Dear Marco di Stasio ,

Fascinating topic you're presenting there!

Whilst I'm not a specialist, I have heard that there was a lot of stealing (or lifting or mimicking or what have you) between classical music composers in the long 19th century, and anyway most of the romantics were nicely appropriating folk dances (even maybe before then too) - i hope these examples are useful to you.

Another example that I really like from the world of Youtube, is many versions of the same song, take for example Bella Ciao: it's a song from the klezmer twenties, and if you look on youtube you'll find perhaps more than 30 versions in many different styles. I love that phenomenon, I think it complements the original tune and contributes to its perpetuity, and introduction to different audiences rather than showing any kind of poverty of the spirit. What do you think?

Best Wishes,

Haris

Sí, las analogías históricas pueden desempeñar un papel significativo para enmarcar un debate más constructivo y menos alarmista sobre la IA y el arte, siempre que se utilicen de forma rigurosa y contextualizada. Desde una perspectiva de análisis tecnológico y cultural, la historia ofrece múltiples precedentes en los que la introducción de nuevas herramientas —como la fotografía en el siglo XIX, el sintetizador en la música del siglo XX o el software de edición digital en el siglo XXI— generó inicialmente resistencia, preocupaciones éticas y debates sobre la “autenticidad” artística. Sin embargo, con el tiempo, estos avances no eliminaron las formas de arte preexistentes, sino que ampliaron el repertorio creativo y redefinieron los roles de los creadores.

Técnicamente, las analogías históricas pueden aportar tres beneficios clave:

Caro Fausto ESTEVEZ Abad , puedes escribir en ingles para facilitar nosotros que no entendemos bien el espanol?

Best Wishes,

Haris

Yes, historical analogies can play a significant role in framing a more constructive and less alarmist debate about AI and art, provided they are used rigorously and contextually. From a technological and cultural analysis perspective, history offers multiple precedents in which the introduction of new tools—such as photography in the 19th century, the synthesizer in 20th-century music, or digital editing software in the 21st—initially generated resistance, ethical concerns, and debates about artistic “authenticity.” However, over time, these advances did not eliminate preexisting art forms, but rather expanded the creative repertoire and redefined the roles of creators.Technically, historical analogies can provide three key benefits: Longitudinal perspective: They allow AI to be situated within a pattern of disruptive innovations that, despite initial uncertainty, have been absorbed by the cultural ecosystem and coexisted with traditional practices.Impact analysis: They facilitate the identification of repetitive dynamics in technological adoption—such as the Gartner curve or the social acceptance cycle—which help predict more balanced scenarios less dominated by extreme views.Regulatory framework and ethics: By observing how other artistic and technological revolutions were regulated and legitimized, lessons can be drawn for designing cultural policies and legal frameworks that protect both innovation and artists' rights. However, it is important to recognize that historical analogies have limitations: AI introduces unprecedented elements, such as the ability to generate works without direct human intervention and on a massive scale, which poses different challenges than those faced in the past. Therefore, comparisons should avoid oversimplifications and be accompanied by specific analyses of the algorithmic nature, intellectual property, and socioeconomic impact of AI on art. In short, the responsible use of historical analogies can be an effective tool to reduce fear-mongering, encourage critical thinking, and guide the debate toward constructive solutions, provided that the uniqueness of the current AI context is recognized.

Dear Fausto ESTEVEZ Abad and Haris Shekeris,

First of all, thank you for your interesting responses. I will reply in the order in which you wrote to me.

Haris, the examples you mention reflect exactly what I had in mind, even if I didn’t express it so explicitly. The ideas contained in many artistic works do not really have an owner and can be reinterpreted and appropriated by groups of people. This has always been the case, and perhaps it is precisely one of the characteristics that makes music—and artistic expression more generally—so interesting. This allows ideas, concepts, artistic languages, and technicalities to survive and replicate, and from this perspective I wonder: are there limits we should define regarding AI? If this has always been the case, wouldn’t it be the responsibility—at least in academic debates—of experts in the field to identify these red lines, to better understand when to set the debate in an apocalyptic tone and when to let what could be the birth of new movements unfold?

Fausto, you mentioned concepts and even theories that help analyze phenomena like these. I am completely unaware of studies and work on this, so if you have anything to recommend to broaden my perspective, it would be very welcome. You are right about the peculiarity of AI, but I wonder how much human intervention is actually prevented by AI. In the case of supervised AI, I don’t see much difference from turning the knobs of a synthesizer in the ’80s, or even making sure to have the best luthiers on your side in past centuries. What I mean is that technology has always played an important role in artistic production. The point is that technology adapts to artists, and artists adapt to technology; from this interaction, languages, styles, genres, etc., emerge. Even an unsupervised, fully autonomous AI would still rely on human-created material, and I believe it should, in some way, be guided in carrying out an artistic project. A bit like Fontana, an Italian artist, who based some of his works on the intuition of slashing certain types of textures. An idea that may seem excessively simple, whose execution goes beyond a discussion of “knowing how to make art” in the sense of constructing one’s work well and technically.

Let me know what you think. I find this discussion really stimulating, and it’s one I rarely get to have in my department.

Marco

Dear Marco di Stasio ,

First of all, apologies for the delay in getting back to you, i found myself in a situation where I had loads of things to do at the same time.

Second of all, I take your last sentence thanking us above both very flattering and at the same time a bit worrying. How come no such discussion at your department? A poverty of academia maybe? (this theme of my may resurface below). Maybe at the conferences you go, do they open such discussions? I find this really worrying!

As for your thoughts above, and consistently my brackets above, I'd say that especially when it comes to art, and perhaps especially because the power of -at least- music, comes from the fact that it resonates in a very non-rational way with many people, that its gatekeeping, the red lines, should be left to the 'market' so to speak, or in other words should be left to the artists themselves. Or even, they may not even need to be stated, just be embedded in music. Take a look at the marvels of the algorithms: whereas before, record companies or radio-station profits dictated what we would listen to, now we've got Youtube where we have a bit more agency over the algorithm which gives us suggestions about what to hear. There probably are interests behind it, perhaps even dark ones, but overally i'd give it a plus sign.

I hope the above made sense, not sure it did as it's a bit late here (00:12).

My point is that stealing and borrowing may give kudos to a piece of music as well as make it more powerful because it resonates with more people, it reminds them of something. This was my first point, perhaps a repetition of what i said above.

My second point is I guess that besides obvious legal IP issues (don't know if this was what you're after), ie when somebody really tries to make money off somebody else, then nobody should police the music market. If AI makes good music, then good for it and good for us :)

I hope this helps a bit, I know it wasn't too succinct, please forgive me for this!

Best Wishes,

Haris