Articulating artfulness: Exploring the ecological potential of creative conversation

Abstract

Notions of "artfulness" are increasingly being used in the humanities and social sciences to nod towards ephemeral linkages between creativity and ecological sensitivity, but there has so far been little work to flesh out in detail what this term entails, both conceptually and in practice. This paper contributes to current understandings of "artfulness" through an in-depth case study of conversations facilitated by an arts-sustainability project in Wales known as Emergence. Through the author's experiences of conversations at Emergence gatherings, the paper develops a theory of artfulness as a manner of being that is attuned to a dispersed, emergent version of creativity. The radical ecological potential of the conversations is explored through three themes: vulnerability and receptivity; reconfiguring selfother subjectivities; and posthuman sensibilities. In doing so, the paper contends that artfulness further expands ideas about where and how creativity arises, presenting possibilities for non-artists to creatively compose-with the world in transformative ways. This is essential because the imaginative and creative leap required in response to ongoing ecological loss is so great that it should not be left to professional artists alone.

Creative geographies in the age of AI: Co‐creative spatiality and the emerging techno‐material relations between artists and artificial intelligence

“…The current geographical discussions about mediums and materialities provide critical thoughts about creative actors and agencies by questioning the rational human subject's role in creativity (e.g. Pigott, 2020; Williams, 2016; see also Harris, 2021). Some creative geographers focus on non‐human objects (Mould, 2019) or look beyond creative human actors to material relations (Lapworth, 2015; Pigott, 2020; Williams, 2016).…”

“…Through co‐creativity, existing or imaginary boundaries regarding creative thinking and action can be crossed, which relates to the idea of transformative creativity as a potentiality for liberating imagination (in creative geographies, see Madge, 2018). Moreover, the notions of AI having its own creative agency (Colton & Wiggins, 2012; Davis, 2021) or being a partner to humans (Kantosalo & Toivonen, 2016) resonate with geographers' recent discussions on the more‐than‐human and posthuman understandings of creativity (Miller, 2017; Pigott, 2020; Williams, 2016). This becomes evident in how AI has a unique creative capacity of its own, as it can learn and create new and surprising results (Boden, 1998, 2010) and how, at the same time, the agencies of humans and AI are entwined and evolve together in a spatial co‐creative process.…”

“…With the question of who or what is creative, we move further towards the emerging techno‐material relations regarding creativity and AI. Creative actors or agencies, which can be both humans and/or nonhumans, are an important part of creative processes also recognised by creative geographers (e.g., Mould, 2019; Pigott, 2020; Williams, 2016). With respect to human creativity, both individual and collective perspectives stood out in the artists' answers.…”

“…These answers involved indications of the posthuman perspective of creativity, where social, material and technological relations form and are formed by dispersed agencies together rather than by creative humans or creative machines separately (cf. Pigott, 2020). Both human and nonhuman agencies affect each other mutually during the co‐creative process.…”

“…The topic is geographical, because, as we argue, new spatialities are formed when humans and AI create together. Creative geographers have already challenged the human‐centred approach to creativity and redirected their work to material relations, mediums and dispersed agencies (e.g., Hawkins, 2021; Lapworth, 2015; Pigott, 2020; Williams, 2016). However, techno‐material perspectives on creativity have been less investigated within creative geographies (except for: Nordström, 2017; Rose, 2016; Woodward et al, 2015; Zebracki & Luger, 2019).…”