different results, right?
Um, But I think that part of the other issue though is like, here's the real problem. It's fucking, yes,
you can use the word fucking American capitalism if you want, but that's the problem right now
we're facing is that corporations like to do things cheaper, right? Like, um, do you not, like, there
was an episode a couple of weeks ago where there was a campus shooting somewhere. I can't
remember which one cuz there's so many now, but, [00:18:00] There was a campus shooting and the
administration sent a letter to the campus community that was clearly written by Cat G P T. Oh,
wow. And the university, the student body was like, what the fuck is wrong with you people? You
know? Yeah. Like, some of us just died and you're using an algorithm to write a condolence letter
like you're, you're a heartless prick. Who is more interested in efficiency than humanity? Um, that's
why people like AI right now is because, you know, you can generate images for it that are cool and
you don't have to pay an artist for it. It's, people are trying to get shit done fast and cheap. That's the
danger of ai. And fast and cheap are not the values that the art world holds here.
Right. Um, the, the dilemma for me is more of values dilemma. That, um, I understand that
American capitalism likes to do things cheaply and create cheap product that can create giant profits
Tanzeel
for the, you know, executives and the stockholders of those corporations. [00:19:00] But that
presumes those are the values that we all hold, and those are not the values I hold, you know?
Um, the part about AI that I think is exciting is it's a challenge. Right. Um, I think a lot of people are
scared of it, quite honestly, because maybe they're not ready for the fight. It might become like, we
might be arguing about AI for the next 20 or 30, or 50 or a hundred years, or it'll pass like clouds and
then we'll just kind of settle into a happy medium somewhere.
Um, I get it. When artists say things like they're worried about their financial wellbeing, like, look at
what Spotify has done for artists. You know, nothing. They're now actually Spotify right now.
They're, they're, they're, they're trying the oldest trick in the book, which is we'll give you more
exposure by entering you into more algorithms.
If you're willing to take a smaller royalty sum on your plays and the royalty sum, they're already
giving on their plays is like [00:20:00] grotesque, you know? And so it's like, The world thinks this
is a thing. Like they think that artists are excited and happy to work for exposure. Yeah. And like do
you ask that of your plumber or your dentist?
You know, like I didn't get my teeth straightened to walk around being like, my orthodontist is
the vest. I had to pay that guy. You know what I mean? Mm-hmm. Because that's his job. That's his
career. That's how he earns a living. Same thing with artists. We have just got this. Ask backwards
idea that artists need our generosity when they don't.
They need a fair economic system, you know? Um, the art world, economic system is screwed. You
know, like if I sell a painting to an art gallery, That's one price. The art gallery then creates a second
price to sell it to a member of the public. If that member of the public then wants to put that work of
art back in Sotheby's or [00:21:00] Christie's to be auctioned, that thing can sell for quadruple what
the artist was paid for and at the front end, and the artist won't see a single cent of that. All the
money goes to middleman, to Southern. And I think that artists are rightfully pissed about that. You
know, it's like, like right now there's a big fight. Like did you hear about how the woman who wrote
the book that inspired Mean Girls is mad at Tina Fey because she thinks she deserves more royalties
because mean girls has taken on the life so much bigger than they ever imagined.
It's the same question, you know. Like, these are people's livelihoods. It's the same thing. Like when
people are like, like, we can do this right now. Like, and, and like, this is the beauty. Like I love the
honors college, you know, Lucy Morrison and what she's up to. Like, I'm, I'm a believer, so talking
to you is a pleasure.
You know, I feel like this is something that like ethically I want to do. Yeah. But nobody's paying me
for it. There's a part of me that could be like, well, this is my time, this is my labor. I have put in, you
know, 30 years of training to be able to have this conversation. Cut [00:22:00] the check. Right. You
know like when the roofer comes and gives you an estimate, you pay for the estimate.
Yeah. I'm giving you the actual work for nothing in my economy. That's good because I want you to
learn and I want us to have a conversation more than I want to get paid for it, but American
capitalism thinks I'm psycho right now because I'm doing something for free. Right. Right. Yeah, but
I'll be damned if I can crack that nut, you know?
Mm-hmm. It's like what they said, the supermodel said in the nineties. This is one of my favorite
quotes, you know, they were like, we don't get out of bed for less than $20,000. Yeah. And I was like,
more power to you. I was like, if you have that kind of power in the marketplace, and if you're in
demand, Such that you can set that price for your consciousness, let alone your labor, more power to
you.
That's how capitalism works. [00:23:00] Does that mean it makes sense? No, but that's how it works.
You know? We've just normalized that. Yeah. We're the same country, you know, like we're country.
We're like, you gotta pay me 20 grand to get outta bed, but I have to do a Kickstarter to pay for my
surgery, you know? That's pretty ass backwards.
Tanzeel
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Yeah. I didn't really think about, you know, an artist, you know, sells their
work for this much, but then, oh, it's after on, you know, the, it gets auctioned for way more than
that.
Adrian Duran: Oh yeah. It's been bananas, you know, like, um, that Salvador Mundy painting
that was on auction a few years ago was, you know, like bought by the owner for a few thousand
dollars and sold for 400 million.
Yeah, all that pro like, you know, like Sotheby's took 20% off the top of that. You know, the rest of
that goes to, and I mean, of course the artist is long dead and not Leonard Art, da Vinci probably, but
um, [00:24:00] the artist isn't the beneficiary of all that. You know what I mean? Mm-hmm.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah, for sure. If that happened and you know, you were an artist that's still alive,
you're gonna be like, what the heck?
Yeah.
Adrian Duran: It's like how bands can like sell platinum records and still have day jobs. Because
the red makes all the com all the money, not the artist gallery makes all the money. Yeah. Um, it's
like dope dealing. It's like the middle, it's a middleman economy. You know what I mean? Like if
you go and I don't know what, like if you go and buy like 200 bricks of cocaine from Pablo Escobar,
you get a wholesale price.
But when you go and sell that on the street, you're gonna sell it for a whole lot more cuz you wanna
profit off of it. You know, capitalism is not charity and the art market is one of its most wild of wild
wests. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: It'll be, uh, [00:25:00] interesting to see where this goes.
Adrian Duran: Um, and oh yeah, it's gonna be super interesting.
This is the part, like, I, I, I like, I'm, I'm frustrated with the people who are already like, set against it.
Because I think there are real problems and those people have rightly identified them and we have to
deal with them. But it's so early. It's like, like getting a puppy and deciding whether it's gonna be a
good adult dog two weeks in, you know, it's like there's so much left to develop and understand, and
the art historians aren't talking to the coders very much yet.
One day we'll all like drink beer together and be like, let's figure this out. Yeah. Or we won't because
people will just start making so much money off of ai. We won't matter anymore, you know? Right.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. I wonder what do they
Adrian Duran: care about me? Like I'm an art historian at U N O who, you know, generates like X
amount of salary per year to put back into the economy.
That's a whole lot less than Nike does, you know?[00:26:00] Yeah, for sure. Also Hayden, sorry to
be boring with this, but I have to get off the phone in a little bit cause I have to get onto another
phone. Sorry. Is this, am I making chaos for you? Uh, no. Sardines today. It's, it's okay. Okay. Um,
but, um, but keep going though. Don't me not, um, don't let me not answer your questions.
Okay.
Hayden Ernst: Um, I'll, I'll sort of jump around and get to some of
Adrian Duran: the, uh, and hurry me up. Just be like, right.
Hayden Ernst: Uh, so do you think, uh, that there is a value in the skills used to create art? And do
you think that AI sort of endangers, um, some of these skills?
Adrian Duran: I don't think AI's gonna [00:27:00] replace artists. Like, remember that time we were
gonna stop buying books because we had the internet and you know, my Kindle was gonna replace
every bookstore on Earth. Yeah. Well then you tell me why we sold more vinyl records than digital
downloads last year. People want. Unique analog things. We still believe in the power of the object,
whether you wanna admit it or not. I still get a zing from looking at a real painting. Um, looking at a
AI generated image on screen doesn't hit the same pleasure points.
Tanzeel
I don't get the same results out of it. Like, can it make a work of art? Totally. But looking at a work
of art on a screen. Is a lot like, you know, like touching somebody with gloves on. Yeah. And so, um,
I don't think, I, I, yeah. Do I think that the skills are necessary a hundred percent. Kids dunno how to
hold pencils anymore.
You know, we're getting like [00:28:00] elementary school kids who hold pencils, like swords or
Yeah. Kids who think every screen is a touch screen, you know, or my favorite of them all. Here's the
one that'll make you puke is a couple years ago they released a study that said that, Medical school
students didn't have the manual skills and agility to sew their patients shut after surgery.
Wow. You know where we teach people how to do that shit in the sculpture studio, you know what I
mean? In the fiber art class, like we are gonna be around forever because what we offer in the arts is
unique and irreplaceable. We might, we might diminish a little bit. We might not be as cool to some
people because AI is cool.
It's dazzling and fascinating. You know, it's got market share in a way that, you know, oil painting
doesn't. Sure. But shit, they're still making oil paintings, you know what I mean? They're doing it
right now [00:29:00] downstairs. Um, art history is like art makers like, I wouldn't quote me on this
one, but I like to tell people that art is like black mold.
You know? Like you think you've killed it, but you haven't, it's just moved and started growing
somewhere else. Right, right. Like, like people in the arts have been trying to kill painting for
hundreds of years and painting still perseveres, cuz it adapts the art's like a virus. It'll adapt to a new
circumstance. It'll find loopholes and exceptions. It will creep underneath a door. You can't keep it in
the room, it'll find a way out and you know, so I have a lot of faith in art to keep, keep going. Yeah.
And those skills still be meaningful because you're still gonna have to stitch a button on your shirt.
You're still gonna have to write a letter to grandma, you know?
Um, right. I still hang paintings at home, you know what I mean? Yeah. So I think people just like, I,
I think we're, we're, right now, we're suffering from a 20 or 30 year [00:30:00] campaign that has
emphasized STEM over the arts and humanities. Mm-hmm. And people have, have had a lot of that
Kool-Aid very willingly.
Yeah. And some people thinking about that needs to be done. Yeah. Like for example, like the
best example is yesterday there was an article published in The Guardian in London. Um, and what,
what this. This article's a fucking stupid man, and I mean this with love, but it was like science
proves that art history was right about Monet's paintings.
And it was like art history was right before you just found your version of proof. Now, like there's an
art historian who published what the Scientists Confirmed in 2004. They've confirmed it in 2023. It's
been true to me the whole time. I can't help it. That science doesn't validate things except by its own
methods.
Right?
Hayden Ernst: Right. Yeah. And
Adrian Duran: so, [00:31:00] um, you know, we're, this is, this AI question is part of a much bigger
world in which STEM has privilege. The arts and humanities do not. Yeah. It's, it's like Hayden
Ernst: that classic, uh, going to college kind of thing where it's like, don't go into the arts or
humanities cuz you don't make money there.
Go into stem. Right.
Adrian Duran: And, uh, And I'm sitting here in front of you with a job, uh, in job security and all
the insurance and a comfortable life I need having studied one of the most worthless disciplines on
earth. Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: I think, you know, we're getting to where technology can make a lot of tasks, you
know, simpler and quicker and more efficient.
Tanzeel
And instead of saying, okay, now that we have this time, we can, you know, we could focus on other
things like art and humanity. We're using it to say, okay, but now you need to work. More on this,
right? Or we're gonna just put people
Adrian Duran: out. Why do there have to be winners and losers to everything? You know what I
mean? Like [00:32:00] study English and be a loser, study accounting and be a winner. It's like, okay,
yeah, sure. But like can we look at what the banking industry's up to right now? Yeah, right. With all
I got, I got a lot of respect for accountants and bankers because I don't know how to do what they do,
but last I checked, they're very good at fucking up what they do. Yeah, for sure. It's, and somehow
I'm the deadbeat over here in the arts because you think all I do is wear black turtlenecks and smoke
cigarettes and it's like, no, your prejudices and preconceptions are not my truth, you know?
Hayden Ernst: Right. Um, one last, uh, question here that I need to get through is, do you think that
like, Since AI is sort of making a copy of us, you know, it's getting all of our influences from us.
Do you think that that sort of, uh, limit, limit limits, uh, AI and the art that we can create with it?
Adrian Duran: Probably. [00:33:00] I mean, doesn't every tool limit its user, but doesn't also the
user's imagination limit the tool? Like I work with a guy, he's great. You know, like he's got this great
phrase, he always says, he's like a hammer can do two things.
It can create or destroy. It just de depends on what you do with it. And I feel like the same thing with
ai, like we will learn more going forward, which will influence the AI to be better or different.
Different, maybe better is not the right term here, you know, like will be different and it will evolve
into a new thing. But um, I'll be damned if I can predict that I, she, you know what I mean? Like, can
you be like, I can't predict humanity.
We're very complicated. Um, that's part of the, the fun of it is the unknown. That's part of the fear of
it too. Yeah. But yeah, I think it'll all get better. I think what'll happen, what I think will be really
cool is like sooner or later we'll realize that fighting with each other about it isn't the answer.
And we'll figure out how to start [00:34:00] collaborating with each other and we'll find new and
better ways to use the tools that will make us better at what we do. And that'll be a really exciting
moment, right? Like remember when people were all pissed off about using computers to make art?
Yep. They're over that now, or they're living in the past.
Yeah. And I feel like AI will experience the same kind of phenomenon where like, it's new now,
everybody's being a little bit alarmist about it. Yep. I like to not be alarmist about these things, but
that's just me. Um, call me in 20 years and I'll have a, I'll have a better answer for you, but it will
only be the answer for that day.
You know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. Um, Like, think about it, like when I was a kid, you know, we
didn't even have access to the internet. Now you can like fucking gene splice each other. Yeah. That's
such a huge distance to cover in a very brief time. It's almost, it's like [00:35:00] absurd and arrogant
to think you can decide what the future's gonna be cuz there's so many people involved.
Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: We're still trying to catch up to right now, so.
Mm-hmm.
Adrian Duran: But the best part about this is that, you know, who's gonna come up with the
answers to this question is the artists, they'll figure it out first. They always do. They'll find this tool
and somebody will tinker around with it long enough to either like refine its use or break it and make
it a new use. You know, artists always live in the future. We just don't listen to them very well.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. Um, so, uh, as a part of the paper that I'm writing here, um, I'm looking at, you
know, maybe what, uh, museums or art galleries, uh, should be looking into when it comes to AI and,
you know, at first to start it all kind of looking at, you know, should they be look, getting, acquiring
artworks done by ai.
Uh, but [00:36:00] now, you know, I've, I've moved away from that and I'm. I'm looking at sort of as
a rough idea of sort of a collaborative area where, you know, people would be able to come and
interact, um, with AI and museums and galleries should really be looking at, you know, how this is
Tanzeel
changing and, um, sort of what we're gonna be doing and bringing some light towards, um, how AI
is moving and working with artists in the future too.
And I was just wondering, uh, what idea, if you had any thoughts on that or if you, um, had any other
ideas, uh, regarding that?
Adrian Duran: Well, you know, I think it's like, it's tricky cuz you know, museums collect what
their agenda asks them to collect, you know what I mean? Like, certain museums have certain
priorities, other museums have different priorities. Is there a museum that's gonna prioritize ai art a
hundred percent. Is everybody gonna do it? No. You know, um, [00:37:00] I'malso curious cuz like,
remember how much we were talking about NFTs six months ago or a year ago? Yeah. Now are we
talking about them as much? No. Um, maybe we'll just come to a level playing field, or maybe we'll
decide, this isn't the most important argument to have right now, but like I have, I, I love the
expansive idea of art, you know, like, I think a museum should collect anything that qualifies as
creative activity.
You know, like, I don't understand why museums don't have sneakers in them, you know? Yeah. Um,
or like, cool t-shirt design should be in a museum just as much as a painting or a sculpture. But like,
this to me is the same question. Like there was a, you know, not that long ago, 150 years ago, people
were asking if museums should collect photographs. It feels like the same thing to me. You know,
like this is the next version of the new, and we have to decide the depth to which we want to embrace
it. Some will, some won't. [00:38:00] You know, there's some people who still don't think
photography is real art, and it's just like, what? Like, Okay, man. You know, I'm like, yeah, the rest of
the world thinks it is, and so you can hold out all you want, but you might be in the minority at the
end of the conversation, you know?
Um, I still prefer, you know, vinyl, but I'll be damned if I don't have a phone full of music too,
because it's practical, you know? We'll do both. We'll do all of it. Uh, the art world tends to take a
long time to get it, get it right, but We'll, in a perfect world, get it close. Yeah. I mean, we're the
people who still haven't given back the fucking Elgin marbles, you know what I mean? We're the
people who, like the UN had to shame art to give back the bronzes they'd stolen from the people
[00:39:00] of Benin, you know, um, like. We are not the moral beacon that the world wants for this
answer. We are a bunch of flawed people who are caught in between this kind of like desire for, uh,
you know, intellectual experience and this incredibly beko capitalism of the art market.
Um, this is a bad parallel. I'm sorry if it's offensive. Um, but it's like, you know, when people ask
their priest for, um, child raising advice, Like that dude doesn't have children. This is like asking me
for advice on your taxes. Like, that's just not what I'm about. I, I am, I have no jurisdiction here. Um,
the philosophers are gonna help.
The coders are gonna help. You know, this is gonna be a big group of people that make these
decisions over time. One brick at a time. Some of them will look very forward thinking. Some
[00:40:00] of 'em will look very conservative. That's, we've been, the art world has been like this
since they invented the printing press, you know?
Yeah. But like, I don't know. I think it's, you know, it's like, it depends on your perspective. Like, you
know, my dad is still pissed about people using cell phones, and it's like, okay, but you're like an 80
year old man. Like you aren't the best judge of this. You know, the best judge of this is probably a, a
20 year old who's using that phone to pay their bills and find their friends in disaster areas and
communicate with people across the globe on Twitch.
You know, like we have to admit that we're not always the best judge of everything. But we live
in a world right now where like, you know how it is, like you've seen the news recently, right? Like
Tanzeel
anybody with an opinion is treated like an expert right? And opinions are like assholes. Everyone has
one and many of them smell.
You know, and so it's like, what are you gonna do? [00:41:00] People are gonna act like they know
the answer, but nobody's the authority yet. Mm-hmm. Which I think is why your project is so cool.
You know, you get to be like, you get to weigh in on this at a moment where we have no answer yet.
Like, that's right. That's sa.
That seems like a really fun little position to be in to me. Yeah. But like, I don't know. I mean, what
are you gonna do? Like there's also an inevitability about it too. It's like, you know, like one day the
sun's going to burn out. That's inevitable. In the same way, like AI is going to happen. It's going to be
here, we're going to figure out how to use it, or it's gonna pass us by acting like it's not here. Is denial
not reality. Yeah.
I don't know. I think it's, it's like, I think ultimately we're gonna find some form of homeostasis
where everybody wins and [00:42:00] everybody loses, but that is the result of what everybody
wants out of it. You know, like the Super Bowl, right? Like, you know what I mean? Like I'm an
Eagles fan. That was terrible.
But I went into it with a bias, so I expected and wanted a certain outcome. If I were a Denver
Broncos fan or a New York Giants fan, I wouldn't have a horse in the race, and so it would've meant
something different to me. You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, for sure. Um, but that's why it's cool
though, is because it forces us to think outside of our own boxes. Right. We can't depend history or
tradition for this answer. That's exciting to me. Oh, yeah, I understand that.
I don't know, like there's a part of me, like I'm, I guess I'm just like, you know, being in the history
business, I think I'm, I'm perverse enough in the brain [00:43:00] that I'm excited to see what
happens, because it will be very revealing about where we've been and where we want to go. It
might be a disaster though.
That's the other part. We have to accept that maybe it's gonna work out poorly for everybody and you
know, fucking T 2000 is gonna be melting through my door soon. And you know, like that notion of
the apocalypse singularity thing, like that's real. I'm not gonna live in denial of that. I'm a little bit
afraid of it. But that's because the unknown is frightening. It's the same reason the dark was scary
before they had electric lights. You know? Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. It'll be a journey to see where we, uh, end
Adrian Duran: up with it. Yeah. And if we make that journey productive and, you know,
collaborative, we might get all kinds of good things out of it.
If we make it sour and competitive, we're setting ourselves up to lose.[00:44:00]
I mean, it's like they said, like if you go into something looking for a fight, you're gonna get a fight.
But if you go into it looking for a resolution, you'll find a resolution. Feels like that to me.
Yeah. It's just another version of that.
Yeah.
Hayden Ernst: Um, well that's kind of all I, I had for you. Uh, cool.
Adrian Duran: Thank you that so much. I
Hayden Ernst: hope. Yes, this was, uh, this was great.
Adrian Duran: Um, no, I think you're, like, you're, um, the beauty of this is, you know, we have
to listen to you, which is to say like, when Stu, this is one of these moments like where my students,
where I was just being an old fart.
Here's a great example. Like, I didn't wanna find art on Instagram, excuse me, because I was being
traditional. And then my students were like, you're actually being an idiot is what you're being.
Instagram is a remarkable resource to find artists. You're just being old-fashioned. And so I was like,
okay, maybe I'll try.
Tanzeel
And then I tried and it was like [00:45:00] instantaneously obvious I was wrong and they were right.
I was just being a stick in the mud. And so when students raise these issues upward to faculty, it's a
beautiful thing cuz like what, what we're doing right now is like I'm smelling the future through your
interests.
And that's pretty cool. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like you asking this question means it's gonna
be part of our conversation now. I can't hide from it anymore. That's a beautiful thing. Right, right.
Um, I don't know. We'll see. I mean, like, I'll call you in 20 years. We can talk about it again. Who
knows what the hell's gonna happen, right? Like, I don't think anybody in 1941 thought they were
gonna be on the moon in a decade, you know, in two decades and change. Mm-hmm. You know, um,
Thomas Edison had no idea that, you know, like DJs were gonna take the phonograph and turn it into
[00:46:00] an instrument. Um, Henry Ford didn't know about Tesla, but that's the fun part about
being alive. It's kind of a surprise, you know? Right. Every day.
Hayden Ernst: Oh yeah. Yep. We will. We'll find out where, where it goes, and we might go know
somewhere or we'll never imagine.
Adrian Duran: And maybe that's gonna be great. Maybe that will be the end of us, but I don't know
yet, you know? Yeah. I mean, that being said, you know, like, and this is a tremendously pessimistic
version of this, but like, It's 2023. Look what humanity has done since it, you know, fell out of the
tree. Maybe the computer's taking over the world and oblating us as what we have earned for
ourselves. You know what I mean? Like, maybe this is our destiny.
That's horrifying to think about, but [00:47:00] you know, nobody knows what the future's gonna be.
Yeah. I thought I was gonna be a veterinarian and then I took AP science classes and learned how
wrong I was. You know, we always have to adjust midstream.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. And yeah, you're right. The, uh, mindset that we come into it with is, uh, we're
gonna be able to get out of it.
Um,
Adrian Duran: with all the change. Yeah. If you come at, if you come at it wanting to, to, yeah.
Like. If you wanna suffer at the hands of ai, the opportunity is there. If you wanna thrive at the hands
of ai, I bet that opportunity is there too. Open-minded optimism, maybe it's naive, but that feels like,
at least in my head, open-minded optimism feels appropriate right now. But there are definitely some
parts of the the ecosystem that are already unfair and we have to fix. [00:48:00] Yeah, that wasunfair
before AI too. So AI is just drawing our attention back to it, right?
With a new perspective on it. It's not like the art world has always been unfair, economically. This is
just another lane for us to drive in.
Hayden Ernst: Yeah. And it could be, uh, something that helps out too.
Adrian Duran: No kidding, right? Remember like, um, remember, I mean, Jesus, remember that
time that Europeans didn't think bathing was good for you?
Remember when they thought you could sail off the end of the globe, right? Remember, they thought
cats were possessed by Satan. I mean, Thomas fucking Jefferson thought tomatoes were poisonous,
right? Right. We're wrong a lot of the time, but that's part of the process. I mean, in science, that's
called the scientific method, isn't it?
In art, we call that the process. You make mistakes until you get it right, and then you carry on with
that new knowledge. Hopefully for the better.[00:49:00]
Right? I don't wanna stay in the same place for my whole life. That sounds boring. Yeah. Yeah. I'd
agree.
But I think a lot of it is true. Like, like, like I am a perfect example of this. I have spent most of my
life in the art world, I have art world values that are often very different than the values of a
Tanzeel
corporation. I know what I know, and it has nothing to do with the technology of AI as much as the
sort of like aftermath of ai.
You know what I mean? Like I do autopsies on ai. Somebody else is the one giving it birth. That
person should have a voice in this conversation too, right? Like, I would love to know what, like if
you called like Peter Wilcott at I S N T or one of the IS S N T faculty, what they had to say about it,
and then comparing those two answers would be amazing.[00:50:00]
It would probably show you more about the faculty than it does about ai. You know what I mean?
Yeah, yeah. Um, We should do that. Are you a STEM student? We should like a round table about
this or something. Get like, you know, some art faculty and some STEM faculty together and just sit
in a room and be like, so what's the deal?
It'd be a lot of fun.
Uh,
Hayden Ernst: yeah. That I've, uh, I've talked to, uh, some faculty in the IS and t department. Um,
cool. On this for sure too.
Adrian Duran: Uh, well, like, let me know if you need help from the art side of the house cuz I'm,
I'm more than happy to help. That would be a lot of, like, that would be really valuable for all of us.
Yeah. Um.
Hayden Ernst: I'll think about doing this. We'll see what the timeline is on my, uh, sort of wrapping
up. You don't wanna graduate
Adrian Duran: and so forth. Project. Yeah. You don't wanna make more work for itself at this
moment,
Hayden Ernst: but I think that would be a very interesting, uh, conversation to have.
I actually have to get going here [00:51:00] in a minute, so, uh, thank you again for
Adrian Duran: Yeah, anytime. Um, I do love to talk about art. Yeah. Yeah. It's,
Hayden Ernst: uh, this was a very helpful conversation to me. And, um,
Adrian Duran: also can, oh, can I say one more thing? And this part you definitely need to quote me
on? Um, okay. This is proof that art and STEM are not different.
It's the same dance thing. We coexist without knowing each other's work and understanding what the
other one does. We are lesser for it, you know what I mean? Right. Like, I can learn so many things
from you because you're a STEM person, and if I negate that fact, it's just denial. So we're not
enemies. We're coming at the same thing from different angles. And if we're together, we're stronger.
Yeah,[00:52:00] that's my high horse right now.
Hayden Ernst: Um, well, yeah, thank you so much for your insights. Uh, you should come to the
honors, uh, symposium. I'll have a, I will poster and everything there, so that would be cool. Great.
Okay. Uh, and I will stay in contact with you, let you know kind of. Uh, what from this conversation
I'll be putting in the paper, so if you ever want to revise anything that
you say
Adrian Duran: Oh yeah.
Right. So I don't embarrass myself in public again. Um, but yeah, just like, I dunno what to say, like,
holler. I'm more than happy to talk to you about any of this. Just lemme know. Of course. Cool. All
right. Well then I will, uh, see you soon. Yep. We're at the latest. I'll see you [00:53:00] at Dun
Symposium.
Okay, cool.

Presented By Tanzeel Bey

Tanzeel