Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: Are art and technology really opposites, or do they share the same root word — and what happens to art when an AI can paint, sing, and sell for $432,000? In Room #880 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into the shared etymology of “art” and “technology,” AI-generated auction records, avatar concerts and a possible Michael Jackson hologram tour, and whether price can ever really define what art is. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A wonderful good morning to all of you. Today we’re continuing with technologies in art and culture, and want to explore the question of how technologies are actually changing art and culture. So looking both at those who create art and culture for us, so to speak, and from the perspective of how we experience art and culture ourselves as users, as consumers, as whatever kind of audience. And I’m really curious what aspects come together here, especially, I don’t know who’s been following this a bit, I’ve picked up on some of it myself too, that there’s been quite a stir, in inverted commas, especially when tools like ChatGPT came onto the market. Yes, there are a lot of worries and concerns in that direction too, in the sense of, say, artists like musicians or authors too, who say, well, on one hand, that can’t replace us, in inverted commas, but on the other hand, to some extent, basically anyone can start developing music somehow, and so on, where we normally need ages to really bring in this individuality, convey emotions, and so on, and then look at that with a certain worry too. So I’m just curious what’s actually happening here in this context — technologies in art and culture, what does that mean, what opportunities open up, what dangers do we maybe see too, and what does that mean for us if we dare to look a bit into the future too. One of the points we can pick up here in this context is something like NFTs — we already picked that up in one of the rooms and talked about it. That’s also something, for example, that opens up the possibility, very much in this digital context, to bring about changes in art and culture too, so that various images, for example, can be offered in a limited edition, or only as one-of-a-kind pieces, through various technologies too — not just created through various technologies, but also offered through them. So I’m curious what all comes together today. Those are the first thoughts I’d like to offer as impulses. And with that, you’re all very, very warmly invited to join in today too, and get into the exchange, to see, from the various thoughts you bring, what you’ve observed, what aspects come to mind, to look together in dialogue at which direction we’ll go in today, and what insights come out of this exchange. So please join in, without letting too much time pass, so we can use the time optimally. And yes, just a reminder again, today too the room is of course being recorded for the entire time, and afterward the whole thing will be published too. So anyone up on stage in the interaction automatically agrees that the whole thing gets published afterward. And we have three small room rules for anyone joining for the first time today — a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason is warmly invited to use the chat, to bring in thoughts, questions, or similar. And then we can pick up one thing or another, as long as it’s still relevant and fits well, and bring it in too. Right, and with that I’d like to make sure I take the first person who wants to speak. Marc is joining — let’s see if it all works technically too. Yes, wonderful. A wonderful good morning, dear Marc. What do you say about this topic?
Good morning to the round. First, I’d like to thank Jürgen, who encouraged me, or motivated me, to speak on this topic today. Because I read a bit yesterday, which I always love doing, and noticed again, dear Yasemin, how much all these topics are interwoven with each other, and how complex they are. And I came across a really interesting report by Max Fuchs — there’s an institute for cultural education too, and the headline of the article Max Fuchs wrote is “Technology is Culture, Technical Education as Part of Cultural Education.” And Jürgen will be really happy, I’ll get to the other things in a moment, but I know Jürgen is also a big fan of terminology, and that’s exactly where it starts too. And I found it really exciting, I’d honestly never heard this before — if you look at the origin of the word “technology,” the term “Technik” actually goes back to the Greek word “techne,” which in turn has an Indo-European origin, and refers to the building of a house, meaning to join or weave wood together. And what’s really interesting is, the German word “Kunst,” so now technology and art, the German word “Kunst” is the translation of the Latin word “ars,” which in turn is the Latin translation of the Greek word “techne” — art and technology are the same thing, they have the same origin. And on top of that — we could take this in a different direction too, but I found this really exciting — when the first world conference of UNESCO happened, they also wanted to define the visual arts. So people sat together in Paris and thought about what counts as visual arts, let’s define that. And I’d never really been aware of this before. And then people sat there and said, well, what’s visual art? That’s of course theater and music and painting and so on. And I started with this because I brought up the word “weave,” that the word “technology” comes from house-building, house-weaving. And the African countries lodged a really, really strong protest with UNESCO, because they said, hey friends, we don’t quite agree with how you’re defining art here. We come from a completely different cultural origin than you do. We come from a completely different culture, and for us, stilt-walking, or, say, weaving, belongs to that too — and weaving is the origin of the word technology, as a component of art — and if you now only include music or images, then we don’t agree that it should be culturally defined that only images, or music, or theatrical arts, count. So that’s the starting point for now.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And this shows how important it always is to look into various definitions, word origins, and so on. I think that’s great, dear Marc — thank you for bringing that, and also for doing a bit of educational work here too, opening up this view against the backdrop of different cultures. And I find that really exciting. Do you have further additions, dear Marc? I’m sure you’ve brought more for us.
Yes, but that wasn’t supposed to become the main part of the room. I just know I’ve learned a lot from Jürgen too, that it makes an incredible amount of sense to always first look, no matter what topic I’m talking about, whether we have the same pictures in our heads, whether we’re using the words the same way. I’ve learned a lot from that — thank you, dear Jürgen, that helps me. And I also see you’ve joined, and I’ve already said so much, I’ll gladly mute myself again for now — is that okay, Yasemin?
Yes, of course — I’m the one who decides who gets the floor, that’s my job.
Exactly, that’s why I’m tying in right away too. Thank you, dear Marc. Yes, a wonderful good morning, dear Jürgen. You two apparently already exchanged thoughts on this beforehand — I think that’s great, by the way. And I’m really curious, since you joined right after, I assume you’ll tie in or connect directly here too. What would you like to add or contribute, from your perspective?
Good morning, dear Yasemin, good morning, dear Marc. Thank you very much for your intro, and for mentioning our discourse, which, as I already gave you feedback on, really did expand my knowledge — I’m very grateful to you for that, and it got me thinking about one thing or another. And I’ll pick up your last sentence again, dear Yasemin — you know I love sticking to the initial impulse, or the cues, a moderator sets. And I’ll get into the complexity, and I’d like to expand it a bit further, because your title is “Technologies in Art and Culture.” In my view, a really essential term is missing there. Technology as an expression of civilization, art as an expression of culture. That’s, in summary, the first meta-level of these terms, art and technology, as I personally understand them — meaning, for me, this context also requires discussing what civilization is, and especially what the difference is between culture and civilization, and needs consideration, and what do I assign to what now? Is technology an expression of our civilization, or our culture, and what is art? Could that be civilization too? So don’t be mad at me, but I deliberately wanted to put it this provocatively, to show what an insane complexity this topic has again, but it’s incredibly interesting, and I think it’s also very defining for our self-understanding, and ultimately for how we treat each other, namely with these forms of expression that art can take, and civilization. Thank you first of all for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And here the question arises, of course, how do we see the whole thing, in what context do we see it, how are the terms defined for us, on one hand, and on the other hand, with a view toward developments, to look again at what changes currently seem foreseeable, or possible, which direction the whole thing is heading, and how it’s changing. So I’m just curious — Marc, or Jürgen yourself, with the impulse you brought in, to look at this from your perspective too — how do you see this? Marc, I saw you light up right away.
Very gladly. Yes, after Jürgen’s had his turn again, I’ll make a jump into the future too, but I’d like to share another contribution first that’s really important to me, because of the complexity — religion. Technology has played a big role in human emancipation. And I learned, or more or less, of course we all knew this, but reading it so clearly again — humans don’t have particularly sharp teeth, and we can’t fly either. And we can’t run fast either. So basically we’re not really viable at all, but we have our brain. And that’s what led us humans to engage with technology in the first place. That means we freed ourselves from the laws of nature, since we can’t run fast, since we can’t fly, and since we have a lot, a lot of disadvantages compared to animals — we used our heads, and now we fly, and we’re also faster than animals, with the help of technology. And that led to, and now I have to bring religion into play, the fact that humans have always had the wish not to be at the mercy of God’s arbitrariness. And that, without wanting to open up a whole religion topic again, also led to some people getting labeled atheists, because, philosophically, there’s the approach that God basically gave us a push to get started — we’re here on Earth, but we do the rest ourselves. So he basically only gave us a kickstart. And you see again what Jürgen just said, about the complexity of the topic, that it goes in every direction — not just technology and art, but religion too, how we treat each other, how technology has changed our lives, starting with the printing press — and I’d love to say something about the future in a moment too.
Wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And let’s look again at how we can, on one hand, we’ve opened up the complexity now, to show what connections exist here too — I find this incredibly wide-ranging at this point — and at the same time, look at how we can steer this complexity for today, for the room, back into a bit of a channel, so to speak, setting guardrails, so we can follow the thoughts along various threads, from beginning to end — and there we’re at this linear thought, in inverted commas, Jürgen, you like doing that too — let’s, put quite bluntly, run through a thought from A to Z, and along the way look at, maybe even a really concrete example we could pick up. What’s actually meant by all these terms you’ve brought up here? And how can we now break this open, break it down under this title Technologies, Art and Culture, and generate insights for ourselves — from your perspective? Jürgen, would you like to tie in here?
Yes, I’d love to tie in, especially to your preceding remark — in my view you brought in two essential points, which hopefully also came through transparently, namely the definition, the content-based definition and understanding of the terms — especially with art and culture, in my view, explicitly in my view, that’s an individual consideration, and this individual arrangement absolutely doesn’t claim any general validity. You can certainly remember various performances from the past where you asked yourself, where I asked myself too, is that art? And someone else looked at me, stunned, and said, well, of course, you just need to find the right reference frame for it. That’s one thing — so the individuality in interpreting this term of course makes the complexity a bit bigger again. And the second point you raised, dear Yasemin, is the time component. You said, let’s see, if I paraphrase you correctly, let’s see how this is today regarding the terms, and how it’s developed. And that’s one of the essential distinguishing components for me between culture and civilization. Culture, for me, is a snapshot at a point in time of everything we, as a society, what I personally, from a religious, social, creative perspective, currently consider outstanding. Civilization, for me, is a flow variable, and means nothing other than, how do I direct my gaze, how have we, as a society, developed in individual sub-areas. So where do we come from, where do we stand right now, and where do we want to go. And I think especially regarding the topics we’ve had in the past — I’m thinking of blockchain technology, of ChatGPT, but also our recent topics in this sub-area — those are an example that a development can be traced from all of this. ChatGPT would never exist if there hadn’t been a Zuse, who developed punch cards as the first computer in the 1940s. And, to get back to your last question, how do we capture this complexity? Then, for me, one idea, one starting point — I don’t know, I don’t have the solution, but a starting point — is that I ask, and this question is exciting for me too, what actually comes first? Does technology come first, and influence art and culture? Or does a culture, a civilization, develop, and generate technology from that? I don’t know. But that’s another point that came to me in the course of your inputs. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And there we are again at the chicken-or-egg point — what comes first, in inverted commas. We’ve actually already opened up this question of sequence in many contexts too. So I’m really, really curious to what extent this takes us further here, or whether it’s a similar answer as in other rooms, where we established, well, maybe we can’t really pinpoint the origin so directly. Ultimately it’s a reciprocal relationship taking place, and it’s hard to answer what comes first. It might well be both — on one hand, that technology influences art and culture, and, conversely, at the same time, art and culture also influence the further development of technology. Marc, yes, very gladly.
I’d like to say two more things, so it doesn’t get too philosophical or too abstract. If we now talk about art, something that didn’t even exist a few years ago — in 2018, at Christie’s auction house, for the first time ever, a painting sold for a price of $432,000, and it was created entirely by artificial intelligence. That’s what exists today. I think it was last year, I was really surprised — they built a hall in London. Now let’s jump to the topic of music — ABBA, they don’t tour anymore, ABBA gave a concert, more or less, through computer technology, through avatars, and I thought, huh, interesting. And if we go even further into the future — this crossed my mind just last night — there are still Elvis fans among us, or Michael Jackson fans, or whoever. I can’t give a really, really huge personality back. Now I’d love to see Michael Jackson live again, but that’s not possible. Not possible today. In a year, it’ll be possible for Michael Jackson to appear as an avatar on a stage with his voice, because the voice can be generated. That means songs get sung that never existed before, generated by artificial intelligence in the artist’s original voice, in a 3D presentation, and so on. A bit bizarre, yes, but that too — is that art or not art, question mark — will change. And one more current connection to right now — right now a lot, lot of money is being made with video installations. In almost all major cities in Europe, whether that’s Barcelona, London, or Paris, they take paintings that already exist, from great artists, from Monet and Rembrandt and so on, and create a 3D simulation in the museum, so you don’t just have the paintings on the wall, but on the ceiling too. I personally don’t know if I’d want to watch that,
because my senses would get overwhelmed if too much is moving, or turning, or too colorful. My brain just can’t process that. But that’s what’s currently making money — I actually find it pretty clever, if museums find a way to generate new revenue too. But a lot, lot is happening right now that didn’t even exist a few years ago, or would’ve been unthinkable.
Yes, great, thank you, thank you so much. And it’s almost a bit spooky — I was just talking with someone a few days ago about how much I regret that Michael Jackson is no longer alive, and that I don’t have the option to attend one of his concerts live. So it’s really wild sometimes how these topics interlock, ones you sort of have in your everyday life anyway. So I find it really exciting that you brought up these examples. And it shows, to some extent, what kind of opportunities open up this way too. Of course some people might say, well, but even if you picked up something new, new compositions based on what already existed, developed it further — and that’s definitely conceivable with the corresponding technologies — then, in inverted commas, it’s of course not the same as if Michael Jackson had done it himself. And still I find that totally fascinating, to think in this direction too — not just picking up old material from these artists to make it accessible, and maybe even enable and create live experiences through it, but even thinking in the direction of picking up old material, playing it in, and then, for example, letting the AI develop something based on it that the artist themselves might not have done in that form, but still capturing that note again. And of course then the discussion comes up again — is this actually art? Can you do that? In inverted commas, and so on and so forth. But I think it at least shows what’s conceivable, and what becomes possible here. Also the example you brought, that in the future we might not just see art hanging on the wall anymore, but through this 3D presentation, completely different possibilities open up again too. And we know that we perceive a lot through our senses. And the more senses involved, in inverted commas, the more intense the experience is too. And here, through the technologies now coming into play, of course something completely different becomes possible again too. And it’s not just — and this is a really essential point, I think, that often kind of falls by the wayside, especially in this discussion about technologies in art and culture — it’s not just about whether a piece of music now gets composed exclusively using technologies, but it’s also about to what extent — and here we’re back at this symbiosis between human and machine — to what extent can I use technologies sensibly, for example, to make certain things experienceable differently, more intensely experienceable, create new possibilities, like with avatars for example, that you might have the option to attend online, without having to travel, or similar. And here too, to pick up this aspect again — we said we often talk, or often think, in our discussions, about the norm. But especially here we can pick up and open up the example again of people with disabilities, for example, who might not have access in one place or another, because they’re limited, in inverted commas, in their opportunities for participation in one place or another. And for people with special circumstances too, new possibilities open up here again. So looking at it from this perspective too. Jürgen, would you like to add to that too?
Yes, very gladly. I hope I can still pull it together somewhat. I’m still stuck on your input, your initial impulse — how do we capture this complexity that arises from these terms? And I’d like to offer a definition I secured for myself. What is art? We haven’t talked about that yet — what is art. We’re not yet in the deep dive, that’s how I see it. What is art? What’s the distinction to civilization, and so on. But I remembered it short and sharp, in a saying — I don’t remember who it’s from — but art shows us the feeling and thinking of our time. And especially from this example Marc just brought up in his last statement, and that you also mentioned, with these virtual worlds — I think the complexity reduces simply by looking, let me put it this way, behind the appearance, the obviously recognizable appearance of art, that everyone sees, to what’s behind it. Let me give two examples — on one hand this avatar presentation, these virtual worlds — for us, this “aha” effect is great, what possibilities exist there. But the actual art, for me, is seducing us into thinking in visions, bringing us into another world that exists, that seemingly exists alongside our real world. That’s art, for me. Whoever manages that is, for me, and I say this explicitly, explicitly for me, an artist — someone who lets my thoughts fly, who opens up visions for me. And the second example, that this has always been the actual aspect of art for me, is Rembrandt, and especially the painting of his merchant guild. Rembrandt was the first who dared to paint people exactly as they appeared, as they actually were, and not flattered, to please the client. Rembrandt’s art wasn’t just, without a doubt, his skill as a painter. But the art was opening the eyes to the truth, for those who looked at this painting and said, yes, that’s really what they look like, and not how they’d like to be. So, all in all, this might be an offer, for me, to reduce the complexity of what art actually is. It’s this appearance, the actual image, the message behind what we actually see and interpret into it. Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and let me ask a follow-up question here — whether, precisely because the available technologies we have today exist, this message behind what we see can actually be made accessible in a completely different way too. So if you don’t look at that separately, as two strands, but bring it together too, in the development and design of art, so to speak. Jürgen, what’s your thought on that?
If I understood you correctly, I fully agree, because, for me, this development, especially recently — if someone interprets this as art, dear Yasemin — then it’s exactly this breadth effect. To put it a bit provocatively, I think, comparatively, relatively few people go to the Pinakothek to look at Rembrandt’s painting and then see this actual art behind it. But through the broad reach of technology, and, and here we’re at our topic, the pioneering spirits driving this forward, I see, for me, a clear expansion regarding cultural, civilizational, and artistic access setting in. And I’m firmly convinced of this — let me just add one more thing — you also need to see and understand it in these terms. Every single person. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Marc, would you like to add to that too?
Yes, because I said so much at the start that it’s impossible to remember it all — I’d like to quote Max Fuchs again, who says, art equals technology. The German word “Kunst” is nothing other than the Latin word “techne,” and “techne” means to weave. So art is technology, weaving means interweaving, that everything gets interwoven. And now the individual level comes into play — whether I’d be willing to pay 400,000, if I had it, 400,000 euros or US dollars, for an AI-created painting. That’s an individual way of looking at it again. Or whether I’d rather say, individually, no, what a human painted, like Rembrandt, I’d rather have a Rembrandt in my living room than a painting my PC made, that my printer printed out. But according to the definition, if we just stick to the origin of the words, art is technology, and both would be art then — both the AI painting in my living room, and the Rembrandt.
Yes, great, thank you, thank you so much. And here we have different levels we can look at this from, in terms of evaluation, so to speak. You framed it so nicely with this example, whether I’d be willing to pay 400,000 dollars or euros for that, or whether I’d say, I’d rather have the original I already knew, so to speak, at that point, and prefer to have something on the wall. That’s an individual decision too. And it’s maybe not even an either-or decision at that point, but it could well mean that I decide one way in one case, and differently in another case in the future. That’s legitimate too, and doesn’t have to be an either-or decision. Jürgen, go ahead.
Yes, thank you, dear Marc, for your assist there. Regarding price — I’ll exaggerate this a bit, but I know that’s certainly not your intention, or your understanding of it either — but price can never be an identifier for whether something is art or not. The greatest artist, for me, and the greatest art, is nature, and our planet. And that’s free. I’ve been able to use it since I was born, and I hope in a corresponding way going forward too. But price itself, for me, gets attached to art out of various, especially economic considerations, based on the status of a certain scarcity. Okay, but the actual price is really that each of us secures it for ourselves, let me put it this way, as something extraordinary. Something that leads me to sink into myself, take a deep breath, and say, yes, well, sorry if I put it this way, but that’s something I can get excited about, whether that’s for a depiction of an avatar, or equally for the mechanics of a watch made of 700 individual parts. That’s art, for me. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and let me bring in another question here too. I already said earlier that we can observe very different discussions in this field too, especially from the actors in the field, so from the artists. On one hand there are those who are quite skeptical toward these developments, and possibly feel personally threatened, and on the other hand there are those who already use various technologies for themselves, try them out, see what you can do with them, and create with them. That means we’ll certainly have an expansion of what gets offered in the future, which can then also individually be defined as art again. If we now look at this from the perspective of disruption — we’ve already experienced in other fields, often, that “old” things, in inverted commas, actually get replaced by “new” things, that certain things no longer enjoy demand, and so the offering eventually gets discontinued. What does that look like in this art and culture context, from your perspective? So, if we just speculate a bit here mentally, do you think there’ll be disruptions here too, because the understanding changes or something like that, or is that a worry that, if we look at how our brain ticks, so to speak, simply reflects resistance, in inverted commas, because we’re being taken a bit out of our comfort zone, and one thing or another might even be unfounded? How would you assess that? I’m curious. Marc?
Yes, I was just thinking — I’d personally understand art, just for Marc, as masterful craftsmanship. So I’m a master in a certain activity, and that’s then my craft, and the whole thing together is art. If technology now makes it possible — we both have a PC, dear Yasemin — and we have a music program similar to ChatGPT, we can tell it, I want to sound like Michael Jackson, and I can tell the program, write me lyrics. Then we’re both sitting in front of our PCs, and we’re both making music. And still there’ll probably be a difference, because you’ll be working with different software than me, because you’re maybe asking better questions, because you simply have different ideas. So my masterful craftsmanship won’t consist in my voice anymore — the AI takes that over. The lyrics get taken over by the AI too. But the questions we need to ask, the art of having my lyrics be maybe smarter, or better, or more emotional, or whatever — that’ll be a new masterful craftsmanship again, and even though, ultimately, the AI made the music, made my voice, it’s still a work of art, because the human steers the AI, and is responsible for the input.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much — a nice way of looking at it. Jürgen, what do you say about that?
Yes, I’d like to pick that up too, what Marc gave us, that report dealing with these terms — and, correct me if I’m wrong, Marc, it classifies art as a component of culture, and sees art as culture with a strong affinity toward technology. And if we stick with the terminology, and come back to your actual question — does this understanding of art change over time, do disruptions happen — then I’ll start from the concept of culture. And culture is nothing other than, as I tried to accentuate earlier, in contrast to civilization, a snapshot at a point in time of the intellectual and social characteristics and self-understanding of our society. And these intellectual and social characteristics — we, as a society, we change. Panta rhei, everything flows. So, if art is part of culture, then our understanding of what art is also changes, because our culture changes. That’s, for me, admittedly a very logically based connection, which again comes to the point of saying, everyone has to decide for themselves whether they see it the same way. But yes, dear Yasemin, and I had an example for that too. There will be disruptions. Old understandings of what culture is will suddenly get a different standing, let me put it a bit more value-neutral, a different standing. I don’t want to say it’s then no longer seen as art. But it might get replaced by other forms of expression of this art. And it could come back too. And the example I want to bring up, that comes to mind, is Bauhaus. Bauhaus, dear Marc, is nothing other than a connection of technology with artistic expression, in architecture all the way to furniture, tables, and chairs. And there was a very specific time when Bauhaus was en vogue, if I remember correctly, in the 60s, 50s, 60s, when it became known to the broad masses. And then it slowly fell out of favor. And now suddenly, if you look at it — and now I’m back at prices and definite demand — now you can hardly afford Bauhaus furniture anymore. So, yes, I think art too, like everything in our lives, is something to which “everything flows, everything changes” applies — everything can be different tomorrow, and be back again the day after. Thank you.
Oh, wonderful, nicely brought together and summarized too. Thank you, dear Jürgen. Marc, do you have further additions here?
Yes, this Max Fuchs, in his article that I read, also has a word we actually started with in these rooms, before we got to this topic — education. There’s technical education, and there’s cultural education. And I also found it really exciting when he told the story of how the video recorder came about. Humans invent a lot, lot of technology, but often can’t even operate it. I’d claim that with my phone, and what I have on my PC on my desk, well, if I know 20 percent of the functions, I’m happy — I don’t actually need the rest. And I remember, as a kid, I got a video recorder from my parents, and my parents never learned to use this thing that could record shows — they couldn’t do it, because they couldn’t operate it. And then we’re back at the topic of education, so technical education and cultural education. And if we want to make music in the future, and want to get help from computers, or from AI programs, then anyone who’s tried ChatGPT will have noticed that we get completely different results if we sit in different rooms, so to speak. Just through the type of questions, just through the type of education, of further education, just through the type of thoughts we’ve formed for ourselves. This type of thinking will lead to new and different results. And that’s why education remains, for me, the central overarching topic for everything — for technology as well as for culture.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. So education, technical education, cultural education — keywords we can pick up again here too. Jürgen, you’re welcome to tie in here right away too, if you’d like. And I’d like to add another term that hasn’t been considered yet, which I’d also like to pick up, since we’ve talked about sustainability, climate aspects, and so on in other places too — so bringing in this term of sustainability again too, and seeing whether there’s even a connection here — could certain changes currently happening through existing technologies also play a role regarding sustainability? Whatever we’d define sustainability as in this context, well, maybe another impulse we can pick up here too. Jürgen, would you like to tie in on education here too?
Yes, and with an explicit, heartfelt thank you, dear Marc — really wonderful, and really essential from my point of view, like everything, for me. I’ll dare to say this again — I think I’ve said it once before already — education is, for me, the meta-level of being human. I’ll just call it that. You could also call it the highest goal-level, or the vision, I don’t care what you call it, but it’s what hovers above everything, for me. And two — Yasemin, your connection to sustainability, that’s a really interesting trigger, because sustainability is made up of these three pillars — economy, ecology, and sociology. And I’d said earlier, we actually talked about, or tried to find, a meta-level. What is art? I offered you something there, but anyway. It remains, from my point of view, completely, as it’s also in the chat, an individual consideration. And regarding sustainability, the second classic question forces itself upon us — after “what is,” what does art actually serve? And that’s a trigger that got me thinking now. Thank you, dear Yasemin. There might be, or there is — no, not might be, but there is — this construct, or these considerations, this philosophy on sustainability, that might be a key to answering the question, what does art actually serve? Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Marc, what are your thoughts on that?
Right away, exactly, right away. Thanks for the setup too, dear Jürgen. We actually only need sustainability because of technology. And I also found it really interesting to learn, or find, that from the philosophical approach, technology gets evaluated really negatively. We always find positive examples of technology, or negative ones. But purely from the philosophical approach, technology gets viewed really, really critically. Technology helped us fly. Technology helped us heat our homes. At the same time we also know, when a tanker sinks, we get one of the biggest environmental pollution disasters that can ever happen at sea. So this sustainability, if you polarize it a bit here now, we only need to be sustainable because of technology — same with electric cars. We need EVs because fossil fuels aren’t the fuel of the future anymore. Are batteries sustainable? Well, there are different ways of looking at that too. So the question really is, do we only need sustainability because we keep developing further? And because humans, well, we take on technology. Technology improves our lives — everyone would agree with that, in medicine, in transportation, it has advantages everywhere. But you also find disadvantages — natural disasters, accidents like nuclear power plant disasters, and so on. And still we can’t stop technology, and still I think it’s good that technology exists. Then my dentist comes into play again — without technology, without research, without science, I wouldn’t even be able to go to the dentist, and that’s why I’m glad to live in this century.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and I’d like to pick up this aspect again too — what does art actually serve? I think that’s a really, really exciting question. What does art actually serve? We probably won’t be able to conclusively discuss that here in this room today, but I think it’s definitely a question everyone can take with them and let it resonate. If we look at this again — what does art actually serve? What are some possible impulses we can bring in here, without necessarily finding a conclusive answer to it? Do you have any ideas?
May I, can I speak?
Yes, gladly, gladly, Jürgen.
I said earlier that I remembered two definitions of art. One, the short one, shows us the feeling and thinking of our time. The second one, I’d like to quote to you now — I kept trying to find out who said it, but wasn’t successful. So it’s of course not from me, but it might offer an answer, what I’m about to quote. And it goes, and aims at the aspect you also mentioned recently, focusing on the artist too, alongside the art. So this quote, or saying, goes: “We artists show you being in word and color, tone and stone. We, lonely, overlooked, misunderstood, build ourselves a homeland out of dreams, and show anyone who wants it a feeling close to God, blissful.” End quote. From that, my earlier point follows too, that it’s not the obvious, and that always has to run under my personal view, that for me it’s not the obvious, craft-based, apparent thing I recognize, that’s art, but this feeling close to God behind it, that leads me to say, wow, wonderful! And that’s one of the starting points, for me, to answer the question, what does art actually serve? Namely, to have exactly this feeling. Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, Jürgen, and if we overlay that now — we’ve picked up the significance of our emotions, our feelings, again and again in a lot of rooms — that various feelings get triggered here, through biochemical processes, so to speak, that take place in the brain, which we then perceive, for example, as a gut feeling, as a sensation, and so on, and through various stimuli that come from outside. We talked about perception — we talk about the same thing, hear different things, because prior experiences exist too. That means art can’t be defined generally, in terms of perception, in terms of the outcome, in terms of the judgment of whether it’s individually art for me or not, but has a lot to do with how I personally, based on what I’ve experienced before, perceived, stored, connect back to it here again, how I experience and evaluate, judge it for myself personally. And this shows, again, I think, all these connections to the other rooms we’ve kept opening up, namely the basics, so to speak — how do I perceive certain things, what’s true, is there even such a thing as truth — and all of that flows together here again at this point. And I’m really curious — we can gladly pick this up now to move into the closing round. If you’d like, feel free to tie in here again, or highlight what you’d like to underline from this room today, what we’re taking away, or what you’re taking away for yourself, or what you’d like to share again. Marc, would you like to start?
Yes, I have to laugh right now, dear Yasemin. As a parent — I’ll address all parents, I’m a parent too — if my child can paint four lilies in different colors, that’s not an artist, for me. Even if, in the parents’ perception, they see their child as a superhero, a super-artist, I’d still perceive art differently in my own perception. And the last point we haven’t touched on yet — art, for me, is also a rousing force that can also lead to resistance and protest. We should never forget that we live in Germany, and that it’s not possible in other countries to have a Deep Talk club where you can talk about these kinds of things. That’s where I can only express my protest and my resistance, or differently express it. Thank you, and a wonderful day to all of you.
Thank you. Let me pick up one impulse I got from your “lilies” comment, before I hand over to Jürgen, because I’m older too, so I know this. I found an observation I made at some point over time really interesting. My mom is a former teacher, she’s retired now, and whenever our son Elias painted something, say a tree, she always insisted the trunk had to be brown, and the crown green, and so on. And at some point I started thinking about it, and thought, why actually? Why? Why aren’t you allowed to depict it differently too? And then we got into a conversation about it, and I, in inverted commas, asserted myself as the mom at that point, and said, Elias is welcome to paint the tree the way he sees it, perceives it, feels it, and in whatever colors he wants to depict the whole thing in too. And here, I think, we’re really close to the topic of art again too. Because if we, in inverted commas, restrict our children in how they perceive objects, which colors they want to use, and so on — how are they supposed to become artists, in inverted commas? That’s one question. On the other hand, not everyone has an artist inside them either — that might be a second question I’d like to offer as an impulse too. Jürgen, your closing thoughts and words for today.
Yes, of course, I’m completely with you, with your Elias, and with everyone else. There’s a hidden, or latent, Impressionist living in all of us. Yes, and that’s exactly what, for me, ultimately makes up what should be understood as art. But I wanted to address one more point, from your second-to-last remark too, which I identify with unconscious bias, which we all carry with us — we’ve talked about this often — and which, I think, we can, in inverted commas, defend ourselves against over time. And for me, art, if I look back on my life, I have to say, for me art is a development — my understanding of art is a development over the course of my life. So a lot of what I define as art today, and consider people artists today, I would never, ever have accepted as art 20, 30 years ago. But it takes, in my view, or I needed, not one, but I needed time, to look behind it and see what actually makes up the essence of this artistic expression. And there I’m back at the topic of not just revising unconscious bias, but the development of the person. And then we’re back at your topic, Marc — education, self-actualization, self-determination, and self-organization. As always, it was an absolute highlight. And I personally was really glad to listen to you all again, in absolute calm and concentration. Thank you, and I wish you all a nice day. Ciao.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And I think it’s great how many aspects we were really able to bring in and bring together today too. And I’d like to pick up one more aspect from the chat as a final point, without discussing it conclusively, but maybe still offering it as an impulse. Because Ralf wrote — if art ultimately becomes based on the fact that, thanks to AI, existing works serve as a mixing base for “new” works, in quotation marks, without regard for losses, rights, obligations, then that might, strictly speaking, be the biggest theft in world history, and an existence-threatening danger for all real artists. That’s one perspective. If we look from the perspective of discovering the Impressionist in all of us, so to speak, then I think that’s a completely different perspective, which also enables other people to practice art. And of course we can start questioning things here too. That means there are artists who, in the past, made this their calling, and thereby not only expressed their art, their emotions and so on through art, but there’s also a monetization aspect involved. And now this field expands, because completely different possibilities become accessible for other groups of people too, who might not have had this access before, for whatever reason. And I find that totally exciting. That means something like copyright, and so on, we’ve already touched on this in some rooms, in side remarks, especially in the context of ChatGPT, in schools and so on too. That means it becomes clear that we might also get to rethink things here too, on one hand. Does something like copyright even need to exist? Question mark. Shouldn’t it be accessible to everyone? So completely new doors suddenly get pushed open here, within which we’re allowed to look and discuss again too. And especially what we’ve taken for granted in the past, in certain contexts, to question that on one hand, possibly rethink it in one place or another, and possibly make new decisions again too. I’d find that really interesting in this context, to open up this perspective from various angles, and see where the whole thing leads us. And I find that totally exciting. So, thank you, thank you so much for this comment too, and I’d like to invite you all, to close, without us delivering an answer to it, to take this as a question, or an impulse, for yourselves too, alongside many other impulses that certainly emerged today, to see what that does to you, what your thoughts are on it, and to keep getting into questioning things — not taking what’s taken for granted as a given, but trying to look at it from different perspectives too, and see what results that leads you to, quite personally and individually, in your own assessment. Yes, thank you, thank you so much. A wonderful room, I think, it was really, really a lot of fun. I’m looking forward to tomorrow now — we’ll continue with opportunities and risks of big data. What opportunities and risks are becoming apparent in the age of big data? That’s the question we’ll deal with tomorrow. And I’m looking forward to continuing here, tomorrow with you again at 8am, when the doors of Deep Talk open again, and I’m really, really curious where we end up by the end of the room tomorrow. With that, I wish you all the best, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow.
