The Authentic and the Augmented: Art's Next Frontier
From Cubism to Code. A discussion with MOMus President, Epaminondas Christophilopoulos, about how technology transforms art and creativity & challenges authenticity
I.
The table breaks the chains
Until Braque and especially Picasso, a painted table was simply a painted table. Grounded for centuries in the present moment of its creation, depicted from the painter’s viewpoint and, through their eyes, the viewer’s as well. But when the two of them developed Cubism, clearly influenced by the mathematicians and scientists of their time, who were exploring non-Euclidean geometry and higher-dimensional space fields, the table… finally broke its chains.
In Analytical Cubism, objects or forms, such as a table or a woman’s face, are deconstructed and reassembled in an abstract way, as though you are seeing both their past and present simultaneously, and from multiple different viewpoints all at once (see, for example, the portrait of Dora Maar in the image above).
Similarly, Salvador Dalí lived his artistic (and personal) life enchanted by the allure of science and the technologies of his era. He wasn’t interested in opposing science and art, but rather sought their synthesis. Later in life, he became fascinated by quantum physics, subatomic particles, and even the digital nature of matter. He saw no conflict between surrealism and scientific exploration, only opportunities.
II.
New “sensoria” promise new forms of Art
If Picasso, Dalí, or Braque were alive today, they would probably be experimenting with Artificial Intelligence (AI). That’s not a certainty, of course, but it’s a strong possibility, given how drawn they were to science and anything novel. How the arts and artists will be affected by the leaps in technology and whether they’ll use them to create wondrous things -like I believe computational biologist and musician Max Cooper does- or if they’ll fall into the inertia of uninspired copying and repetition, has concerned me for years.
That’s how a conversation began for this Substack newsletter with Epaminondas Christofilopoulos, president of MOMus (which unites five Greek museums under its umbrella) and holder of the UNESCO Chair for Futures Research. I asked him how he imagines the artists of the future, especially if we assume a continuum, a merging between human and machine, similar to what I’ve described in a past newsletter titled Mystics and Technocrats.
“In a very likely and not-so-distant future,” he says, “where technologically augmented humans* have integrated advanced AI capabilities, the creative process will be a natural outcome of this blend, without clear boundaries between what came from human ability and what from digital augmentation. The creative process, by analogy, might resemble that of an artist painting or composing under the influence of substances...
“So, I can imagine augmented artists who perceive the world through enhanced capabilities and new ‘senses,’ leading to new forms and movements in art. Beyond new immersive experiences offered by digital works, I believe we’ll also see a reevaluation -perhaps a renaissance- of traditional media like painting or analog photography.”
III.
The lowly photography
AI’s entry into art is today viewed with caution and suspicion by many, artists and non-artists alike. Is there a precedent where a new technology disrupted the art world and was initially met with negativity before ultimately reshaping it positively?
As Epaminondas Christofilopoulos explains, photography is one such example.
“For many years, photography wasn’t considered art. Just something cheap, lower-tier, suitable only for those who couldn’t afford to hire a painter. But in the end, photography changed painting. Artists realized that realistic representation alone wasn’t enough, that photography could do that. And so, everything changed, and new art movements emerged: impressionism, expressionism, cubism, and more.”
He adds that beyond AI itself, what’s truly fascinating is how digital platforms that leverage it are impacting art, changing how it’s produced and shared. “In the past, musicians would release an LP with 13 songs, a complete work in essence. Now, you can release just one track and share it with a wide audience via platforms. This unprecedented ability to share your work independently -combined with how AI has democratized music production tools- has created radically new conditions,” he says.
IV.
The return to authenticity. And emotion
In an age where technology is leaping ahead, returning to our roots is becoming just as alluring as transitioning into a possibility-laden future. And this is already visible.
As he points out, we’ve recently seen music lovers returning to vinyl records, and more recently, a “resurrection” of CDs and DVDs in the U.S., as reported by the New York Times in the article When Streaming Won’t Cut It and You Need the DVD.
Why is this happening? Because people want to preserve their memories and store their “loves” on media they’re certain they’ll be able to revisit when nostalgia hits, he tells me (and reminds me of how sad I am that I no longer have the video I took on my phone the day my nephew was born, where he gives me his first smile, even if reflexive and unconscious).
“If you’re subscribed to a major streaming platform, and your favorite movie is available there today, no one can guarantee it’ll still be there in ten years,” he says. And he unexpectedly builds a “bridge” to something completely different: in France, archives for nuclear waste storage sites are kept only on paper -not digitally. In Japan, they’re written on ceramic tablets. Why? Because you don’t want to lose such important information, not you, not future generations.
But it’s not just necessity driving people back to traditional media. It’s also authenticity. And the emotion it stirs (here I thought of the Stendhal Syndrome, also known as hyperkulturemia, which is worth reading more about).
“Painting, despite everything it’s been through, still exists. It exists because there’s love for the painter who creates with a brush—and for the authenticity of their work. Digital reproductions aren’t valued as artworks. I believe that alongside the use of new technologies, we’ll continue to value craftsmanship and the human touch. Perhaps someday AI, maybe by chance, will create something deeply moving. It’s not impossible. We’re still at the beginning and can’t predict the future. But I think it’s unlikely. I find it hard to imagine music created by AI -something without senses or feelings- deeply moving me. Of course, we’ll go through various phases before reaching any final point” he notes.
I ask if he believes AI-generated works belong in museums. “Museums exist to preserve human culture. I wouldn’t include AI works in them. Let there be separate museums for those,” he replies. And when I ask whether he fears museums losing visitors to places showcasing AI works, he answers clearly: “No. As the world becomes more digital, as people grow more distant, our need for the authentic will grow.”
He concludes by saying that while the current educational trend focuses on teaching robotics or programming in schools, the real focus should be on introducing philosophy—and craftsmanship. In short, teaching what is deeply human. What sets us apart from machines.
Before you read the next part, recall here—spoken in Stephen Fry’s voice—what Nick Cave wrote about the relationship between art and Artificial Intelligence (in section VII).
V.
Kimi K2 has arrived and is already the strongest player in creative writing
China is “playing hard” in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs). After “Deepseek,” which made big waves—more like a breaching whale than a gentle ripple—came “Kimi K2,” whose capabilities, especially in creative writing, are impressive. As shown in the chart below, it easily surpasses o3-pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4 in that field, and places ChatGPT-4o all the way down in ninth.
Don’t be put off by the Chinese characters you might see when visiting Kimi’s page. You can type directly in English, and it will read it just fine. Though it launched recently, it already has over 24 million users, is free, and open-source.
If you sign in with your credentials, you can access the “Researcher” tool, which, after asking you a few clarifying questions, allows you to conduct deep research on any topic.
If your request is complex, it may take some time for it to complete the research, but the results (including active links to dozens or even hundreds of sources, depending on your topic) are enough to fill an entire blog.
VI.
These five icons matter
When we talk about AI, transparency is crucial. Citizens must know to what extent AI was used in an article or research. And they’re asking for it. According to a study, 80% of U.S. respondents—and similarly high numbers in the UK—believe news organizations should inform readers or viewers when AI was used in producing a story. Of those, 78% say organizations should include a clear note explaining how AI was used. The separation between authentic and synthetic content must be absolutely clear.
Now, the Dubai Future Foundation (DFF) is introducing a system that classifies research works with visual markers, based on how much AI was used in their creation. As the creators state in a white paper, their goal is to enhance transparency in research and offer—at a glance—a standardized mechanism that allows readers, researchers, and decision-makers to see to what extent research findings were shaped by machines. The signal can be applied to scientific articles, research papers and reports, data visualizations, books, articles, visual content, art, educational materials, and technical documentation. In fact, the DFF website includes a handy tool that helps you create your own signal after answering a few simple questions.
Word of the Week: “Enshittification”
A slang term popularized by author Cory Doctorow to describe the gradual degradation of online platforms and digital services as their focus shifts from prioritizing user experience to maximizing profit—often at the expense of both users and content creators.
*Augmented human: A person who, through technological means such as implants, exoskeletons, neural interfaces, artificial intelligence, or other advanced tech, gains abilities beyond natural human limits. Examples: Using a bionic limb controlled by thought, or a brain chip implant to enhance memory or communicate with computers.
Failed to render LaTeX expression — no expression found
I don't know how you do it--come up with so much illuminating stuff week after week. I read so many newsletters working over the same topics and ideas, but you seem always fresh and surprising. I appreciate your work so very much.