Synthetic Birdsong

I went along to the Virtual Ecologies lecture "Within Perception" last night. I am always a bit leery of going to stuff in the evenings because it messes with my daughter's evening routine, but Roz recommended it, and I really enjoyed it. 

The lecture was a presentation by a neurology researcher, talking about the effect of 'nature' on the brain. It was interesting as there was a lot of discussion about how to measure what elements of 'nature' actually make a difference - is it the colours? the sounds? the space? This makes sense since from a scientific point-of-view, understanding this gives further insight into how the brain works, but also further insight into how the benefits could be best deployed to help people. 

What I found more surprising, was the seeming push towards synthesising these effects. For instance, could VR be used to simulate a natural environment? Does listening to recordings of natural sounds help? Clearly, 'real' nature has some limitations for some people in terms of access, and even feeling safe, but for most people, it seemed strange to rush to deliver a synthetic version when the 'real' thing is so clearly beneficial in other ways.

Being who I am, I made the comment that I could image a dystopian future where we are all kept in pods, and played fake birdsong to keep us happy... To be fair, my actual comment was a bit less pointed, but that was the gist... 

However, the reference to birdsong led me back to my discussion with JK about AI, and my assertion that simulated art was of equal value to 'real' art - that people don't care if that heart-felt poem was written by a real person, or written by an AI. The problem being, I realised that for birdsong, that's not true. I DO care if the birdsong is simulated, even if it's indistinguishable from real birdsong.

So why? Why would it be true for the bird? I think that what I care about is not the sound, but the knowledge that there is a real bird, singing it's little heart out, that it's a tiny vulnerable thing, making this incredible sound that seems to defiantly advertise it's location.

So if I care about that for a bird? Why don't I care about that for a person? I THINK the short answer is because I'm wrong... I DO care about it for art - yes my Insta feed is filled with art-slush that is made by AI, or looks like it was... But actually for the art that I connect with, that I care about, that I am moved by, I do connect with the artist, not just the art. I care that Tracy Emin is a real person, because I care about her art, and I care about her art because I care she is a real person. If Tracy Emin turned out to be an AI, would I feel the same about her art? Probably not (and would I feel the same about AI afterwards? Probably not!)

Of course, this feeds back into my wider wondering about the role of the artist in the piece. I have always asserted that the piece should stand alone, independent on the artist, but surely that's not true?