To See or Not to See: Understanding the Tensions of Algorithmic Curation for Visual Arts
Abstract
Algorithmic recommendation is one of the most popular applications of machine learning (ML) systems. While the implication of algorithmic recommendation has been studied in the context of high-stakes domains such as finance and healthcare, there has been very little focus in understanding its impacts with respect to the arts domain. Given that ML is increasingly finding place in the arts domain such as in generative arts and content analysis, in this paper, we examine the tensions of algorithmic curation in the context of visual arts. Through case studies, we describe how curatorial algorithms that are oblivious of broader socio-cultural contexts could potentially result in ethical concerns such as over-representation and misattribution, to name a few. Towards addressing some of these concerns, the paper offers design guidelines. Specifically, the paper outlines repair strategies that suggest ways 1) to engage with cultural stakeholders in building visual art curatorial algorithms, 2) to unlearn biases embedded in digital artworks and their meta-data, and 3) emphasize the need to establish regulatory norms specific to the use of ML in visual art curation. Taking cue from the process employed by artwork curators, the paper also describes how authenticity can be prioritized by re-calibrating visual art curatorial algorithms. The paper also suggest ways through which the potential of state-of-the-art ML curatorial algorithms can be re-imagined towards empowering the audience of…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There are growing concerns about generative AI's impacts on cultural expression and creative practice.
“As generative AI enters the world of creativity there are growing concerns about its impacts on cultural expression and creative practice [59, 98, 106].”
From AI and Non-Western Art Worlds: Reimagining Critical AI Futures through Artistic Inquiry and Situated Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as [106]
Cites
A Survey of Machine Unlearning
Nguyen, T. T., Huynh, T. T., Ren, Z., Nguyen, P. L., Liew, A. W.-C., Yin, H., & Nguyen, Q. V. H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.02299 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Break the Loop: Gender Imbalance in Music Recommenders
Ferraro, A., Serra, X., & Bauer, C. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3406522.3446033 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qadri, R., Mirowski, P., & Denton, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714049 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“As generative AI enters the world of creativity there are growing concerns about its impacts on cultural expression and creative practice [59, 98, 106].”
- Authors
- Srinivasan, R.
- Affiliations
- Fujitsu (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Srinivasan, Ramya
- ORCID
- Srinivasan, Ramya
- Venue
- The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-06-03
- Pages
- 444-455
- OpenAlex
- W4399364586
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 4.11
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Keywords
- algorithmic curation, visual arts, algorithmic recommendation, overrepresentation, misattribution, authenticity, audience empowerment, regulatory norms, design guidelines
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