We sat down with Bill to listen to his reflections on working in the intersection of technology, art, identity and the body. Try out the experiments and watch a short film about the collaboration at g.co/billtjonesai.
I am intrigued by the idea of machine learning. AI is supposed to take us and important things should be occurring with this particular technology, so I wanted to determine if we could use it to stir actual human emotion. It’s ego, but I want to be the one to know how to use PoseNet to make somebody cry. How do you acquire the technology to become weighted with import and significance?
A system and I’ve never collaborated before. It is a whole learning curve that is other. We are educated that you don’t get lots of chances. That idea was contrasted by this adventure. It was refreshing to co-create with the Google team whose strategy was iterative and lively.
Will you utilize it?
What was it like experimentation with AI?
I know context is the next frontier in machine learning. This seems paramount for art manufacturing. I hope one day soon they make with. I’d love to dance with a system, simply to see what that’s like.
From the agency of dance? I say this with great respect: it antithetical to everything I thought dance was. The field of vision of the webcam determines about how we proceed a lot. Dance for us is often times in a vacant room that implies boundless space. But working with a webcam, a really prescribed space is there. Limitations are not poor in art but they were a challenge. It was a change producing something for not the stage and the screen.
We teamed up to explore the creative possibilities of language recognition and PoseNet, which will be Google’s machine-learning model that estimates human poses in real time at the browser.
I felt like I was being asked: Come out of this place that you personally as an artist come out of, the avant-garde. Come and work that is available to countless individuals. That is wonderful, but it’s also a duty. The things with this are likely to be bizarre in a way people make, are not they? Very kind of exciting. I’m appreciative of being a part of the maturation of this.
What can it be such as changing from creating for the point to the screen?
Back at the’80s, Arnie Zane [Jones’s partner and business co-founder] and I decided we did not wish to work with technology because the art of perspiration and bodies ought to be sufficient. Technology just steals your thunder. Technology can project what is at stake when you die. When you find these amounts, they’re no more human, they are something else.” We began working with much more state-of-the-art technologies. At that time, the team was saying,”we want to catch your movement so that in 50 years we could reconstitute your performance” That’s how people thought years ago, and seems to be a preoccupation. They said they needed to”decouple me out of my character.” I do not think that is possible, although I’m intimate. My focus with this job wasn’t on to substitute the performer, but match them.
Were there moments you felt this tech was at the service of dance?