Cited by 17Art, Technology, and CultureCybernetics and Technology in SocietyDigital Media and Visual Art

Evolving Coagency between Artists and AI in the Spatial Cocreative Process of Artmaking

Open access
Nordström, Paulina, Lundman, Riina, Hautala, Johanna·2023·Annals of the American Association of Geographers

Abstract

This article applies theoretical and empirical discussions of emerging human and digital technology relations to our interest in collaborative artist–artificial intelligence (AI) artmaking processes. Thus far, the theoretical focus has largely been on mediating (code) and merged (cyborg) human–technology relations, with mutual (coagency) relations yet to be adequately explored. To address this, we nuance the theoretical discussion and extend the empirical research, analyzing the spatial cocreative artmaking process through video interviews with eighteen Finnish artists using AI. Drawing on the work of Barad, we regard humans and AI as fundamentally entwined, receiving their agencies through intra-action. Building on this, we demonstrate how the agencies of artists and AI emerge and mutually evolve across three stages of the creative process: (1) coding and data, (2) learning and training, and (3) curating the outcome. Thus, through our empirical research on how artist and AI create new material and meaningful artworlds, we are able to nuance understanding of coagency as a spatial process. Key Words: agency, art, artificial intelligence, cocreativity, digital geographies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/24694452.2023.2210647

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing socio-technical evaluations of AI have primarily centered on conversations with artists through interviews, with only a handful focusing on artists experimenting with tools directly or bringing artists into conversation with one.

    “While these get closer to understanding AI as a socio-technical artifact, these studies have primarily centered on conversations with artists through interviews, with only a handful studies focusing on artists experimenting with tools directly or bringing artists into conversation with one [18, 19, 21-24].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nordström, P., Lundman, R., & Hautala, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Agder (NO)
  • University of Turku (FI)
  • University of Vaasa (FI)
Venue
Annals of the American Association of Geographers
Published
2023-07-07
Volume
113
Issue
9
Pages
2203-2218
ISSN
  • 2469-4452 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-4460
OpenAlex
W4383499139
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
48.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the American Association of Geographers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Osuva (University of Vaasa) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Koneen Säätiö (201902784)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Digital Media and Visual Art
Keywords
human-AI collaboration, digital geography, intra-action, Barad, agency, art world, machine learning training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review