{"id":691,"date":"2018-03-01T17:37:14","date_gmt":"2018-03-01T17:37:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/?p=691"},"modified":"2022-10-28T17:37:28","modified_gmt":"2022-10-28T17:37:28","slug":"mars-2018-automatism-autonomy-and-aesthetics-in-performing-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/mars-2018-automatism-autonomy-and-aesthetics-in-performing-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Mars 2018 – Automatism, Autonomy and Aesthetics in Performing Art"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Artists in the performing and theatrical arts currently have access to technology of an unprecedented variety and complexity in comparison to classical methods. Without necessarily dismissing traditions, artists can work with devices that originally had no artistic application, such as virtual humans and robots. Before attempting to understand how artists appropriate these devices and how this changes the creative process, it is important to describe the different types and their basic principles. These artificial beings are much more than materials and tools that are slightly more complicated than traditional ones. They are in fact of a totally different nature. They carry within them the seeds of a new aesthetic. Those who use them must work freely with this new aesthetic, but with an appreciation of its different nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

From the Automaton to the Technological Being<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start by examining the technical and functional principles of these technologies. Although diverse in their structures and functions, these devices share the use of computer models that tend to simulate life and intelligence, though at differing levels of perfection. Obviously, computer technology has profoundly revolutionized technology in general. It has introduced the abstract language of programming into processes that were essentially material or energy-based (mechanical, electrical, electronic). All computers are a hybrid of various circuits, processors, memory, sensors, actuators and algorithms expressed in a symbolic code that can be executed by a machine. In the early years of what was called \u201ccomputer science,\u201d the models came from mathematics, logic, physics, optics, and computer technology itself. But with the appearance of the cognitive sciences \u2013 a vast interdisciplinary group bringing together information technology, psychology, neuroscience, the theory of evolution, robotics, linguistics and different sectors of philosophy and social sciences \u2013 computers have become progressively able to simulate certain abilities that characterize living, intelligent creatures and their evolution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until the appearance of computers, the advancement of machines was measured by their degree of autonomy. The more that a machine could perform tasks without human intervention, the more it was considered technically superior. Though sometimes highly complex, the tasks these machines performed were entirely repetitive. This was clearly noted by\u00a0Gilbert Simondon\u00a0: \u201cAutomatism is a fairly low level of technical perfection.\u201d (Simondon, 1969, p. 11)\u00a0For this philosopher, a machine’s level of advancement does not correspond to its increase in automatism, but on the contrary, to the fact that its functioning contains a certain \u00ab\u00a0margin of indeterminacy.\u201d (Simondon, 1969, p. 11)\u00a0With an abundance of this quality, for him computers are not \u201cpure automatons,\u201d but \u201ctechnical beings\u201d endowed with a certain openness and able to perform very different tasks. As examples, he cites machines that can extract square roots or translate a simple text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Autonomy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Although the first computers were defined as machines capable of\u00a0automatically<\/em>\u00a0processing information, we did not limit ourselves to asking them to automate certain, sometimes highly complex, tasks. We also entrusted them with the very ambitious mission of simulating the very thought processes of humans \u2013 our ability to reason, our intelligence. This became a special field within computer technology, Artificial Intelligence. The radical hypothesis at the base of this research, originally formulated by\u00a0Alan Turing,1<\/sup>\u00a0rests on the idea that thought can be reduced to calculations and the manipulation of symbols. \u201cThinking is calculating,\u201d Turing asserted. In this first conception of artificial intelligence,2<\/sup>\u00a0the results were only partially satisfactory. Many problems remained unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, instead of simulating intelligence with logical-mathematical processes, we began to try to discover how the human brain acquired this intelligence, and how the body contributed to the emergence and development of a different way of thinking. Virtual devices simulated by computer were equipped with methods of perception, action, and the coordination of actions and perceptions, so that they could react and adapt to unforeseeable modifications in their environment. Thanks to these algorithms, computers became capable of autoprogramming themselves thus acquiring a certain\u00a0autonomy<\/em>. If we consider the etymology of the term,3<\/sup>\u00a0they were able to establish their own rules and have a relative amount of freedom within a limited and very specific frame of action. These algorithms, combined with the progress in the machines, were and are largely indebted to the cognitive sciences4<\/sup>.\u00a0They allow machines to perform operations that were simply not possible with the classic determinist programs. I will cite a recent example: the development by Google of an algorithm that learns to play online videogames like\u00a0Space Invaders<\/u><\/em>\u00a0without the programmers having previously imparted the rules of these games. Consequently it functions as well as a human would under the same conditions. However, it cannot be anything but a good player. Its abilities do not extend any further.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The autonomy of a system can only be relative. Even humans are only partially autonomous, to the extent that we are subject to different pressures: physical environment, genetic inheritance, social constraints, etc. Moreover, many of our functions, particularly our vital functions, are (fortunately) regulated by powerful involuntary and unconscious automatisms, as are many of our mental processes and behaviors as well. Man is a highly evolved natural composite of automatism and autonomy. Thus it is possible to program anthropomorphic virtual beings or beings assembled out of concrete materials, endowing them with cognitive abilities that approach those of humans, such as a multimodal perception of the world, learning through trial and error, recognizing artificial or natural shapes (such as faces), the development of an associative memory, decision-making followed by action, intentionality, inventiveness, the creation of new information, the simulation of emotions and empathy, and social behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Avatars<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Artificial humans fall into two broad categories: virtual humans and robots. While they share many basic technical principles, these devices have distinct modes of existence and different degrees of autonomy. Virtual humans, also known as \u201cavatars,\u201d do not possess any material form. They are projections of images. Their mode of existence consists of representing a human, in a virtual form, within a virtual space, such as cyberspace or virtual and augmented reality systems. However, in cyberspaces like\u00a0Second Life<\/em>\u00a0(first and second versions) or online video games, avatars are not always faithful representations of the player, but imagined representations that allow the player to appear in disguise, under another identity, even as another sex, and play a role incognito. The avatar can also take the form of an animal or a purely imaginary being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The simplest of these beings \u2013 which possess zero level of autonomy, but is not an automaton \u2013 is capable of reproducing its controller’s movements and gestures in real time. The avatar is the user’s double, simultaneously augmented and reduced. It is augmented in the sense that it can achieve impossible actions in the virtual world (flying, walking on water, becoming invisible), and reduced in the sense that it is only a very incomplete simulation of its user. These avatars can also be directed by their users, but then their movements no longer correspond exactly to what the user does. They are comparable to puppets that the puppeteer guides with strings. The movements of the puppet do not correspond to the movements of the puppeteer’s hand. However, this difference does not necessarily confer autonomy5<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Autonomy in avatars appears in the category of \u201cautonomous actors,\u201d endowed with behaviors that allow them to act in a relatively autonomous way in order to accomplish their tasks. They see, hear, touch, and move by means of sensors and virtual actuators.\u00a0Daniel Thalmann, a specialist in virtual humans, affirms they can even play tennis by basing their game on that of their adversary. Therefore, after interpreting information from their environment, they can make decisions and act accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a more advanced level of autonomy, there are the actors that possess a representation of the world that surrounds them \u2013 objects, other synthesized actors, avatars representing humans \u2013 and are able to communicate with them. Virtual universes are far more credible when they are inhabited by autonomous avatars. This communication brings into play a capacity to interpret and use a nonverbal language based on body postures expressing an emotional state. Nonverbal communication is essential in order to direct interactions between synthetic beings; it is an expression of the body’s thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robots<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Artificial humans classified as robots are material devices, they have bodies that can be seen and touched; they act on real objects. The term \u201crobot\u201d was coined by a playwright in the early 1920s and designated humans that were artificial, but organic in constitution6<\/sup>.\u00a0Subsequently, the term was largely used to designate mechanical humans on non-humanoid devices capable of replacing humans in certain tasks. Robots are an extension of a mythic quest that extends far into the past. In modern culture they appear as man’s double under two opposing aspects: a threatening aspect (for example, robots stealing work from humans) or a benign aspect (as a friend to children and the handicapped). The robot distills all our fears and hopes when we are faced with poorly socialized or misunderstood advances in technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the level of zero autonomy, we find robots whose functions are strictly repetitive:  for example, painting robots in the automotive industry, or cleaning robots. At a higher level, we find machines, usually humanoid or animal in shape, endowed with an element of autonomy. The difference between autonomous robots themselves lies essentially in two parameters: their level of autonomy and their field of action. There are no universal robots whose autonomy allows them to solve any task, and we are not ready to have such robots (note that we ourselves are not skilled at solving any and all tasks). Nevertheless, certain robotics researchers believe that a form of consciousness could be simulated in robots and facilitate the emergence of a very high level of intentionality and decisional autonomy. The programming of such devices is often inspired by algorithms that have emerged from artificial intelligence and the theory of evolution, and are used in the creation of virtual humans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Endowing robots with a level of autonomy that approaches that of humans in their actions and their relationships with other intelligent entities would require them to possess similar cognitive abilities (reasoning, evaluation, decision making, ability to adapt to situations, ability to formulate a strategy that takes into account past, present and future experiences, etc.). These robots would also have to be capable of expressing emotions (though it would not be necessary for them to actually feel<\/em> the emotions), and even express empathy (currently the subject of specialized research), if they are to evolve with other intelligent entities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is an intermediate category between robots and humans, cyborgs \u2013 \u201ca human being,\u201d according to\u00a0Ana\u00efs Bernard\u00a0and\u00a0Bernard Andrieu, \u201cwho has received mechanical or biological grafts, blending digital, logistical and robotic technology. Exoskeletons and prostheses make the individual’s body a locus of hybridization and transformation, with the aim of recreating new perceptions of his environment through a modification of the notions of space and time,\u201d (Bernard, 2015)\u00a0These grafts, usually utilitarian in nature, can become the objects of aesthetic experiences, like\u00a0Stelarc’s\u00a0The Third Hand<\/em>\u00a0(1980), which gave internet users the chance to use electrical discharges to stimulate an electronic hand grafted into the forearm of an artist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
\u201cCorps \/ Cyborg\u201d in Veyrat Marc and Ghislaine Az\u00e9mard<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n