In a recent exhibition in Copenhagen, visitors entered a dark room and met them an unusual host: a Jaguar She watched the crowd, chosen individuals, and began to share stories about her daughter, her rain forests, and the fires that threatened her home one day – the Bolivian Amazon. Direct interaction with HUK, a creature moved by AI, designed for every visitor based on visual signals. The Australian artist, Bolivian Violeta Ayala, established the piece during the arts Residence in MilaOne of the leading artificial intelligence research centers in the world.
This residence, which is usually hosted by technology, museums, or academic centers, usually provides artists to tools, arithmetic and collaborators to support the creative experience with artificial intelligence. Ayala says: “My goal was to build a robot that could represent something more than a person; something that is not corrupted,” Ayala says. Ayala’s Jaguar is an intelligent use of early Amnesty International, but it is also a symbol of a broader movement: a rapidly developed crop of artists ’dwellings that put artificial intelligence tools directly in the hands of creators while forming how to judge technology by fans, legislators and courts.
Such residence has expanded rapidly in recent years, with new programs across Europe, North America and Asia – like Max Planck Institute and City Institute Programs. Many technicians describe them as a Soft energy shape. Parts of the artists who participated in the artistic residence Amnesty International were shown in exhibitions such as Museum of Modern Art In New York and Pombido Center In Paris.
Villa Albertin, one of the latest programs, began the American American Cultural Organization. In early 2025, the organization created a dedicated path for Amnesty International, adding four new residents per year to 60 artists, thinkers and creators to host it annually. The initiative was announced at the Amnesty International Summit in Paris with French Minister of Culture Rashida Dati and supported by Fedi Simo, CEO of Openai Applications.
“We do not choose the parties as much as the opening space for inquiries,” says Muhammad Boumed Allah, the director of the Villa Albreen. “Some population may criticize or explore its risks.” In 2024, Villa Albertin also hosted a summit called arts in the era of artificial intelligence, drawing more than 500 participants and participants from Openai, Mozilla, Sag-Aftra and American and French copyright offices alike, according to Bouabdallah.
Bouabdallah says these programs are designed “the choice of the artist, not just their work.” It provides artists with time and resources to explore art projects that use artificial intelligence. “Even if someone uses artificial intelligence on a large scale, he must express his intention. It is not only about directing – it is related to authorship.” As he puts it, “the tool must be behind a person.”
This type of cultural framework aims to enhance artistic production, but it can also affect how to look at artificial intelligence by the public, and to respond to negative perception often about the art of artificial intelligence. “The developer of artificial intelligence may want to change the minds about what is legitimate by filling in the use of artificial intelligence in a form similar to traditional artistic practice,” says Trystan Goetze, an ethics and director at Cornell University. “This can make it look more acceptable.”
“The real value here is to give artists space to confront themselves.”
Residence may support specific artists, but it does not address the broader concerns about the art of artificial intelligence. “Changing the context of indiscriminate users who pay models in a dispute to official residence does not change the basic problems,” Gutz says. “Work is still running.”
These legal questions about authorship and compensation are still without a solution. In the United States, Collective lawsuits By artists against stability of artificial intelligence, Midjourney, and others test whether the obstetric models are trained to work in copyrights are fair use.
The courts will decide these questions, but general feelings may constitute the borders: if the art resulting from artificial intelligence sees culturally as derivative or exploitative, it becomes difficult to defend its legitimacy in politics or law, and vice versa.
A similar dynamic played more than a century ago. In 1908, the US Supreme Court Ruling The piano rolls, which were a new coordination for the reproduction of music, were not subject to copyright, because it was not readable by the human eye. A widespread violent reaction from musicians, publishers and general Congress to pass the Copyright Law for 1909, providing a mandatory license system that requires payment of mechanical copies.
“These models have a well -known aesthetic,” says Getz. “The more we are exposed to these pictures, the more” natural “. This normalization, as predictable, may reduce resistance not only to artificial intelligence, but also to artificial intelligence in other areas.
“There has always been a discussion about inspiration in exchange for recovery,” says Boubiballah. “The real value here is to give artists space to confront themselves.”
Ayala argues that “the problem is not to copy Amnesty International – constantly copy people – it is not equally distributed: major companies benefit more.”
Despite these challenges, Ayala sees residence as important sites of experimentation. “We cannot only criticize that artificial intelligence has been built by distinguished men, and we have to build alternatives actively,” she says. ))
