AI and Heritage: A Discussion on Rethinking Heritage in a Digital World

Yıl 2024, , 1 - 11, 28.06.2024

Miloš Todorović

https://doi.org/10.46442/intjcss.1397403

Öz

It is widely understood that cultural heritage represents a dynamic phenomenon: it is created in the present by us ascribing value to material or intangible inheritance from the past, we know that different past societies cherished such remains much like us, and what constitutes it changes over time. And yet, up until the present, it was implied that these things that we inherited and value have been made by humans. With the rise of generative AI programs, that is no longer a given. We already have programs capable of producing works that get a lot of praise and even win art prizes, like the case of Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, and this is just the beginning of the current AI revolution. These developments with AI are already challenging our established views, legal frameworks, regulatory systems, and many other things in our society. Because of that, this article aims to provide a brief overview of how our notion of what constitutes cultural heritage changes and explore why these developments are different from previous inventions and why they pose a challenge to our established views on cultural heritage, in the hope of opening up a discussion on what constitutes heritage in an increasingly digital world.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Generative AI, AI-generated art, digital heritage, AI impact on culture, cultural heritage

Proje Numarası

No funding was received for the production of this work.

AI ve Miras: Dijital Bir Dünyada Mirası Yeniden Düşünme Üzerine Bir Tartışma

Öz

Kültürel mirasın dinamik bir olgu olduğu geniş bir şekilde kabul edilmektedir: Bugün, geçmişten gelen mal veya soyut mirasa değer atfederken, bu değeri şu anda yaratıyoruz; farklı geçmiş toplumlarının, bizim gibi, bu kalıntıları ne kadar değerli bulduğunu biliyoruz ve bunun zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini biliyoruz. Ve yine de, şu ana kadar, miras olarak devraldığımız ve değer verdiğimiz şeylerin insanlar tarafından yapıldığı varsayımı vardı. Generatif yapay zeka programlarının yükselişi ile artık bu varsayım geçerli değil. Théâtre D'opéra Spatial örneğinde olduğu gibi, övgü alan ve hatta sanat ödüllerini kazanan eserleri üretebilen programlarımız zaten var, ve bu mevcut yapay zeka devriminin sadece başlangıcı. Bu yapay zeka gelişmeleri, zaten kurulmuş görüşlerimizi, yasal çerçevelerimizi, düzenleyici sistemlerimizi ve toplumumuzdaki birçok şeyi zorlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu makale, kültürel mirasımızın neyin oluşturduğu konusundaki anlayışımızın nasıl değiştiğine dair kısa bir genel bakış sunmayı amaçlamakta ve bu gelişmelerin önceki icatlarından farklı olma nedenlerini ve kültürel mirasımıza yönelik kurulmuş görüşlerimize neden bir zorluk teşkil ettiğini araştırmaktadır. Bu, giderek daha dijital bir dünyada mirasın neyin oluşturduğu konusunda bir tartışma açma umuduyla yapılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Generatif Yapay Zeka, Yapay Zeka Üretilmiş Sanat, Dijital Miras, Yapay Zekanın Kültüre Etkisi, Kültürel Miras

Proje Numarası

No funding was received for the production of this work.

Kaynakça

• ACA - Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan (2019), Cultural Properties for Future Generations: Outline of the Cultural Administration of Japan. Edited and published by the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan. AIContentfy team (2023): “AI-generated content for virtual tours and exhibitions”,
• AIContentfy August 11https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/ai-generated-content-for-virtual-tours-and-exhibitions#:~: text=The%20benefits%20of%20using%20AI%20in%20virtual%20tours%20and%20exhi bitions,-The%20use%20of&text=For%20example%2C%20visitors%20can%20be,and%2 0keep%20them%20coming%20back (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Aksoy, Pınar and Üner, Zehra (2021): “NFTs and copyright: challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(10): 1115– 1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab104
• Alleyne, Alleyne (2018): “A sign of things to come? AI-produced artwork sells for $433K, smashing expectations”, CNN, October 25: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/obvious-ai-art-christies-auction-smart-creativity/inde x.html (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Ante, Lennart (2022): “The Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Market and Its Relationship with Bitcoin and Ethereum”, FinTech, 1(3): 216–224. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech1030017
• Argyrou, Argyro and Agapiou, Athos (2022): “A Review of Artificial Intelligence and Remote Sensing for Archaeological Research”, Remote Sens, 14(23): 6000. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14236000
• Blake, Janet (2017): “Development of UNESCO’s 2003 Convention: creating a new heritage protection paradigm?”, Michelle Stefano and Peter Davis (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Intangible Cultural Heritage, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 11–21.
• Bortolotto, Chiara (2007): “From Objects to Processes: UNESCO’s ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’”, Journal of Museum Ethnography, 19: 21–33.
• Brown, Abram (2021): “Beeple NFT Sells For $69.3 Million, Becoming Most-Expensive Ever”, Forbes, March 11: https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2021/03/11/beeple-art-sells-for-693-million- be coming-most-expensive-nft-ever/?sh=6cdbde6b2448 (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Cetinic, Eva and She, James (2022): “Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook”, ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 18(2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.09109
• Cullinane, Susannah (2018): “Monkey does not own selfie copyright, appeals court rules”, CNN, April 24: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/24/us/monkey-selfie-peta-appeal/index.html (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Epstein, Ziv, Levine, Sydney, Rand, David and Rahwan, Iyad (2020): “Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art?”, iScience, 23(9): 101515.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101515
• Goldhill, Olivia (2016): “The first pop song ever written by artificial intelligence is pretty good, actually”, Quartz, September 24: https://qz.com/790523/daddys-car-the-first-song- ever-written-by-artificial-intelligence-is- actually-pretty-good (accessed 27 September 2023).
• HSRC - Human Sciences Research Council (2004), The Subtle Power of Intangible Heritage: Legal and Financial Instruments for Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. Compiled by the Social Cohesion and Integration Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council.
• Impey, O. R. and MacGregor, Arthur (1985): The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
• Johnson, Boland (1996): “Archaeology as computer visualisation: ‘Virtual tours’ of Dudley Castle c.1550”, Tony Higgins, Peter Main, Janet Lang (eds.), Imaging the Past: Electronic Imaging and Computer Graphics in Museums and Archaeology, The British Museum, London, UK, pp. 227–233.
• Laland, Kevin and Galef, Bennett eds. (2009): The Question of Animal Culture, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, US.
• Lee, Hyun-Kyung, Park, Soobin and Lee, Yeonji (2022): “A proposal of virtual museum metaverse content for the MZ generation”, Digital Creativity, 33(2): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2022.2063903 Lowenthal, David (1998a): “Fabricating Heritage”, History and Memory, 10(1): 5–24. Lowenthal, David (1998b): The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• MacDonald, Lindsay ed. (2006): Digital Heritage: Applying Digital Imaging to Cultural Heritage, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL.
• Marien, Mary (2014): Photography: A Cultural History, Laurence King Publishing, London, UK.
• Mattei, Shanti (2023): “Artists Are Suing Artificial Intelligence Companies and the Lawsuit Could Upend Legal Precedents Around Art”, Art in America, May 5: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/midjourney-ai-art-image-generators- law suit-1234665579/ (accessed 27 September 2023).
• McCorduck, Pamela (1991): AARON’s Code: Meta-Art, Artificial Intelligence, and the Work of Harold Cohen, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, US.
• Nelson, Jason (2023): “Researchers Are Breaking Ancient Language Barriers With AI”, Decrypt, July 3: https://decrypt.co/146967/skynet-incoming-terminator-star-arnold-schwarzenegger-warns -ai-threat (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Okonkwo, Ifeanyi (2021): “NFT, copyright and intellectual property commercialization”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 29(4): 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaab010 Parry, Ross (2007): Recoding the Museum: Digital Heritage and the Technologies of Change, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
• Parry, Ross ed. (2010): Museums in a Digital Age, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
• Paul, Christiane (2023): Digital Art, Thames & Hudson, London, UK.
• Ramsey, Grant (2017): “What is animal culture?”, Kristin Andrews and Jacob Beck (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Animal Minds, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 345–353.
• Reeves, Nicholas and Wilkinson, Richard (1996): The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs, Thames & Hudson, London, UK.
• Reynolds, Nigel (2005): “Art world goes wild for chimpanzee’s paintings as Warhol work flops”, The Telegraph, June 21: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1492463/Art-world-goes-wild-for-chimpanzees- painti ngs-as-Warhol-work-flops.html (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Roose, Kevin (2021): “An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren't Happy”, The New York Times, September 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence- artists.html (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Smith, Glenn (2019): “An Interview with Frieder Nake”, Arts, 8(2): 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8020069 Schaik, Carel (2010): “Social learning and culture in animals”, Peter Kappeler (ed.), Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms, Springer, Heidelberg, GER, pp. 623–653.
• Schuppli, Caroline and Schaik, Carel (2019): “Animal cultures: how we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg”, Evolutionary Human Sciences, 1: e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2019.1 Shaffi, Sarah (2023): “‘It’s the opposite of art’: why illustrators are furious about AI”, The Guardian, January 23:
• https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/23/its-the-opposite-of-art-why-illust rators-are-furious-about-ai#:~:text=Whatever%20form%20it%20takes%2C%20be,creativ ity%2C%20there%20are%20deeper%20issues (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Small, Zachary (2023): “As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim”, The New York Times, August 21: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/design/copyright-ai-artwork.html (accessed 27 September 2023).
• Thwaites, Hal (2013): “Digital Heritage: What Happens When We Digitize Everything?”, Eugene Ch'ng, Vincent Gaffney, Henry Chapman (eds.), Visual Heritage in the Digital Age, Springer, London, UK, pp. 327–348.
• Todorović, Miloš (2022), “Heritage in and as diplomacy: a practice based study”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28(7): 849–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2091637
• UNESCO (1972): “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Adopted by the General Conference at its Seventeenth Session: Paris, 16 November 1972”: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf (accessed 27 September 2023). Viciana, Hugo (2021): “Animal culture: But of which kind?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 90(1): 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.10.012
• Whitehead, Hal and Rendell, Luke (2015): The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, US.
• Wooley, Leonard (2006): Excavations at Ur, Kegan Paul, London, UK.
• Wu, Steven and Din, Herminia eds. (2015), Digital Heritage And Culture: Strategy And Implementation, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, SI.
• Çelik, Merve (2023): “Death of the Author: A Survey on Artificial Intelligence Literature”, Journal of Communication Science Researches, 3(2): 142–154. DOI NO: 10.5281/zenodo.7853093