If you would like a physical copy of this zine, send an email to futures.europe@gmail.com.
Image credits (all rights reserved)
- cover art and original illustrations by Simone Ashby
- Futures of Europe card design by Alexis Faria
- graphic design and layout by Simone Ashby
- workshop sketch notes by Qianyu Cheng
- photographs by Simone Ashby, Julian Hanna and Alwin de Rooij
We are grateful to the Tilburg University School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, whose generous funding made this work and zine possible. We also wish to extend a hearty thank you to our wonderfully helpful co-facilitators and sketch noters (Sjuul Bos, Qianyu Cheng and Julianne Hoekstra), and to all our workshop participants, whose energy and enthusiasm was a force to behold!
ARTISTIC PROCESS FUTURES AND AI
Simone Ashby, Julian Hanna, Michelle Kasprzak & Alwin de Rooij
GRAPPLING WITH UNCERTAINTY
Given the speed with which AI technologies are emerging and becoming adopted, the need to engage target audiences to weigh in on possible AI futures is critical. Our project seeks to explore the role and potential implications of AI technologies with artists.
At present, the involvement of AI in the artistic process is still ambiguous. AI tools might be just the latest in a long tradition of support tools that let us offload cognition so we can do more creative thinking – or they might pose a threat not only to human creativity but to life on Earth as we know it. (We shall see.) Immediate questions about art and AI include what role and form AI technologies should assume, and how artists can use AI tools responsibly considering the political and social reach of the machine-learning approaches upon which such technologies are based (e.g. ensuring algorithmic bias is not hard-wired around Western aesthetics).
To support artists in disambiguating and cultivating a vision of their artistic process as related to current advances in AI, we aimed to guide artists, both amateur and professional, from sculptors to installation artists, in (1) exploring scenarios at the crossroads of art and AI; (2) making these scenarios tangible through the design of speculative artefacts; and (3) articulating an artistic and epistemological point of view in the form of a collaborative manifesto.
THE WORKSHOPS
To achieve our aims we organised three workshops in the Netherlands exploring possible futures of the artistic process as it intersects and clashes with AI. We wanted to know whether and how our participants were already using AI, what perceptions of these technologies (image generators, machine learning strategies, etc.) they had going into the workshop, and what success or failure might look like for an AI augmented future. How might AI change our views and values around art itself?
Our approach was iterative and based on participant makeup and time constraints. In our first pilot workshop, we gathered 14 design and technology students, all of whom also had some form of artistic background. This was mainly an effort to try out our methods in preparation for the primary workshop that followed, involving 12 professional artists from Belgium and the Netherlands. Both were fullday workshops (held at Tilburg University) that followed a similar structure.
Pre-workshop reflection Introductions/ framing Drivers of change Scenario building Future artefacts Manifesto sprint
| | | |
Because we see these conversations as ideally suited to the classroom, we designed our third workshop as a half-day event involving a lecturer (and project partner) and students from the Futures and Presence course she leads at Willem de Kooning Academy in Rotterdam. Here, we wanted to change up our methods, using news stories from the future as a starting point for the speculative design activity that followed.
Pre-workshop reflection Introductions/ framing Lecture Mock news articles from the year 2035 Future artefacts
| | |
VISIONS OF THE FUTURE(S)
The objective of the initial stage of all three workshops was to promote discussion for exploring possible and preferable AI futures for supporting artistic processes/practices, yielding four different future scenarios. Methods for building scenarios in our first two (pilot and primary) workshops were based on work by the transdisciplinary collective FoAM (fo.am).
In the first two workshops, we engaged participants in a discussion of key factors likely to impact our core question (‘what are possible and preferable AI futures for supporting the artistic process?’). We asked questions like ‘does it matter if AI functions as a black box that you don’t understand?’ and ‘what remains unknown about the juncture of art and AI?’. The result was a visual mind map reflecting how participants saw AI colliding with the artistic process. We then organised participants into four breakout groups to identify and list key external driving forces. We made a custom set of arts and culture driver cards to use as prompts for this activity, alongside an existing set of STEEP (social, technological, economic, environmental, and political) cards. https://ivto.org/foresightcards We then asked participants to rank the relative importance and uncertainty of these driving forces on a scale from 1-10. Using sticker voting, they selected the two most important and two most uncertain drivers, which served as labels for our 2D future scenario matrices. We discussed what each of the scenarios might look like, following FoAM-inspired questions such as ‘what would have to happen to get from where you are now to the situation in the scenario?’.
In the third workshop we significantly shortened the scenario building section. After the usual opening remarks and framing, the workshop began with a lecture, followed by an activity in which participants created mock news articles from the year 2035 using Cascio’s four futures pathways. https://www.fastcompany.com/1362037/futuresthinking-basics
TANGIBLE FUTURES
Speculative design has a critical role to play in these workshops: it provides tools for questioning and a means of making thought experiments tangible. The speculative approaches we used included writing fictional design narratives and news stories from the future, playing a purpose-built card game for manifesto writing, and prototyping speculative objects using a range of materials. Such hands-on activities open dialogue around the possible impacts of emerging technologies like AI, while leaving room for ambiguity and resisting the urge to create easy solutions. Speculating together can help us elicit the needs, values, and ethical perspectives of artists. It can inform the development of future AI-driven tools for supporting creativity. Co-creating stories and artefacts from imagined futures is an inherently constructive form of deliberation. As Forlano and Halpern (2023) argue: ‘As technology continues to play an essential, and even an existential role in the future of society, it is vital to continue to find ways of critically engaging the public with the ethical and political stakes around these choices’. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577212
MANIFESTO! is a card game for manifesto writers as well as a design probe for futuring. The first edition (‘Tech’) was created in 2019; a second edition (‘Collective Intelligence’) was co-created with Nesta in the UK the same year. The latest (‘Art + AI’) was developed in 2023 as part of the Artistic Process Futures and AI workshops.
The original game was meant for individuals or groups of 2-6 players.
In each round, players are dealt one random card from each category: Provocation, Orientation, Opening, and Tone. Provocation suggests a broad theme (e.g., ‘Better for whom?’, ‘Challenge inequality’); Orientation designates the type of manifesto (‘Diagram’, ‘Declaration’); Opening offers the initial phrase (‘We declare’, ‘Imagine’); and Tone is the rhetorical register (‘Urgent’, ‘Hopeful’).
Players use these constraints as prompts to individually or collectively write, sing, enact, draw, or build their manifesto. Each round can be timed or open-ended. When a round is complete, players may vote for the ‘winner’ (the most persuasive manifesto).
WHY A MANIFEST0?
So much has changed in the world in recent years - months, days even. As artists and researchers we need to have an honest conversation about what we stand for, how we want to change, where we want to go next. Manifestos won’t solve everything, but they can help us articulate principles, provoke discussions, and present steps to concrete actions.
PILOT WORKSHOP
In late November 2022, we embarked on our first (pilot) workshop with design and technology students at Tilburg University. Using the futuring methods described above, we arrived at two sets of oppositions which served as axes to create four separate scenarios. Moving clockwise from bottom right, these four scenarios were called ‘DIY AI’, ‘AI Swamp’, ‘Art Mafia’, and ‘Socialist AI Utopia’. These four scenarios then became the basis for building tangible speculative artefacts in the next phase.
Here are some examples of speculative artefacts from our pilot workshop. The sides of the box marked ‘Creativity Pills’ that are not shown read: ‘We support you! (We’re not legally responsible)’; ‘Totally not dangerous!!!!!’; and ‘Not for children. Not for pregnant people.’
Collaborative manifesto writing was a big part of the first two workshops. Generally speaking, the pilot manifesto by students was more optimistic than the professional artists’ manifesto. In this workshop they wrote ‘starter manifestos’ in small groups as well as a collective manifesto. Here you can read one of the starter manifestos along with sketch notes of the process.
PRIMARY WORKSHOP
In January 2023, 12 professional artists met at Tilburg University for our primary workshop. During the workshop we constructed stories about possible, plausible, and preferable futures for artists and art making. We started by mapping the present situation from a broad perspective to identify emerging forces and influences. Firmly grounded in the present, we then imagined some futures that could emerge.
Once again, we started with our core question: What are possible and preferable AI futures for supporting the artistic process?
Using the methods described earlier, we created four separate future scenarios. We developed the scenarios further through a discussion with the whole group. Starting from the bottom right quadrant and moving clockwise, these ‘future worlds’ were: ‘White Cube’ (AI reinforcing the art world status quo), ‘Flatland’ (highly regulated and familiar artwork generation), ‘Five-minute Craft’ (randomly generated, open-source artworks), and ‘Artist as Storyteller’ (AI assisted but human-driven artworks, i.e. keeping AI in a supporting role).
Our next objective was to make the four future scenarios tangible by designing speculative artefacts. Here are brief descriptions of each (clockwise from bottom right):
- White Cube (reinforcing the art world status quo): an AI-selected artist, Etienne Marc, is creator of the work Final Breath (2180) – an ice cube melting slowly atop a tiny wood plinth with a card that reads: ‘Ice with embedded morning breath of the artist, curated by status quo v.1.3 AI model’.
- Flatland (highly regulated and familiar artwork generation): the year is 2133; these are the university faculties of Safety, Time, Autocorrect, Freedom, Equality, and Belonging.
- 5-minute Craft (randomly generated, open-source artworks): visceral objects resembling bondage gear replace the feelings afforded by the artistic experience.
- Artist as Storyteller (AI assisted by human-driven artworks): a suspended 3D virtual exhibition space, or ‘art cave’ – a democratic art space where you can order your own exhibition.
The following text is our thematic analysis of the workshop results fed (appropriately, we felt) through ChatGPT:
Themes surrounding (uncertain) AI futures in the artistic process suggested a cautious view towards recent technological advancements in AI. Analogies to early automobiles without seatbelts were drawn, emphasising a wariness about potential dangers. Participants questioned the effectiveness of government regulation in managing these rapid changes and expressed concerns about the harmful aspects of AI, using terms like ‘scary’, ‘sinister’, and ‘toxic’. Anxiety also extended to Silicon Valley's ‘move fast and break things’ ethos, with concerns raised about the aftermath of revolutionary changes.
Participants also emphasised the integration of AI into daily life, describing it as already being within our system. They suggested embracing AI, acknowledging its inevitable yet ambivalent presence in the art world. While advocating for adaptation to AI, either directly as a tool or indirectly by altering artistic practices, there was a recognition that artists must navigate its presence for the foreseeable future. The potential for democratisation through new open-source applications offered a glimmer of hope.
The challenges posed by opaque training data and ambiguous affordances of AI tools underpinned discussions on uncertainty. Participants grappled with questions about ownership, usage, and data sources related to AI. Uncertainty intersected with concerns about recklessness and danger, as participants acknowledged the unpredictable evolution of AI technology. Despite frustrations with ambiguity, some saw uncertainty as a positive force, challenging the notion of absolute certainty. The final manifesto declared: ‘AI should become more uncertain’, reflecting a nuanced perspective on the role of uncertainty in shaping AI futures.
Working in groups of four across 10-minute intervals, participants gathered at three sprint stations to write the manifesto introduction and two separate lists of principles. One person per group acted as the station patron and remained at the table for the duration to provide continuity across the sprint cycles. After 10 minutes, each group rotated to the next station, adding, rewriting and polishing the text that was left by the previous group until each group had visited each of the three stations. During the final editing and polishing stage, participants combined the different parts into one unified manifesto, evened out the tone, and edited or cut elements.
In this workshop we dropped the ‘starter’ manifestos and added a manifesto ‘sprint’ instead. Here is the collective manifesto written by professional artists, with the guiding theme of uncertainty.
AI futures for artistic process?!
We, a random group of artists, sit write unite speak believe in knowing or not knowing We resist the absolute certainty AI should become more uncertain Embracing the toxicity the auto correct the autopilot the reboot
In November 2023, one year after the first pilot workshop, a group of 16 students from the Futures and Presence Minor at Willem de Kooning Academy in Rotterdam participated in a half-day workshop. It kicked off with a lecture by the students’ theory tutor, Michelle Kasprzak, on five aspects of human experience which might be difficult for artificial intelligence to replicate. The students were tasked with writing a news article from 2035, describing an impact that AI has had on creative practice, through one of Cascio’s futures pathways: the future is as I expect; the future is better than I expect; the future is worse than I expect; the future is weirder than I expect. https:// www.fastcompany.com/1362037/futures-thinking-basics
The task was the following: ‘Write a short news article (250-300 words) from the year 2035 describing an impact (of any kind) on creative practice because of the development of AI.’ The students were assigned one of the four pathways (same, better, worse, weirder) and asked to use the six W’s (Who, What, When, Where, Why and the Weird Twist). They had 20 minutes of solitary writing time to complete the task, and then the pieces were read aloud.
Next, the students worked in small groups to develop a chosen storyline in more detail. They were asked to write a follow-up article of an additional 300 words addressing some of the following questions (again borrowed from FoAM):
What is the setting of this scenario?
What important events or initiatives might exist?
What is the history of this future?
Who are the main protagonists in this scenario?
Who else is involved (artists, curators, consumers, etc)?
What might constitute a transformative experience within this story world?
The resulting storylines provided the foundation for the groups to then build a speculative prototype object/assemblage that visually expanded on the ideas they had generated.
Here are a few samples from the news articles:
‘As this year’s Venice biennale drew to a close, Marco Ancarani, director of The Biennale Foundation, left us with a memorable speech on “Human Art” as opposed to “Machine Art” (video below). While many found the choice of word strange, many artists spoke out online in their support of this categorisation. One said: “It just makes sense. There’s art made by people, and art made by computers. They’re not the same because they are made with different aims, through different emotions, or rather, in the case of computers, a lack of emotion.”’
‘But on the 1st of January 2035, artist Joojo Loolo revolutionised AI in a new creative way. He states: “AI is great and can work on its own, but the real artist needs to keep feeding it information to base its results on. But what if you create an artist made of AI? What would their journey be? What would their work talk about?” Indeed, his first AI artist ReAI Tilo, was launched during the summer of 2035. This intelligence showed signs of an in-depth creative process, allowing artists, curators and critics to get new perspectives on certain issues which would have been overlooked by humans. New issues were highlighted; old issues disputed.’
Participants were invited to read their mock news articles aloud while we took notes on a flipchart.
Our next objective was to make the four future scenarios tangible by designing speculative artefacts. Here are brief descriptions of each (clockwise from top left):
from AI enthusiast to advocate for ethical practices in Hollywood, precipitated by a SAG-AFTRA protest.
- TickleOdeon Award (future is better): TickleOdeon’s first partially AIgenerated series Jake and Joe aired two days ago. Copyright laws do not apply to this new series; some consider it a knock-off.
- Curiosity Rebooted the Cat (future is weirder): WdKA students have created a quantum computer and are about to press the big red button. Some fear that this will break down reality, merge galaxies, and skew time. Realising that they are in a space race with toddlers building their own quantum computer, they take the leap.
- RIP AI (future is better): see the above manifesto.
N.B. The ‘future is better’ group split in two for this activity, while the ‘future is worse’ group left early.
After three completed workshops, we made some observations on what worked well and what we would avoid in future workshops.
WIRED
- Streamlining the process, making the day shorter and easier for participants’ stamina
- Getting people working with their hands, making things
- Asking participants to name and write a brief description of their artefact (a more reliable record of what was done/artist intent)
- Healthy snacks and (caffeinated) drinks
- Just enough input: short lectures by workshop leaders providing context, but not taking up too much time or mental real estate
TIRED
- Asking people to do too much writing in one day
- Allowing Chat-GPT to generate writing in the workshop. This got too far away from human creativity
- Making simple things complex — a 2D matrix with a voting system for choosing follow-up paths worked, but writing a simple news article and having an organic discussion flowed more easily
methods and approaches. We see it above all as a highly portable workshop design: there are many other topics we could address with questions we would like to ask participants, who might come from any format better than another: for example, some might call for more
t from a condensed format such as news stories from the future. Overall, we see immense value in using these imaginative, hands-on methods in the classroom. In fact we will be using these tools and approaches in an upcoming summer school in Groningen that focuses on creating more inclusive and transformative speech technology experiences. After that, who knows?!
This research is part of a multidisciplinary project for encouraging engagement around possible futures of Europe, with the aim of rebuilding the European commons and promoting dialogue on complex societal issues.
Beyond the theme of art and AI, we aim to facilitate other forms of dialogue under the banner of Futures of Europe, while publishing new editions of the MANIFESTO! card game.
WHO WE ARE
Simone Ashby is an assistant professor in New Media Design in the Department of Communication and Cognition at Tilburg University. Her research focuses on leveraging collective intelligence and participatory speculative design methods to help people become more connected and empowered in their communities.
Julian Hanna teaches Culture Studies at Tilburg University. His research focuses on critical intersections between culture, politics, and technology. His latest book is The Manifesto Handbook: 95 Theses on an Incendiary Form (Zero Books, 2020); his next book Island (Bloomsbury) is about islands in the digital age.
Michelle Kasprzak is an established contributor to the fields of digital cultures and speculative futures as an academic, curator, and artist. She is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences.
Alwin de Rooij studies the psychology and digitalisation of creative work. He currently works as an assistant professor at the Department of Communication and Cognition at Tilburg University, and an associate professor at the Centre of Applied Research for Art, Design and Technology at Avans University of Applied Sciences.
WHY A ZINE?
‘Can there be such a thing as an “academic zine”? The very expression sounds like an oxymoron: whereas the academic qualifier came to suggest a hierarchical power structure; a linear, waterfall-like knowledge production process, an indifference towards the way in which form shapes content and can be content, or, more precisely, the standardization and crystallization of its form; the concept of the zine brings to mind anti-authoritarian, grassroots modes of knowledge production and transmission, the lack of a central authority, the dilution of authorship, the eulogy of autonomy, the suspicion towards a strictly efficientist reason. What can “the journal” or “the paper” learn from “the zine”?’ Silvio Lorusso, The Oxymoron of the Academic Zine, Institute of Network Cultures blog (2019). https:// networkcultures.org/makingpublic/2019/12/10/the-oxymoron-of-theacademic-zine/
‘If we are living in a post-truth time, we should focus on trying to make progressive arguments and facts more legible and engaging to a wide and diverse audience.’ Garnet Hertz, DISOBEDIENT ELECTRONICS: PROTEST (zine, 2018) http://www.disobedientelectronics.com
‘[Z]ines and digital media should not be seen as materially polarized outlets on opposite sides of the digital/print binary, but as practices with distinct yet symbiotic advantages working in tandem within a broader repertoire.’ Clark-Parsons (2017) Feminist Ephemera in a Digital World: Theorizing Zines as Networked Feminist Practice. Communication, Culture & Critique 10 (2017) 557-573. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cccr.12172
