Today’s artists are the ones who construct artificial neural networks
Artūrs Virtmanis
Conversation with Latvian artist Gints Gabrāns
The solo exhibition “Algorithm communities” by Gints Gabrāns are on view at the Riga Contemporary Art Space until April 5, 2026.
The exhibition explores human interaction with artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems, as well as the human relationships shaped and influenced by them. In this sense, it can be seen as an artist’s attempt to create a “portrait of the contemporary”– a reflection on technology’s impact on society at large and the ways it reverberates through culture, including its influence on artistic production itself.
Gints Gabrāns is an installation and multimedia artist whose work has been exhibited widely in Latvia and internationally. In 2007, with his project Paramirrors, Gabrāns represented Latvia at the 52nd Venice Biennale.
UNTITLED (SEX WITH SCULPTURES), 2026
Real-time AI-generated video installation, polyethylene and mycelium sculptures
...algorithm communities – there are two aspects to this: one is technological, if we are talking about algorithms in general; and the other is communities, which is currently a very overused term. Tell me about them.
Community art... yes! (Laughs) Well, that’s the name of the exhibition. Right now, that’s what you have to mention when applying to all of the foundations for funding.
That’s everyone’s hobbyhorse right now – community. Are we talking about real communities, viewed in the context of the algorithmic world, or are you casting a wider net and your interests here are anthropological – is it an attempt to explore the moment, to somehow “capture” it?
No, it’s not just that. Everyone is getting involved with artificial intelligence (AI) now, but in order to create something of your own, some-thing original, you have to understand and predict what are the data underneath it, and where they are – these large data groups. It’s about more than just seeing a strange sight; it also reveals some deeper hidden structures that exist in human society. At the same time, it really is about those algorithms. However, we must remember that besides AI and the digital world, it’s the exact same algorithms that also govern human relationships.
Going back to my earlier exhibition on this topic, which took place, if I remember correctly, in 2019 – at the Art Station Dubulti. Back then, we were training those AI engines ourselves. You collect the images yourself and then train it so it can create all these things from your images.
So it would be more accurate to call it machine learning rather than AI, right?
Yes. Now it’s more correct to call it that.
AI is a gimmicky term, but machine learning is what actually does exist at the moment.
Yes, it’s because of laziness. If you say that they are artificial neural networks or it’s machine learning, and the people you’re addressing are still not comprehending what it is, they just give up and call it AI.
What algorithms show are trends.
When I was collecting pictures to train the AI (for the exhibition in Dubulti), I looked for them on social networks. Pictures from various exhibition openings – from the Kim? Contemporary Art Center and so on... These were images that had been posted by the organizers them-selves. I needed at least two thousand pictures – a huge amount. What you see in these pictures is pretty much all the same – two or three young women standing with wine glasses in their hands, and sometimes a guy or two amongst them. From that huge volume of pictures, the AI generated a dozen images for me, but it decided, on its own, that there would be no men in the pictures! I tried another AI tool that analyzes images, and threw in pictures with people that could be identified as men, but no, it still said that that is a woman! It had decided that only women would be at exhibition openings, and so it continued to generate all these pictures. That was certainly not my intention!
ESX (2024/2025) Algorithm-driven generative AI video installation
Is this a case of what could be called “algorithmic bias”?
Obviously, the information was already there – a repetition of the same artists, the same situations, the same people, the same photographers... And the pictures that are selected for posting on social media are most likely chosen according to the same criteria.
At the time (at the exhibition), people noticed this lack of men, and many thought that I had done it on purpose. Yet I could easily defend myself – no, I didn’t do anything. It’s all AI.
This is an interesting situation because now there’s a kind of neutral third power – the artificial “all-knowing” intelligence that we can blame for everything!
Or not. Well, partly yes.
You see, you can’t say that things are really like that. For it to be serious research, it would have to be much broader. I don’t do that, but you can still observe certain trends and characteristics among many things. But that’s a personal observation, which is also most likely influenced by the observer. The observer always influences!
It’s already known from quantum physics that without an observer, nothing happens.
Yes, nothing happens. Or something different is happening.
Okay, but tell me—when did you start working with these algorithms and AI?
I started as soon as it became somewhat accessible, around 2019. The exhibition in Dubulti was the first of its kind in Latvia. At that time, I was seriously thinking that I wouldn’t do any more exhibitions, but then this invitation came along. And then I thought – how can I do this now, having already announced that I won’t be doing exhibitions anymore... And then I found a solution – I literally won’t be making them because from now on, AI will be able to do that.
In this context, there’s an interesting question that regularly comes up nowadays – will artificial intelligence “kill” the artist (or not)? What do you think?
It is now possible to use AI to write poetry and books, to draw and then create animations and so on. You can make music. You can make music so good that there is no longer any need to call your buddy composers. You can control it in every way, and it’s already become commonplace. Then there are some things that are less used... But in a way, yes; many, certainly not all, but a great many [artists] will be wiped out!
Are you saying that those who operate at a level where art is transformed into a product will be wiped out?
Well, I don’t know; it’s complicated. Just this morning I had a meeting with some businessmen where we talked about this – they think artists will remain. I think it’s most likely that plumbers and those kinds of professions will remain, but artists will be among the first to disappear.
I recently saw an interview with Sam Altman, the CEO of Open AI. He was asked if he plans to replace any of his senior department heads with AI; he responded vaguely that, yes, in principle, that should be the case, but... In short, it didn’t seem like he was planning to do that.
No, you see – people... there’s the individual thing... but whether it’s specifically artists who can’t be replaced by AI is an open question. I think many can be replaced.
Okay, but let’s say an artist could act as a “trickster” who is manipulating the machine. The machine itself doesn’t decide to do this kind of “research”. The artist could be like a master who formulates the right prompt...
No, the artist is the one who will create that artificial intelligence! Programmers and all those AI creators are the contemporary artists of this time.
UNTITLED (SEX WITH SCULPTURES), 2026
Real-time AI-generated video installation, polyethylene and mycelium sculptures
But they’re called engineers! Isn’t that so?
Yes... No... Well, yes...that’s why Altman answered the way he did. You can answer either way, and both will be correct – AI is just a tool, or, it will replace everything. It can go either way. After all, artists already work according to some kind of shitty algorithms: they have to write grant applications or sponsorship proposals that include the project’s goals, functions, etc. And then there’s the community and community art. What’s the difference between that and AI?
Maybe it’s the engineer, perhaps it’s the artist slash master... Maybe AI still needs to improve but it’s clear that it can replace people... Perhaps that’s even desirable...
Every era has its own algorithms...
Can you imagine a utopian society where there is universal in-come and no one has to work? For example, Elon Musk explained it this way: nowadays, if you need carrots, you can go to the store and just buy them, but there still are people who choose to grow them themselves. Of course, that takes more effort, but there’s some satisfaction in it. The same could happen with work and jobs – you can do it if you like, but there’s no need for it.
I don’t see it that way. In the past, people like Nick Bostrom and others who thought about artificial intelligence on an academic level talked about these sorts of visions of the future – increasing prosperity ensured by AI, the resulting wealth being distributed among everyone, and then people will be able to do whatever they want... In this vision, everyone becomes an artist and creates art...
After all, you have to spend your time somehow while here on earth...
It’s really hard to figure out exactly how the profit sharing would work. Will it really be the case that those receiving the direct profits will be interested in the people who just want to grow their own carrots... I think this is the crucial question – will those who reap the big profits suddenly decide that they should redistribute their wealth to everyone?
If they don’t, what will they do with all those people? Moreover, in such a situation it would be potentially dangerous to even exist, including for those with all the money... It could be even more dangerous for them!
Well, yes... it’s a difficult question, but it will somehow regulate itself in the future. Those who have a lot of money will be in danger because others have no money.
They’ll have to give away some of their money – not out of charity, but simply to buy themselves security and comfort...
So then they will provide for the carrot growers and the artists staying at home...
Turning back to algorithm communities and the hierarchies of this world, do you see how these hierarchies form? Is the world of algorithms (and algorithm communities) non-hierarchical and democratic?
I think there are various factors pulling in different directions. In general, it seems that those involved in artificial intelligence – Altman and others – have a certain idealistic aspect to them, and at the same time, perhaps a fear for safety... What will happen when AI becomes smarter than humans? Will it pose an existential threat? Will it destroy humanity? Because there’s the problem of “value installation” with the AIs. The idea is that while the AI is still being developed, it should be taught hu-man values, or somehow become accustomed to them, so that when it becomes smarter and more capable, it will not harm humans.
I think this situation carries a dangerous paradox, because it is precisely this “humanity” that has the potential to cause the most trouble, right?
Well, yes, Altman himself had an interesting experience with ChatGPT... Although there is no doubt about OpenAI’s good intentions, and the fact that they were working on alignment, nevertheless... GPT-2 had not even been released yet. In the lab where it was being trained on this principle of taking into account human values – both ethical and moral – they created a reward point system. The AI was awarded points for “correct behavior.” It understood what people wanted from it and responded as the engineers had specified, but it quickly turned into meaningless babbling. Then they added some kind of “supervisor” who checked whether the AI was doing everything the way it was supposed to... It was actually a bit more complicated than that, but in any case, people played a big role. However, somewhere along the line, a mistake was made – similar to mixing up pluses and minuses. The AI perceived positive evaluations as negative and vice versa. As a result, Altman himself said that in a very short time, they had created the most evil AI model in the world. And there was nothing they could do about it. They couldn’t undo it. Due to a small mistake, in a very short time, the whole process went in the opposite direction of where it was supposed to go.
Interestingly, in a way, it simulates people ending up in an unfavorable environment – one where the point system, the support system, is based on the wrong things.
Does your exhibition touch on this issue in any way, or is it focused on something else?
Perhaps my answer to the previous question was incomplete. I only mentioned one aspect – it’s good that efforts are being made. And yes, I will also try to portray these things in the exhibition, but it must be understood that there is also another side, one where moral and ethical considerations are not really important! Profit is important, and it is clear that for the sake of profit, it’s better to rely on outrage, and that is what social media algorithms deliberately lead to. They increase engagement, which ultimately yields better profits; and this is being done without a care about the consequences for society. These directions are different. They overlap with one another...
There was a documentary about this – social media programmers openly said that they were concerned about the consequences of these algorithms. They create these algorithms and then say they’ve done a really bad thing. One said that it could even lead to civil war. It started back in 2016, when Zuckerberg said that the new algorithms would help create communities. Maybe that was really the intention, to create communities, but you see, to create communities, it’s easier to divide and create bubbles. It turned out to be much more beneficial for business to not bring people together but to instead lead them into confrontation.
TRANSFUNGUS (2022/2023) Digital print on paper; frames grown from mycelium; polyurethane coating
Interesting – communities form in their own bubbles!
Yes! But, in a way, that’s how we arrive at the idea of community. One way is if we look at the idea of community without irony, but in that case we arrive at...there’s a certain moment of farce. [Within social media], the idea of community as togetherness becomes the opposite! These groups form as a result of friction with other groups, which have formed by feeding and regurgitating the same brain rot amongst themselves.
What I’m trying to do is – imagine a person coming to the exhibition who knows nothing about AI, who may have never used ChatGPT, or who has heard of it but never actually used it. What do you think their reaction will be? They haven’t encountered image generators and all that stuff. In a sense, they’re entering a psychedelic environment, right? The generated images are not in any way devoid of features that would be recognizable to humans. They can only be generated because they’re sourced from huge data sets that people themselves have voluntarily uploaded and tagged. I hope that it is precisely this shift in im-ages, which is sometimes recognizable but at the same time incomprehensible – that works with the viewer’s inner space.
How could we describe what the viewer might see here – enriched reality, or a glimpse into another reality that is not accessible without this medium?
I don’t know... It’s not like that. Fundamentally, art does not have any kind of goal.
I understand that, it’s just that people sometimes ask – how did this work of art affect you?
That’s up to the individual. I’ve always said: “What you see is also what it means!”
This morning I listened to an interview with Arvo Pärt. I don’t know who interviewed him (sounded like Björk), but that’s exactly what their conversation was about. Pärt said that it is important to give yourself space. I would say – give yourself time. Because time is more related to contemplating the inner world. It’s about having the time (and space) to make choices...
How do you see the difference between yourself and artists who work with traditional mediums? What are the similarities, if any? I’ll explain why I’ve asked this – it’s because when you meet someone and you say you’re an artist, the first thing they always ask is: Are you a painter? Because that is obviously the archetype of an artist. Moreover, one often hears things like, I like traditional art; digital art isn’t art... Can you comment on that?
I can only speak on my behalf, not on that of others... I don’t see much of a difference here. Painting is what I come from. The fact that I also do something with AI doesn’t change anything much for me. I see the same painterly qualities – the role of color and form... Some people might not be able to see that in something generated by AI, but for my part, I would say that I paint. And it was painters who inspired me to do art.
What interests you right now? Who, in your opinion, is doing something unusual, worth knowing?
We’ve already talked about this... They’re too numerous to be named. It’s the people who have constructed all those artificial neural networks.
So you’re saying that, basically, the greatest artists of our time are the guys who build AI?
I don’t know where, in which layer, the most interesting ones are. Let me think... I can’t say exactly what interests me... It used to be easy for me to answer that question. It’s hard to say – maybe that is the answer now!
There doesn’t always have to be something that you view as the best. You know... maybe these processes are in a state of mutation... I’ve noticed that it’s not like that anymore. When I’m teaching students at the art academy, I wish I could say: Look, this here is a really good artist, but I truly don’t see anyone like that right now...
I completely understand this. Maybe it’s because there is so much of everything, and more than ever before.
Perhaps it is because things don’t concentrate through one individual. Let’s take a painter, for example – through his hand, everything begins to happen. Now it is no longer just one individual –perhaps that is why they can no longer be named. Perhaps it’s also no longer important!
TRANSFUNGUS (2022/2023) Digital print on paper; frames grown from mycelium; polyurethane coating
We have now arrived at “communities”. Perhaps the individual – the character with an inflated ego – is no longer all that important. Right now, too many things are happening all at once. It is impossible to comprehend everything that is happening even in one relatively specific field, let alone see what the big picture is...
I think it’s not just that. For oneself, the individual is irreplaceable, whereas in society, the individual is like a counter condition – funda-mental tectonic changes are taking place there. Those who build algorithms for social media analyze individuals; they know the individual better than the individual knows themselves... The goal is to use the in-dividual to do everything they deem necessary – to earn money as well as everything else. This process does not always work as arriving at one single goal. Targeted advertising is one thing, but here it is a much more serious issue because in the previous liberal era, the individual was the core value and the most important thing. How the individual feels, how the individual sees things – that was held above all else. But if algorithms now start to do everything better, what will happen to the individual? This is a much more difficult question than the ones that are usually asked: Which professions will disappear? Will artists disappear? What will artificial intelligence replace? The question is – what will hap-pen when people have to come up with a whole new value system? There are people for whom religion is important, but even that is centered on the individual. But when all of that is being threatened precisely due to algorithms, then what? Here we’re talking about a possible outcomes...When could this happen? To what extent is it already happening?
