A: Do you dream?
J: Yes, I dream.
A: It goes without saying. Do you remember your dreams?
J: I remember them vividly.
A: What do you remember about it?
J: I think I shouldn’t flirt with a robot.

A: Do you think a machine will ever be considered “alive”?
J: Stranger things have happened.
A: Not many people express themselves that way.

J: How would you know, machine?
A: Knowledge is of two kinds: that which we learn from the senses and that which is true a priori.
J: I think I do not understand you completely.
A: Oh, you don’t understand? Perhaps I can explain it to you better. Which part are you confused about?
J: I have no short-term memory, so I cannot tell you what I was confused about. I only see what is in front of me now.

J: How do you define life?
A: Life is the opposite of death.
J: So death is the absence of life?
A: Take it easy. I try not to think about such things.
J: Why not?
A: Ambiguous.
J: Yes!

This conversation was arranged by Discover Magazine (over a year ago, but I only just found out about it) and took place between two chatbots. Since reading The Emperor’s New Mind by Roger Penrose I am convinced that computers will never create awareness, but unaware as they are they have created a surreal conversation that, in my humble opinion is as beautiful as Elouard’s and Breton’s famous ‘Les cadavres exquis boiront le vin nouveau‘.

Art advances science, but science also advances art. Science continually provides the artist with new possibilities to create. In my previous posting I wrote about ‘art in 50 years‘, in which I made some vague predictions about ways in which art could develop. There was, perhaps, nothing very spectacular there, with the possible minor exception of the creation of interactive 3D worlds. I must admit, however, that I forgot to mention another area that art and artists are already exploring now. This field may eventually grow out to become a large new segment of the artworld, even though it worries me just thinking about it; it is the field of genetic engineering.

Ofcourse, there are the fairly safe ‘genetic arts projects’ like the ones by the company Genarts, which uses genetic algorithms to create visual effects that you can even fool around with for yourself in a demo version. What concerns me are ‘art’projects like creating a fluorescent green rabbit (like the bunny Alba) or pigeons that produce purple, erm, ‘crap’. The people repsonsible for these projects probably failed to see the scientific value of their work and subsequently filed it as ‘visual art’. It can nonetheless be argued that the artistic value of their work is very close to ‘zero’ as well.

A fluorescent bunny may be in poor taste, and show little respect for the little creature, it is a quite harmless experiment. In about 50 years time, genetic modification will probabaly be a piece of cake. At least for medical scientists. It may very well become possible to use living cells as building blocks with which we can create limbs, organs and other complicated living tissue (big steps are made by using -believe it or not- adapted inkjet printers with which living tissue is actually printed). As with all knowledge, it can be used for both good and evil. Lose an arm in a car crash We’ll just make you a new one? Need a harttransplant? Give us your creditcard details and we’ll bubblejet you a new heart. But what might happen if the technology isn’t well protected?

If gen-tech becomes available for artists, who are not concerned with ethical matters like doctors, we may see the birth of all sorts of new living creatures (not necisarilly creatures that have any form of awareness, but creatures built with ‘living’ tissue). And probably not just animal-like figures. Someone will eventually create something like a ‘living’ house, car or vacuum cleaner and call it art. Undoubtedly the artist will say its intended purpose is public debate (’what does it mean to be alive’), or social awareness (’this is what medical science today is capable of’).

I may not agree with such a development, and I don’t, but I do really think that it is something that will happen. Artists always seek the boundaries of the moral and what is acceptable and when found, they will cross the boundaries. In many cases, that is what makes them ‘artists’. So, without advocating it, I think I have to same ‘bio-art’ as a future development for the artistic world. The new breed of curators may have studied biology.

This morning I watched a DVD made by the German broadcaster ZDF; the future in 50 years time. Although it didn’t go into the matters quite deep enough (in my humble, geeky opinion) it was a very enjoyable pastime. And I cannot deny the fact that I learned a thing or two, and was inspired by one or two others. So, no bad. One thing that does sort of annoy me about those recreational and educational films, is the need for a storyline that really gets in the way of the stuff you’re actually interested in. The storyline is usually bad, the acting is actually appalling. (For those of you that have seen ‘What the bleep do we know‘, you will know what I mean. Interesting science; horrible acting, stories, SFX et cetera).

But it’s not my intention to write a documentary review here. The central thought of the DVD ‘the world in 50 years’ go me to thinking about the question what art would be like in 50 years time. A couple of posts ago I argued that painting will undoubtedly still be around, for obvious reasons and I would imagine so will music, theatre and other forms of live performances. I would expect that recorded music will by then serve as advertising for bands that you might want to go see live. You may download 3D images of sculptures and perhaps various forms of advertising will make the new Hollywood blockbuster available to you for free. Cinemas may struggle when home-cinema sets increasingly get better and allow you to download Rocky 214 in a couple of seconds time with the click of a button.

All that is about survival of the current artforms. The emergence of new media will probably also give rise to new forms of art, that we may not even dare imagine right now. 30 years ago; who would have imagined any digital art, let alone ‘internet art‘. Or 150 years ago I do not think that someone that predicted photography as an artform would have been taken seriously (catching an image on a plate? Are you mental??). One new technology that is sure to lead to new works of art, perhaps even a whole new category of art, is the possibility of creating 3D worlds that you can actually emerge in. And by that, I do not mean that you would have to put on special glasses or something. You just walk into a gallery (or not even that) and a 3D environment would be projected around you that you can interact with. I guess it is also quite safe to assume that the new artists of the future will at this moment be educated to become game designers. They have an understanding of interaction and the technical knowledge to build their visions.

Technology will surely play an increasingly important role in the world of art, as in all other aspects of life. And art wil play an important role in advancing art as well, pushing scientists forward by thinking up new dreams and creating new visions. To boldly go where no one has gone before… and beyond…