INTERVIEW SERIES: Art, Culture, and Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Age INTERVIEWER: Gökhan Çolak | INTERVIEWEE: Ipek Yeginsu

Artificial Intelligence and Curatorial Subjectivity (Luciana Parisi)

Your research on artificial intelligence and curatorial practice suggests that AI is transforming not only artistic production but also the intellectual and creative role of the curator. This perspective resonates with Luciana Parisi’s concept of algorithmic aesthetics, which argues that algorithms are not merely tools for executing predefined commands but structures capable of generating new aesthetic possibilities. Drawing on your own research, how do you envision the future relationship between algorithmic subjectivity and curatorial authorship? Can AI become a genuine curatorial collaborator without diminishing humanity’s capacity for critical interpretation?

Every new technology carries both positive and negative potential. Humanity can use the same technology to build medical imaging devices or weapons of mass destruction. The same aircraft can be used either to extinguish forest fires or to bomb civilians. The same applies to artificial intelligence. There is little value in either glorifying or demonizing AI. However, there is one crucial difference: not everyone has access to a medical imaging device or a firefighting aircraft. There are established decision-making mechanisms and regulations that determine who is qualified to use them, under what circumstances, and for what purposes. Although the ethical implications of their use remain open to debate, the responsibilities associated with them are much more clearly defined.

AI, by contrast, suddenly appeared before all of us—from children to the elderly—and almost no one initially stopped to ask, “Wait a minute, how does this actually work? Who would be affected by my use of it, and in what ways?” In an environment where ethical principles, legal frameworks, and standards of competence were still undefined, the prevailing mood was one of celebration: “Hooray, now we’re all artists, designers, and writers.” By the time concerns began to emerge, the arrow had already left the bow. Critical awareness developed only after AI had become widespread.

Now let’s set that aside and consider the issue from the perspective of the artist or curator. Artists and curators experiment with every new technology they can access—and in my opinion, they should. No technology is ever detached from the political, economic, and socio-cultural contexts that surround it. Through the experiments they design, artists and curators trace these contexts and develop critical approaches toward them. What ultimately matters, in my view, is intention. If the artist’s or curator’s intention is simply to use AI as a shortcut to produce work and gain visibility, the outcome will inevitably remain shallow and limited. We come across countless examples of this on our screens every day. But if the intention is to test the limits of the technology or reveal the processes operating behind it, then the resulting work is going to be coneptually authentic, if not formally. It will not become just another disposable image consumed at a glance.

Since you have mentioned Luciana Parisi, approaching the issue through the lens of posthumanist thought introduces an entirely different dilemma. While posthumanism criticizes anthropocentrism, it has, in certain respects, played into the hands of techno-feudalists seeking to dehumanize production, bringing societies to the brink of a profound identity crisis. I see this as analogous to the impasses created when postmodernism critiqued modernism. Although posthumanism offers a valuable framework for overcoming humanity’s superiority complex, it has also become, in the hands of the techno-oligarchy, an intellectual instrument for pacifying societies and controlling their critical capacities and agency. The growing disregard for the humanities, the closure of humanities faculties around the world, the reduction of everything to statistical data, and the increasing resemblance of everything we produce—none of these developments are accidental. Perhaps the modernist imposition of universalism, criticized by postmodernists, has disappeared, but it has certainly not been replaced by the pluralistic, multivocal world they had predicted. Instead, what has emerged, in my view, is a far more insidious and dangerous form of algorithmic panopticism—one that disguises itself as pluralism through discourses of cultural and sexual identity while systematically preserving, and even consolidating, mechanisms of exclusion.

Returning to your question: yes, AI can become a genuine curatorial collaborator—provided that human beings consciously preserve their capacity for critical interpretation and structure this collaboration within a carefully considered critical framework.

New Media Art and Technical Images (Vilém Flusser)

Your research on new media art in Turkey examines in depth how digital technologies are transforming artistic production and exhibition practices. Vilém Flusser, meanwhile, argues that technical images do not merely represent reality but fundamentally reshape the way humans perceive the world. As generative AI becomes increasingly widespread, do you believe we are entering a new era of “technical images”? In response to this transformation, what kind of critical position should artists and curators adopt?

I think I have already answered part of this question through my response to the previous one. Flusser’s philosophy of photography is one of the texts I value most deeply, and I always assign it in my courses. The issue is directly connected to the awareness I mentioned earlier. As long as we fail to look beyond the image itself—to examine what is happening behind it, to question the conscious and unconscious motivations that guide our actions, and above all to recognize the overarching structures that seek to govern not only our actions but also our thoughts—we will continue to become playthings for the toys of our own creation.

Artificial Intelligence and Cultural Diversity (Yuk Hui)

Your work approaches digital technologies not merely as technical tools but as phenomena embedded within broader cultural and social contexts. Similarly, Yuk Hui argues, through his concept of cosmotechnics, that technology develops on distinct cultural and philosophical foundations in different societies. In today’s AI ecosystem, largely shaped by global technology corporations, how can art and curatorial practice preserve cultural diversity? Can AI become a tool that strengthens local knowledge production and diverse aesthetic traditions?

Again, it all depends on how AI is used. The outputs you receive are determined by the datasets on which you train it. If you train AI primarily on data produced by the Western white male, that is the perspective it will reproduce. The human mind, after all, begins life as a tabula rasa. Imagine the same infant being raised in different regions of the world by families with different ethnocultural identities, educational backgrounds, and economic circumstances. The same mind would learn from entirely different datasets, arrive at entirely different interpretations and generalizations, and subsequently understand every new experience through those frameworks. In this sense, artists and curators can train and employ AI to foreground local knowledge production and bring overlooked local aesthetic traditions into greater visibility. At this point, collaboration with independent technologists who can think critically becomes vitally important. Indeed, partly as a consequence of contemporary technological developments, I observe that curating is becoming an increasingly collective practice. In my view, we should approach AI with a spirit akin to that of the Net Art movement of the 1990s. That period offers valuable role models for precisely these kinds of interdisciplinary collaborations.

The Political Dimension of AI-Generated Images (Hito Steyerl)

Your work on digital culture, artificial intelligence, and curatorial practice demonstrates how technology is transforming not only artistic production but also visual culture. Hito Steyerl, meanwhile, argues that digital images cannot be understood independently of surveillance, the data economy, and relations of power. From this perspective, what do you see as the ethical and political responsibilities of artists, curators, and cultural institutions when exhibiting AI-generated artworks? Can exhibitions still function as spaces for critical reflection and social inquiry?

This is a crucial issue for the future of the arts. At some point, I believe artists and institutions need to come together to establish a set of fundamental principles. The development of legal frameworks should also involve consultation with, and contributions from, the diverse professional communities working in the field. Considering how neoliberal policies have intensified both financial and ideological pressures on cultural institutions—leading exhibitions to increasingly become “Instagrammable” destinations—I believe it is equally important for artists and curators to develop more independent and alternative exhibition models.

Algorithmic Opacity and the Transparency of Curatorship (James Bridle)

Your research demonstrates that artificial intelligence is transforming not only the production of art but also the relationship between audiences and art. James Bridle argues that complex computational systems often multiply invisibility and uncertainty rather than increasing knowledge. In your opinion, should curators make the datasets, algorithmic processes, and decision-making mechanisms behind AI-based works visible to audiences? How can transparent curatorship be made possible in the age of artificial intelligence?

As I mentioned earlier, how, where, and for what purpose you use artificial intelligence is extremely important. Frankly, the concept of transparent curation raises some questions for me though. In my view, a curator is also, in a way, an artist. Today, the boundaries between the artist and the curator have become rather blurred. If, while watching a film, you knew exactly how every special effect had been created, would you enjoy it in the same way? Isn’t part of what makes it appealing the illusion that we choose to believe is real? In this sense, I do not see any problem with certain stages of the artistic process remaining mysterious. However, if you mean presenting an image generated by artificial intelligence as if it were made by human hands, there is clearly an ethical problem. Once again, the greatest responsibility for establishing these ethical values lies with the professionals working in the field.

Platform Power and Cultural Institutions (Benjamin Bratton)

Your work shows that museums and cultural institutions are becoming increasingly intertwined with artificial intelligence technologies. Benjamin Bratton, meanwhile, argues that digital platforms should be understood not merely as technological infrastructures but also as new forms of governance. From this perspective, what consequences might arise from the growing dependence of cultural institutions on global digital platforms? Does the curator of the future also have to engage in a critical practice of thinking about technological governance?

I think we are all part of the same system. This is precisely one of the reasons why I said awareness came too late. When we joined digital platforms, we clicked “I agree” to countless terms and conditions without reading their contents. We were in a hurry; we experienced FOMO and did not want to be left behind as new developments unfolded. We did not question what these platforms could do with our personal data or whether we were granting them permission to monitor us.Governments, too, were slow to recognize the implications of this situation. The same applies to cultural institutions. Curators, on the other hand, have at times been compelled to think and act like PR professionals in order to remain within the system.

As institutions increasingly prioritize events that boost their visibility and engagement on social media, they have also begun to expect curators to develop strategies that serve these goals. The curators of the future should take all of these dynamics into account without sacrificing the essence of the work they produce. Meanwhile, they should reflect on and deepen their understanding of technological governance, while balancing the demands of the different stakeholders in their interactions with cultural institutions.

The Value of Art in the Network Society (David Joselit)

Your research on NFTs and the digital art economy has contributed significantly to debates surrounding the circulation and cultural value of artworks. David Joselit argues that the value of contemporary art is increasingly determined not by its physical existence but by the networks through which it circulates. At a time when AI-generated artworks are rapidly circulating across global digital networks, how should we rethink the concepts of originality, artistic value, and authenticity? In your view, how will the role of the curator evolve within this new cultural economy?

We are currently witnessing an extraordinary inflation of images in the digital environment. Originality is itself a highly layered concept, yet we still tend to associate it primarily with content and human authorship. Paradoxically, as AI-generated works become more widespread, there is a growing belief that the value of human-made creations will increase precisely because they will become rarer. In a sense, they may come to be regarded almost like “vintage” objects— valued for their uniqueness and human origin. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, artists who use artificial intelligence to design genuinely original experiments rather than simply automate production are likely to create more authentic works.

Cultural Memory, Archives, and Curatorship (Boris Groys)

In your academic work, you devote considerable attention to the changing role of the curator in digital culture. Boris Groys argues that contemporary art is increasingly defined through practices of visibility, documentation, and archiving. As artificial intelligence plays an ever more prominent role in digital archiving, cataloguing, and recommendation systems, how do you think it may influence the formation of cultural memory? Could AI eventually evolve into an actor that not only exhibits artworks but also actively shapes cultural memory itself?

Cultural institutions have already begun using artificial intelligence tools for collection and archive management. I do not see this as problematic; on the contrary, I believe AI can greatly improve the efficiency of certain administrative processes. However, these processes should never become entirely autonomous. In my view, the guiding principle should be human–machine collaboration. Shaping cultural memory is not something that can simply be delegated to machines. And by “human,” I do not mean simply Curator X or Museum Director Y. Today, cultural memory is increasingly shaped through the contributions of diverse communities, and museums are expected to adopt far more democratic and participatory approaches when constructing their narratives.

The Future of New Media Art in Türkiye

Your research on new media art in Türkiye stands out as one of the key academic contributions documenting the development of this field. From your perspective, what are the most significant opportunities and structural challenges facing artists, curators, and cultural institutions working at the intersection of artificial intelligence and new media technologies today? What kinds of academic, institutional, and interdisciplinary collaborations are needed for Türkiye to become more visible within the international new media art ecosystem?

In Türkiye, there are two fundamental challenges in this field: access to technology and a lack of expertise. The technology itself is expensive and becomes obsolete very quickly. As a result, cultural institutions are often reluctant to invest in high-risk areas such as new media art, particularly when it comes to building collections. Although new media art attracts considerable public interest, it is still encountered primarily through temporary exhibitions. Under these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to establish a lasting cultural memory in this field.

Closely related to this is another major issue: the shortage of technical expertise required to ensure the long-term preservation and sustainability of new media artworks. While this has become an important concern worldwide, it is an even greater challenge in Türkiye. I believe that closer collaboration is needed among university departments, cultural institutions, and artists or creative practitioners. At the same time, cultural institutions should work collectively to develop and adopt common standards and best practices for the preservation, management, and presentation of new media art.

Beyond Artificial Intelligence: The Future of Art and Curatorship

Throughout your academic and curatorial work, you have explored the relationship between technology, art, and cultural transformation from a variety of perspectives. Looking beyond today’s debates on artificial intelligence, what do you believe will be the most significant paradigm shifts shaping artistic production and curatorial practice over the next twenty years? As the relationship between human creativity and artificial intelligence is being redefined, which ethical, cultural, and intellectual values do you consider indispensable to preserve?

Twenty years is a very long time. In my view, it is even open to debate whether art—or intellectual activity in a broad sense—will continue in its current forms. That may sound somewhat exaggerated, but I do not mean this only in the context of artificial intelligence. We simply do not know where the changing ecological balance and its consequences will lead us. I believe that the climate crisis, more than anything else, will become the defining force shaping the intellectual landscape of the period you describe. In such a world, how artists, curators, and the cultural sector as a whole will transform remains profoundly uncertain. Artificial intelligence itself is increasingly being criticized for its environmental impact. There have even been groups in the United States that have carried out acid attacks on data centers. Who can guarantee that one day we will not all turn toward Land Art or Arte Povera? The fact that contemporary exhibitions increasingly feature organic materials and artistic practices centered on ecosystems says a great deal about our shared concerns. Despite everything, let us end with the hope for a future in which humanity neither sees itself as superior to nature nor allows itself to be subordinated to machines—a future grounded in human dignity. As long as art exists, there will always be hope.