Can art arise without search or exploration?
Aim / key questions: As generative AI becomes embedded in creative practice, the
speed of creation has never been higher and the temptation to skip the slow parts of
the work never greater. We ask: what does creativity actually require, and what is at
risk when AI is allowed to bypass those requirements? We approach this as an
empirical question about creative process — and as a starting point for a comparison
between human and machine modes of musical thinking.
Methods: This artistic research project documents a two-day recording session at
Grieghallen in Bergen, where we deliberately worked from a position of "try and fail"
and "not knowing" — refusing pre-planned outcomes, making sketches on the spot,
and staying with uncertainty long enough for something unexpected to emerge. We
treat the recording process as a case through which the preconditions of creative work
can be examined.
Results: The work surfaced a chain of preconditions: time enables process, process
enables exploration, exploration enables reflexive judgment — what we identify as
creativity itself. Each link depends on the one before. Generative AI tends to compress
this chain — offering averaged ideas, weakening ownership, and removing the
productive resistance the not-knowing depends on.
Implications: In a next phase, we will examine our findings in dialogue with the Robotic
Musicianship group at Georgia Tech (Weinberg et al.), whose improvising robots such
as Shimon raise the question from the opposite direction: what does machine
improvisation share with — and lack from — human musical thinking?
Value / originality: A practice-grounded contribution to MishMash, opening a
comparison between embodied, communal music-making and AI-driven musical
generation.
speed of creation has never been higher and the temptation to skip the slow parts of
the work never greater. We ask: what does creativity actually require, and what is at
risk when AI is allowed to bypass those requirements? We approach this as an
empirical question about creative process — and as a starting point for a comparison
between human and machine modes of musical thinking.
Methods: This artistic research project documents a two-day recording session at
Grieghallen in Bergen, where we deliberately worked from a position of "try and fail"
and "not knowing" — refusing pre-planned outcomes, making sketches on the spot,
and staying with uncertainty long enough for something unexpected to emerge. We
treat the recording process as a case through which the preconditions of creative work
can be examined.
Results: The work surfaced a chain of preconditions: time enables process, process
enables exploration, exploration enables reflexive judgment — what we identify as
creativity itself. Each link depends on the one before. Generative AI tends to compress
this chain — offering averaged ideas, weakening ownership, and removing the
productive resistance the not-knowing depends on.
Implications: In a next phase, we will examine our findings in dialogue with the Robotic
Musicianship group at Georgia Tech (Weinberg et al.), whose improvising robots such
as Shimon raise the question from the opposite direction: what does machine
improvisation share with — and lack from — human musical thinking?
Value / originality: A practice-grounded contribution to MishMash, opening a
comparison between embodied, communal music-making and AI-driven musical
generation.
Published in MishMash Opening Conference, 2026
Read the article here