Creativity and robots
Creativity and robots
Claims concerning the impact of robots on the future of jobs are common place in popular press, industry conferences, and policy reporting. Part of this debate concerns the occupations which seem particularly susceptible or immune to developments in automation and Artificial Intelligence. This is where the “good news” emerges for the creative industries, with several prominent policy organisations setting out that “creativity” is safe (Nesta, 2015; 2017). Indeed, other commentators go further to suggest how Artificial Intelligence can enhance creativity (Forbes, 2019). Often underdeveloped in both these accounts is a nuanced, historically attentive understanding of how creativity and technology are interweaved. As Osborne (2003: 522) argues, ‘more often than not the very idea of creativity is just a component in a wider assemblage.’ This paper reflects on the “either/or/both” relationships between creativity and technology.
Firstly, the role of technologies in the creative process is examined. This goes beyond seeing technologies as “tools” in the creative process, to explore the human and non-human relationships involved in the co-constitution of creative practices and products. From the paintbrush to the digital editing suite, contemporary claims about creativity and robots would benefit from exploring the mundane and everyday ways in which “humans” and “robots” exist together.
Secondly, the notion of “safe” or “resistant” creative jobs is problematized by locating creative jobs within the wider networks and ecologies of jobs and income generation that individuals can be enmeshed within. The emphasis here is on patterns of multiple job-holding and portfolio working common to creative work. Well-rehearsed examples include the aspiring actor working in a coffee shop. This paper avoids the separating of “safe creative jobs” and “unsafe uncreative jobs”, and instead questions the assumptions operating in these designations and the significance of establishing their interdependencies and overlaps.
Ashton, Daniel
b267eae4-7bdb-4fe3-9267-5ebad36e86f7
15 July 2019
Ashton, Daniel
b267eae4-7bdb-4fe3-9267-5ebad36e86f7
Ashton, Daniel
(2019)
Creativity and robots.
Cultural Histories, Creative Futures<br/>, Winchester School of Art, Winchester, United Kingdom.
15 - 16 Oct 2019.
Record type:
Conference or Workshop Item
(Paper)
Abstract
Claims concerning the impact of robots on the future of jobs are common place in popular press, industry conferences, and policy reporting. Part of this debate concerns the occupations which seem particularly susceptible or immune to developments in automation and Artificial Intelligence. This is where the “good news” emerges for the creative industries, with several prominent policy organisations setting out that “creativity” is safe (Nesta, 2015; 2017). Indeed, other commentators go further to suggest how Artificial Intelligence can enhance creativity (Forbes, 2019). Often underdeveloped in both these accounts is a nuanced, historically attentive understanding of how creativity and technology are interweaved. As Osborne (2003: 522) argues, ‘more often than not the very idea of creativity is just a component in a wider assemblage.’ This paper reflects on the “either/or/both” relationships between creativity and technology.
Firstly, the role of technologies in the creative process is examined. This goes beyond seeing technologies as “tools” in the creative process, to explore the human and non-human relationships involved in the co-constitution of creative practices and products. From the paintbrush to the digital editing suite, contemporary claims about creativity and robots would benefit from exploring the mundane and everyday ways in which “humans” and “robots” exist together.
Secondly, the notion of “safe” or “resistant” creative jobs is problematized by locating creative jobs within the wider networks and ecologies of jobs and income generation that individuals can be enmeshed within. The emphasis here is on patterns of multiple job-holding and portfolio working common to creative work. Well-rehearsed examples include the aspiring actor working in a coffee shop. This paper avoids the separating of “safe creative jobs” and “unsafe uncreative jobs”, and instead questions the assumptions operating in these designations and the significance of establishing their interdependencies and overlaps.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 15 July 2019
Venue - Dates:
Cultural Histories, Creative Futures<br/>, Winchester School of Art, Winchester, United Kingdom, 2019-10-15 - 2019-10-16
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 434977
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/434977
PURE UUID: ca2c5c54-3f82-4431-a802-d79af8278ace
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 17 Oct 2019 16:30
Last modified: 20 May 2023 01:43
Export record
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
