Welcome back to the Intersect, where we look at how art and technology are kind of bumping into each other these days.

Yeah, they really are.

For anyone new here, each episode comes from this newsletter called the Intersect, and it's put together by this artist and technologist named Jurgen Birkessel.

He's got a real talent for seeing these connections between things like, you know, algorithms and aesthetics.

Right.

So we're basically using his newsletter as like, a launching pad for our conversations.

I like it.

And today we are going deep into issue 30.

Oh, yeah.

Issue 32, which has a lot of interesting stuff in it.

I was just reading it this morning.

There's so much in this one.

Yeah, I know.

What really struck me was the variety.

You know, we're talking about AI generated music, and then there's the whole backlash against Spotify wrapped using so much AI this year, and we're even going to touch on robot theater.

It really shows you how technology is just seeping into every corner of the art world.

Yeah.

And that brings up some pretty big questions.

Sure, definitely.

Well, let's start with this article by Shelly Palmer.

Okay.

It's called if you can't tell the difference, there is no difference.

Catchy title.

Yeah, I like it.

And he makes this really bold argument.

Okay, I'm listening.

He says if people listening to music can't tell if it was made by a human or by AI.

Yeah.

Does it even matter who made it?

That's a good question.

Right.

Now, Palmer's background is in commercial music.

Okay.

So he's coming at it from a certain angle.

Exactly.

Yeah.

He says a lot of music, like the stuff in advertising and marketing.

Oh, yeah.

Like jingles and background music for commercials.

Yeah.

It's not always about, like, pure artistic expression.

Right.

It's about achieving a specific goal.

Exactly.

So he says if AI can make a jingle that's just as effective as one made by a human.

Yeah.

Why would a company pay more money for a human to make it?

It's all about the bottom line, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, that makes sense.

He even talks about Steve Jobs and the ipod.

Okay, the ipod.

That's going back a bit.

Yeah.

But his point is that the compression technology they used back then actually made the audio quality worse.

Really?

I never noticed that.

Most people didn't because it meant they could have thousands of songs on this little device.

Yeah.

That was a game changer.

So his point is, if the audience doesn't notice the difference or if they just don't care, is there really a difference?

It's a provocative question.

It is.

He's not saying that we don't need human composers anymore.

Right.

Or that all music should be made by AI.

But he is making us think about whether the origin of the music is really as important as we think it is.

Especially when it comes to commercial stuff.

Exactly.

It's interesting.

It really is.

Makes you think.

It makes me think about that whole debate about separating the art from the artist.

Oh, yeah.

Can you enjoy a movie if you hate the director's personal views or listen to a song by someone who's been accused of something terrible?

Yeah, you know, that's a tough one.

It feels like Palmer's applying that same logic to AI.

He's asking us to think about whether just experiencing the art itself should be enough, or whether knowing who created it or how it was created changes how we feel about it.

That's a big question and there's no easy answer.

Definitely not.

And it's going to become even more important as AI generated art becomes more common.

For sure.

Speaking of how audiences react, let's talk about Spotify wrapped.

Oh boy.

The Internet was not happy with that this year.

I know.

They went all in on the AI and people were not feeling in it.

Not at all.

This article by Kat Ten Barge in NBC News, she really summed it up well.

What did she say?

She said users felt like this year's wrapped was oddly generic.

Yeah, I kind of felt that too.

Like it lacked all those personal touches that made it fun in the past.

Yeah, those AI features felt like an afterthought, not like something that was actually meant to improve the experience.

I know I missed those music personality quizzes from the past few years.

Yeah, those were fun.

And those location based taste matches, I remember those.

They were quirky and they felt unique to each person.

Right.

This year it was all about AI generated podcasts and those musical evolution summaries.

Yeah, kind of like reading a generic horoscope.

It's ironic because Spotify was trying to be super personalized with AI, but they actually ended up making it more generic and boring.

It's a cautionary tale for tech companies.

Right?

Like don't get so caught up in the AI that you lose that human touch.

Exactly.

That's what makes things special.

Jurgen pointed out in his newsletter that this whole thing of overusing AI isn't just happening with Spotify.

Oh really?

He mentioned those auto generated year in review videos from Facebook, Apple and Google.

Yeah, they can be cute.

Sometimes they can, but often it feels like they're made for algorithms, not real people.

That's true.

He's got a point.

Yeah, he does.

If we're always focused on what AI thinks we want, are we losing the human side of art and creativity?

That's a big question.

It is.

Are we trading real personal connections for an algorithm's version of them?

Hmm, that's deep.

It is something to think about as AI becomes a bigger part of our lives.

Definitely.

Are we the ones shaping technology or is technology subtly shaping us?

It's kind of scary when you think about it.

It is.

It's something we need to pay attention to as we explore this whole intersection of art and technology.

We do.

But it's not all bad news, thankfully.

Oh, good.

I was starting to get depressed.

Florence Ion over at Gizmodo wrote about Google Photos year end recap, and it's actually getting a lot of positive feedback.

Really?

Google Photos doing something right?

It seems.

So what is it?

It sounds like they found a better balance with their AI features.

Okay.

Especially the version that uses their Gemini AI.

Gemini?

Yeah.

It makes personalized captions and gives you these insightful summaries of your best moments.

Oh, wow.

And this is coming from Jurgen, who mostly uses Apple products.

Right.

He even admitted that he doesn't use Google Photos very often.

He also said that those AI features from Apple Photos and Facebook can be surprisingly good.

Interesting.

Turning travel photos into little movies and giving you a fresh perspective on things you've done.

So it sounds like in this case, the AI is actually helping people.

It is helping them rediscover their memories and see them in a new light.

Yeah.

It's not trying to replace human creativity.

It's more like it's enhancing it.

I like that.

Me too.

But it does make you wonder.

About what?

Do these AI curated memories really capture the depth of what we've experienced, or are they just showing us what algorithms think is important?

Oh, that's a good point.

Are we basically outsourcing our memories and letting algorithms decide what's meaningful?

It's kind of a scary thought.

It is.

And it's something we need to think about as AI becomes more intertwined with our lives.

Def.

Are we shaping technology or is it shaping us?

Big questions.

Yeah, well, let's shift gears now and go from digital memories to something completely different.

Robot theater.

Robot theater.

Okay.

This should be interesting.

Yeah.

Jurgen included a review of this play called we are your robots in this issue of the newsletter.

Who wrote it?

It's by Ethan Lipton.

Ethan Lipton.

Okay.

And it sounds fascinating.

Tell me more.

Well, David Barber reviewed it for Lighting and Sound America.

And he described it as this cabaret style show with Lipton performing alongside a bunch of musical robots.

Musical robots.

Wow.

I know.

And the play goes into some pretty deep stuff.

Like what?

Exploring things like AI, panpsychism.

It's this idea that consciousness could be like a fundamental property of the universe.

Oh, wow.

Yeah.

And it even looks at humanity's self destructive tendencies.

That's a lot to unpack.

It is das intense.

It does.

But Jurgen did say in his newsletter that he's getting a little tired of all the AI talk.

I can understand that.

He wrote, can we give AI a break?

It feels like every creative conversation gets looped back to algorithms and singularities.

Yeah.

It can be a bit much sometimes.

Right.

It's like we're bombarded with AI news all the time, and it feels like it's overshadowing everything else it can.

It's natural to want a break.

Exactly.

To explore other creative things.

Jurgen wants stories that go beyond our current fears about AI.

He wants theater to surprise him, not just repeat talking points from a TED talk.

Makes sense.

Art should challenge us.

It should provoke us and offer new perspectives.

Right.

It shouldn't just reflect our anxieties or recycle old ideas.

I agree.

But the play does bring up this really chilling question.

What's that?

One of the lines is, if robots are fatal to humanity, it's because they too accurately reflect our most violent flaws.

Ooh, that's dark.

It is.

It makes you confront your own shortcomings.

Yeah.

Are we so messed up that even our creations, our robots, will inherit our worst traits?

That's a scary thought.

It is.

It's a question that goes beyond AI and gets to the core of what it means to be human.

It really does.

And that's where art can be so powerful.

How so?

It can hold a mirror up to us, make us face uncomfortable truths, and hopefully inspire us to be better.

It's not always about escapism or entertainment.

Sometimes it's about looking inward and challenging our assumptions about ourselves and the world.

It can be a catalyst for growth and change.

Speaking of challenging assumptions, let's dive into this really fascinating intersection of art and science that Jurgen highlighted.

Oh, yeah?

What's that?

It's this research by Professor Wilma Bainbridge at the University of Chicago.

I've heard of her.

Yeah.

It was featured in the Visualist.

I'll have to check that out.

Her work suggests that some artworks are just naturally more memorable than others.

Really?

Because of what they look like?

Yeah.

Based on their visual qualities.

Interesting.

And her lab took it a step further.

That was.

So they created an AI that can predict which artworks people will remember.

Wow.

And they tested it at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Did it work?

It was surprisingly accurate.

That's wild.

Now, Jurgen, being Jurgen had a funny take on this.

Oh, I bet he did.

What did he say?

He joked about the possibility of intentionally making forgettable art.

Forgettable art?

Yeah.

He thinks it's a weird, but kind of freeing idea.

I've never thought about that before.

Imagine making art that's designed to fade from memory.

It's a strange concept.

It is.

What would it even look like?

I don't know.

What would be the point?

Yeah.

It makes you question our assumptions about what art is supposed to do.

It does.

Is it always about creating something that lasts and that people will remember?

Right.

Or can there be beauty and meaning in something that's fleeting?

Good question.

Can art be valuable if it's only meant to be experienced for a moment and then let go?

That's really interesting.

It gets to the heart of what we value in art.

Yeah.

What makes a piece of art unforgettable for you?

Is it the technique, the emotion, the subject, or something else entirely?

I'll have to think about that.

Me too.

It's worth pondering.

It is.

Well, this has been a fascinating conversation so far.

It has.

I'm really enjoying this issue.

Me too.

And we've only just scratched the surface.

There's so much more to talk about.

There is.

I can't wait to see what else Jurgen has dug up for us.

I know.

Let's take a quick break and then we'll come back and dive into some more of these thought provoking topics.

Sounds good.

I need a refill anyway.

Me too.

We'll be right back after a short break.

Welcome back to the Intersect, where we're talking about issue 32 of Jurgen Berkessel's newsletter.

Yeah, so much interesting stuff.

Let's talk about art and technology working together to actually make a difference in people's lives.

You mean like with that robot at the Ringling Museum?

Exactly.

Already.

The telepresence robot.

Bringing museum tours right to hospital patients.

That's a pretty awesome idea.

Yeah.

Museum next.

Had an article about it.

The robot tour program.

It's a partnership between the museum and Sarasota Memorial Health Care System.

Yeah.

Using art to promote healing.

I love that.

Instead of being stuck in a hospital bed.

Right.

Patients get to virtually explore the museum through Artie's camera.

It's like a window to the outside world.

Exactly.

It's not just a distraction.

That article talked about how interacting with art can actually reduce pain and anxiety, even nausea.

Really?

Yeah.

Wow.

And the tours use this method called Visual Thinking Strategies.

Bts.

Yeah.

It encourages people to have open discussions.

About the artwork, focusing on personal observations.

And interpretations rather than just memorizing facts.

That's cool.

So it's using technology to make art more accessible.

Yeah.

Breaking down those physical barriers, bringing art.

To people who couldn't experience it otherwise.

Exactly.

I like that.

Jurgen said he wasn't sure about art robots providing comfort at first.

Yeah, it sounds a little strange.

But he really liked how the program uses technology to bring the museum to people.

People who can't physically be there.

It makes you think about the possibilities.

It does, but it also makes you wonder about what does a virtual experience really compare to being there in person?

That's a good question.

Would a robot guide be as comforting and engaging as a human one?

That's a valid point.

And one that's going to become more relevant as VR and AR get bigger in the art world.

For sure.

How will they change how we connect with art?

Will they enhance it or take away from it?

That's a conversation we need to have.

Artists, curators and museum goers all need to figure this out together.

As technology reshapes the art world, it's.

Going to be interesting to see where it all goes.

Speaking of new ways to experience art, let's go from robots to recycled electronics.

Oh, yeah.

For Jabal's work Laid Balkan buffering.

It was at Art Cologne this year.

He uses old electronics in his art.

Vernisage TV was talking about how he's making a statement about all the waste from our digital lives.

Yeah.

Turning trash into art.

Thought provoking and visually striking.

Jurgen actually has a personal connection to Bol.

Really?

He grew up near his hometown and lived near where he studied Small World.

It's interesting how he takes something we.

Usually ignore, like old electronics.

Yeah.

And turns it into something beautiful and meaningful.

It shows how art can make us see the world in new ways.

Finding beauty where you least expect it.

Challenging what we think of as art.

And Bol's inspiration for his work is powerful too.

What is it?

He talks about the mountains of electronic scrap behind the flashing digital facade.

It's a good reminder about the cost of our obsession with technology.

It's a reminder that our choices matter.

Even something like how much we use our devices.

It has a real impact.

Artists like Bol help us see that more clearly.

So it begs the question, do we See the art in our trash or do we just add to the pile?

Can we be more thoughtful about what we buy and use?

Can we reuse and repurpose instead of just throwing things away?

It's a challenge.

It is.

Especially now when we're dealing with overconsumption and trying to be more sustainable.

Art can really help us become more aware.

Yeah.

And make us rethink our habits.

Art has this power to make us feel and think differently and see things in new ways.

It can lead to change, both personal and societal.

Powerful, powerful stuff.

Speaking of new ways to see things, let's talk about virtual museums.

Okay.

Those are getting a lot of attention.

The art newspaper wrote about a project from the University of Glasgow.

The one using extended reality to create virtual museums.

Yeah.

X.

They're using photogrammetry and VR headsets so.

People can explore detailed 3D models of.

Artifacts like the Lewis Chess pieces.

You can manipulate them, see them from any angle.

You can't do that in a real museum.

The researchers think it's a way to give everyone access to cultural heritage, democratizing access, making these things available to people who can't visit the actual museums.

That's a great idea.

It's also a way to deal with intellectual property issues, which can be a.

Big problem for museums, especially when they.

Want to share their collections digitally.

Yeah.

It's a really interesting idea, using technology to break down barriers, making cultural heritage available to everyone.

But it does raise some questions, like what is a virtual experience ever truly the same as a real one?

That's a valid question.

Jorgen brought up a really interesting point about using this technology to show stolen artifacts in their original contexts.

That's a great idea, especially those tied to colonial histories.

It's like decolonizing museums, giving these objects.

A new life and meaning.

It could really change how we see and understand history.

Jurgen did say that he's not completely on board with the whole VR thing, though.

Really?

He prefers being physically present in a.

Museum, surrounded by the real objects.

Yeah.

He finds wearing a headset and being tethered to a computer less appealing.

I get it.

There's something magical about being in the presence of a real artifact.

It's a sensory experience, one that VR.

Can'T fully replicate, at least not yet.

But he did say that if the technology gets to the point where we can interact with holograms in physical spaces.

Holograms.

That's cool.

Yeah, he's all for it.

He's imagining a future where the real.

And digital worlds blend seamlessly, creating truly immersive art experiences.

I like where he's going with this.

It raises an important question.

What's that?

Would you be okay with virtual museums or do you prefer being there in person?

It's a personal choice.

Of course it is.

But it's a debate that's going to get more intense as technology keeps changing.

Absolutely.

It makes us think about what's really important about the museum experience, what we.

Value about encountering art in history.

Is it the physical objects, the atmosphere of the museum, or can those things be captured virtually?

Big questions.

Well, let's move from virtual museums to a different kind of digital experience.

Okay.

What's that?

Marco Brambilla's video installation, Limit of Control.

Oh, yeah, I've heard of that one.

It's pretty intense.

What's it about?

Design.

Boom.

Called it a critique of media politics and how truth gets distorted in the digital age.

That's relevant.

It is.

So how does he do it?

He combines AI generated imagery with Hollywood footage and recordings of protests.

It's this crazy montage that's both captivating and overwhelming.

Sounds intense?

It is.

The visual style is a reflection of what it's about.

How so?

It's this rapist fire barrage of images and sounds.

Okay.

Like the overload we get from modern media.

Makes sense.

It's supposed to make you feel something.

I did it.

Jurgen said he had mixed feelings.

What did he say?

He said it was a bit overwhelming overall.

Yeah, I can see that.

But certain images and collages really stood out to him.

Moments of clarity and the chaos.

It's a good reminder that art can be challenging, even uncomfortable sometimes.

It's not always about beauty and harmony.

Sometimes it's about forcing us to confront the darker side of things, the way.

We'Re bombarded with information and stimuli.

That's what makes art important.

It is.

It provokes us and challenges our assumptions.

And makes us think differently.

Even if it's not always a pleasant experience.

Exactly.

It shakes us out of our comfort zones and makes us see the world in new ways.

So I have to ask, does this kind of art really lead to understanding or just exhaustion?

Does it shed light on the issues or just add to the noise?

It's a question worth thinking about.

It is.

And each person will probably answer it differently based on their own experiences.

Yeah.

There's no right or wrong answer.

But the fact that it makes us.

Ask these questions, that's what shows the.

Power of art engaging us on a deeper level.

Well said.

Well, let's move on to a project that's trying to Bring new life to historical portraits.

Okay.

I'm curious.

It caught my eye because it's combining traditional art with modern storytelling.

Sounds interesting.

The National Portrait Gallery is partnering with Frameless Creative.

I think I saw something about that in the art newspaper.

Yeah.

Their project is called Stories Brought to Life.

Catchy title.

It's launching in May 2025 at MediaCity Salford.

They're using Hollywood style visual effects to.

Explore the lives behind the portraits.

Oh, wow.

Giving them a whole new dimension.

They're aiming to give people a richer.

Context and a deeper understanding of the stories behind the portraits.

They've got a really diverse range of subjects too.

Like who?

Queen Elizabeth the first.

Okay.

And musician Liam Gallagher.

Interesting combination.

Seems like they're trying to appeal to a wide audience, showing that history can be exciting and relevant to our lives today.

It's smart.

Museums need to keep evolving.

Yeah.

They need to find new ways to connect with people.

Especially now when attention spans are so.

Short and there's so much competition for our free time.

Jurgen seems pretty excited about this project.

He thinks it can really enrich how we understand these portraits and how we.

Connect with them emotionally.

Which makes sense since they're usually just presented with very little context in museums.

He sees it as a sign that museums are becoming storytellers.

Not just guardians of art, but narrators of the lives and ideas behind the artwork.

It's an interesting shift.

Makes you wonder if it's a trend.

Are museums becoming more like entertainment venues?

Or are they just finding creative ways to do what they've always done, educate and inspire.

It's something to think about as we consider the future of museums, how they'll.

Adapt in the digital age.

It all comes back to that tension between the human and the technological, which.

We'Ve been talking about all episode.

How do we make sure technology makes.

Art better instead of taking away from it?

How do we balance tradition with innovation?

Those are questions we'll keep wrestling with as technology becomes more intertwined with the art world.

And that's what makes this so interesting.

There are no easy answers, but the.

Questions themselves are worth exploring.

It's a dynamic world, constantly evolving, and I'm excited to see where it all goes.

Yeah.

It really is a dynamic world.

We've talked about a lot in this episode.

How technology is changing everything from making music to how we experience museums.

It's clear that art and tech have this complicated relationship.

Yeah.

And it's always changing.

We've seen how tech can be good and bad for art.

Right.

It can help more people experience art and create new forms of expression and push boundaries, but it also brings up questions about what's real, the role of the artist, and what it even means to experience art.

If you want to explore these ideas more, check out Juergens website.

It's the Intersect Art.

You can find his full newsletter there and a bunch of other resources about this fascinating world where art and technology.

Well, this has been another great episode.

It has always a pleasure to dive into these topics with you.

Likewise.

Thanks for joining us everyone.

We hope you enjoyed exploring the ever changing intersection of art and technology.