0%
October 14, 2024
The Artist as Generative Designer by Dario Buratti
Post Image

and New Models of Decentralized Authorship

Here’s my article on notiziarte.com

With the advancement of contemporary art and the integration of advanced technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Extended Reality (XR), the role of the artist is undergoing a radical transformation. No longer just a creator of finished works, the artist becomes a director of processes that bring different generative entities into dialogue.

This perspective heralds a fascinating shift in the concept of authorship, outlining new horizons where creation becomes a collective act. Creative dynamics are no longer solitary but emerge from fluid and multidisciplinary interactions, with a constant flow between humans, machines, and digital environments.

Traditionally, the artist is seen as the genius who generates the artwork from nothing, following a personal and unique vision. Authorship has always been tied to this idea of individual and original creation. However, in the era of generative and collaborative technologies, this conception appears increasingly limited.

The contemporary creator finds themselves managing a complex network of elements: algorithms, data, interactive actions with artificial intelligences, and virtual environments.

The Artist as Generative Designer

Roland Barthes, in his famous essay The Death of the Author (1967), anticipated the idea of deconstructing the author as a unique and omnipotent figure, in favor of an open and polyphonic process of signification, where the author relinquishes part of their control to the reader’s interpretation. Applied to digital art and AI, this thinking envisions a future where authorship is effectively distributed and decentralized.

The artist is no longer simply a creator but an architect of experiences. Not a curator in the traditional sense, but an interpreter of a broader and participatory reality. They design interaction scenarios and feedback flows, interpreting dialogues among multiple creative components. Their work is not limited to producing a piece but expands into the ability to invent dynamic relationships, where the creative process becomes fertile ground for constantly evolving connections.

A fitting example of this concept is the work of artist and theorist David Gunkel, who in his book Of Remixology invites us to rethink creativity as a collective and dynamic process. In contemporary art, remixing, collaboration, and the distribution of roles between human and machine become the driving forces of creation. In this creative ecosystem, the work is never truly “complete” but is instead in a state of continuous transformation, open to new contributions and interactions.

The introduction of artificial intelligence in the creative field has further modified the role of the artist. AI is no longer just a tool but a true co-author actively participating in creative processes. Generative algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning models can process information and make decisions that influence the final outcome of the work.

AI can be used to generate visual patterns, analyze complex data, or even make aesthetic decisions based on external inputs. This opens the door to a form of co-creation, where the artist guides the process, leaving room for unpredictability and the machine’s autonomous creativity.

Simon Colton, a pioneer in the field of computational creativity, emphasizes how artificial intelligence systems can develop autonomous creative behaviors, actively contributing to the artwork. In this case, the artist acts more as a facilitator, creating the conditions for a work to emerge rather than determining every detail.

A New Model of Authorship

This vision of the artist as a “Generative Designer” requires a radical rethinking of the concept of authorship. If the work is the result of a co-creation between human and AI, who truly holds its authorship? David Gunkel proposes a model of distributed authorship, where the creative process no longer belongs to a single entity but to a collective of human and non-human agents.

In this model, the artwork is effectively a collective creation, the result of continuous interaction among all involved actors. The artist, while remaining the central pivot of the process, is no longer solely responsible for the finished work. This conception challenges traditional paradigms of intellectual property and artistic authorship, opening new possibilities for creative expression in the digital age.

Claire Bishop, in her work on participatory and collaborative art, further explores this concept, highlighting how contemporary artistic practices have long been trending toward the decentralization of authorship through projects involving communities, technologies, and participatory environments. In this context, the artist serves as a “director” or “curator” of a multitude of contributions, much like what happens today in AI-based practices.

However, this model of distributed authorship also raises ethical and legal questions. If AI can be considered a co-author, who holds the rights to the work? Current jurisprudence does not recognize AI as a subject holding copyright. However, Emily Laidlaw and other legal scholars have pointed out that the growing autonomy of machines makes it urgent to rethink models of intellectual property and copyright in generative art.

The new model of authorship emerging from the encounter between humans and AI should not be seen as a mere relinquishment of control but rather as the construction of a creative ecosystem where humans and machines influence each other, creating artworks that are the product of a hybrid intelligence. Katherine Hayles, in her book How We Became Posthuman, discusses the fusion between human and technology, proposing a post-human vision of subjectivity and creativity, where the boundaries between human and machine become increasingly fluid.

In this scenario, the artist does not lose their role but evolves into a figure capable of designing and facilitating creative interactions among different actors, both human and non-human. The artwork, instead of being a closed creation, is configured as an open system in continuous evolution—a process where authorship is a complex and interconnected network rather than a single and indivisible entity.

Dario Buratti

Leave a comment

Back To Top