fbpx

episode 5 – the history of ideas | Arthur Miller

In this episode, we speak to the art-scientist and author Arthur Miller. In his work, he explores the nature of creative thinking – the mind’s ability to transform information from everyday experiences into the most sublime works of art, literature, music, and science. We talked about the history of ideas, the importance of generalists, the similarity between Picasso and Einstein, and much more.

 

Nico Daswani The Artian Podcast

Transcripts

The transcript was produced by an AI, mistakes might appear.

[00:00:00] Nir Hindi: Hey Arthur. Welcome to the Artian podcast.

Arthur Miller: Thank

you for having me here.

Nir Hindi: Excited to have a conversation because there is so much to cover. But before that, I would say that you are a passionate art scientist. You published many books among them colliding worlds. How cutting age science is re-defining contemporary art, Einstein, Picasso space-time, and the beauty that causes havoc and insights of genius.

Imaginary and creativity in science and art in your latest book, the artist and the machine, the world of AI powered creativity, to which we will dedicate a totally separate episode. And I am interested if you are coming from such a strong, scientific background, how did you find yourself in the world of art?

Arthur Miller: Okay, let me summarize a complicated story.

Nir Hindi: I love stories.

Arthur Miller: When I, when I was growing up in the Bronx, I was very interested in art, both the applied side and drawing. And I frequented many of the wonderful art [00:01:00] museums in New York city. I was also a voracious reader. I spent a lot of time in my local New York public library, which was a magnificent building.

Filled with books as well as records, 33 and a third recordings now called vinyl. One day I was sitting at a table reading a book and I happened to be next to the record collection. And they are looking out at me was a record, a cover that had this fabulous picture. It was a pencil sketch. But man deepen thought I could, I can still see it now.

So, I decided to borrow it and take it home and copy the drawing. That is how you improve your, you are sketching. I was about 11 or 12 years old, and I figured since I had the record, I might as well play it, although I never heard of the composer and I played it and absolutely blew my mind. It was Tchaikovsky’s fifth symphony.

I had never heard anything like that. I worked my way through Tchaikovsky. And then backward in time, over the years

Nir Hindi: when you were 11, 11 years old,

Arthur Miller: right? A [00:02:00] question that immediately occurred to me was how did these people compose such magnificent music? And so, it was in this way that I got hooked into creativity, but as things stood in those days, growing up in the Bronx, If you were smart or thought you were smart, you went into physics.

And so, I did it. I enjoyed the intellect challenge. I wrote some papers in theoretical elementary particle physics, but my heart, my passion was not in it. What was always on my mind was those. What is the nature of questions? What is the nature of creativity? So, I decided to take the chance to switch fields and the history of science, which I like to refer to a history of ideas.

Nir Hindi: Why do

you feel that way too, as a history of ideas, because it was.

Arthur Miller: it is, it is a way that ideas appeared it is how and why, and how these, why and how these ideas appeared and the struggles of the people to which they came and read the original German language papers and relativity theory and quantum theory papers by Einstein, Bohr, [00:03:00] Eisenberg, and so on.

And what immediately jumped out to me was the importance of visual thinking. To these people in their creative scientific work. Now, if be going to talk about visual thinking, you must keep in mind how these images are created in the brain and how they are manipulated. And that took me into cognitive science.

And at that time in 1980s, there was a so-called imagery, controversy where the images are causative in thinking or whether they are just epi phenomenon, like lights on a computer that you could smash these lights, but the computer will work anyway. And that. The way to better understand that is to look at the metaphorical comparison between computer or machine, and then the human brain and both information processing devices.

And it occurred to a lot of people at that time. Could machines help us to better understand that human creativity let us find it good but occurred to me. It is can machines be creative. [00:04:00] And that over the years I wrote several papers on, on creativity, mostly human creativity, creativity, humans with some machine creativity in there.

But in this present book, the artists, and the machine, I focus, I, I talk about human creativity and machine creativity, and we are thinking of how my theory of human creativity. I can refer to machines, but I focus on machines. Mainly

Nir Hindi: we are going to discuss, say machines, and it is going to be an exciting topic.

But before that, I want to kind of ask you, you mentioned this, that one of the things that jumped immediately in front of your eyes is that this the way those scientists use maybe visual imagination or visual imaginary concepts to create their theories, how did you link it to art?

Arthur Miller: Well, what also jumped out at me from reading those original papers was the emphasis the scientists put on similarity, aesthetics, and beauty. And to me, it is artists referred to in a similar way. And so, it was [00:05:00] very nice. I was brought back to my interest in art and me, what occurred to me is whether there is a connection between art and science, something we will try.

I have also written on over a few years. Well, scientists use visual imagery in, at work. In several ways. One of them is in visual thought experiments, experiments done in the imagination. They are very inexpensive experiments too. And they can lead to fantastic results such as when Einstein was stuck at 1905 problems concerning his relativity theory.

He what occurred to him was the thought experiment of what it will be like. For thought experiment that the be in his laboratory and right alongside of a lightweight, what sort of effects would that person see? And this led Einstein to realize that in fact, the thought experiment that could never catch up with a point on a Light Wave.

And in fact, you know, the amazingly non-intuitive thing was that no matter how you move, how fast you move, you are always at the same relative velocity with respect to that lightweight. It is different for me when you are on a highway in your [00:06:00] car, you can step on the accelerator and catch up with any car in front of you, but you can never catch up with a lightweight and that he realized was the germ of the special theory of relativity time is a relative

quantity.

Nir Hindi: You took

it one step further and you kind of wrote the book about Picasso and Einstein, and I am interested to hear, what did you discover about Picasso and Einstein? Why did you choose those two figures? Well,

Arthur Miller: I chose those two figures because they were many contemporaries. Einstein was born in 1879 and Picasso in 1881.

And they had never been compared before. I mean, what did they know about each other? Well, it turns out no, they did not know about each other. And it turns out that they both responded to the zeitgeists, which was to reinvestigate classical notions of space and time, which is Einstein investigated time, mostly at Picasso into space.

And when I found out about them is that they were both generalists that had to say, they thought outside of their [00:07:00] disciplines, they were interested in what was going on outside of their disciplines for Einstein. And what other problems that he came up with and against in relativity theory, for example, he found the way out in an 18th century book on philosophy, not on anything to do with.

20th or 19th century physics and Picasso. When he was stuck on Les Demoiselles Da’vion his breakout painting in 1907. He found a way out, not through anything to do with art, but through contemporaneous developments in mathematics, science, and technology, which had been related to him, explained to him by people in his.

Think tank, which they called Libraries Picasso, incidentally, those people, as you know, and incidentally, those people in that Libraries Picasso were not artists. They were literati like and people like that. Einstein said that he had his own think tank, which he and his friends called the Olympia Academy.

They took all knowledge as [00:08:00] their Providence. They discussed the nature of things until late at night, over. Cheap wine, cheap cigars, and cheap cheese too. And the other thing I want to say here is that people work with other people. The myth of the lone genius is that it is a myth.

Nir Hindi: Yeah. First, you know, I am taking two things from you.

One is that I need to have my own think tank or Bandha and call it probably with the name that I need to invent. The second thing is the generalist aspect that you mentioned, and it is something that I deal with a lot. And I asked myself a lot about these questions because our society channel us. Into the silos.

And you speaking about this importance of generally. So, I want to ask you two questions first. What is the importance of generalist in our society?

Arthur Miller: Well, the importance of generalists and our society, even though people are pushed to specialize, and they push the specialized because there is so much to know right now, but it is the [00:09:00] generalist who makes the big advances.

will make the discoveries that changed radically changed the course of their discipline for Einstein. It was relativity theory for Picasso. It was cubism, for Shakespeare. It was literature. These are people who think outside of the box, the user overload hacked expression, but they, these are the people who make the big advances.

And that is why it is important. And in fact, that has been shown in educational systems today. The educational systems that emphasize generalized generalization of knowledge, those children are more creative.

Nir Hindi: for me. It comes, I do not have the scientific, I would say proof behind it, but it is something I felt for many, many years,

Arthur Miller: general generalists look for the, in science.

What you should always do is to look for the big picture as it is called, you know, how everything meshes. As Einstein at the paraphrase him, he once said that he never wanted to be someone who bore his whole on the fitness part of the plank of wood.

Nir Hindi: Can someone be a generalist [00:10:00] if we are required, whether by our parents, whether by our education system, whether by our job environment, To specialize.

How can we have this generalist approach? One way is, maybe it is a joke, but it is not to have your own bundle of different thinkers.

Arthur Miller: Well, that is one way of doing it. The other way is the so-called STEM in education. S T E M science, technology, engineering, and math. Well, that is all well and good, but you should have the, a in there to steam.

For a, for the, not for art, but for the arts. I think a lot of university systems in the world do have a steam curriculum as to lower schools as well. Although when I first came to England in 1990 to university college, London, I was really horrified that it, first, it is a three-year education system here.

And if you studied physics or math, you read only physics or math. I came to, we organized the so-called department of history and philosophy of science. Which was a [00:11:00] mess, which I built into the present department of science and technology studies. And I had to go around and knock on the door. Oh, just about every department chairman in UCL to try and plead with them, send over some students.

And finally, some departments did, and the students love the courses. It opened their eyes into a whole other way of looking at their science and introduced them to the philosophy, the philosophy of science to the history of their science. To note that the history of physics is not just a, a junkyard of old abandoned theories, but these theories, how these theories were discovered and how once they repossessed them.

Another is vital to being a good scientist.

Nir Hindi: So, I am interested. I mean, you know, obviously I would love to attend your course. I am interested if in this course, you also brought part of your passion to the arts and speak with these scientists about advancement in arts or innovation in arts different thinking in arts.

Arthur Miller: Absolutely. I, I taught several seminar courses where we discussed the art and science, [00:12:00] where we discussed creativity also. The students loved it.

Nir Hindi: I am positive. I love it. And I am positive that people that listen to this podcast would love to be part of the small group at the beginning, the small group that is joined this course.

I want to take you back and kind of ask you about creativity because it is something that I think for many years we were fascinated by in the last, maybe one decade, two decades, it became such crucial. In every discipline from science to business, to technology. I want to hear your perspective of. or about creativity.

What is your theory of creativity?

Arthur Miller: I only had one. I will see what relativity creativity a much-hackneyed word is almost these days it is used just, just flippantly. And you ask people what is creativity? And they say, well, creation of something new, but that is, you know, it does not really catch it all.

My own theory of creativity emerged from my studies of highly creative people. And it led me to a two-step definition of creativity. Creativity is the [00:13:00] production of new knowledge or objects from what already exists. And this is accomplished through the process of problem solving and indicators of how creative.

The new object or knowledge is, is whether they are surprising, novel, complex, or ambiguous. These are very subjective notions of creativity. It must be handled with care. And for a theory of discussing the process of problem solving, I use a four-stage model of conscious work where people sit consciously at that desk and try to solve a problem.

They will undoubtedly get stuck. The experience researcher will take a break, but the break is only a conscious break because the intense, passionate desire to solve a problem keeps it alive in the unconscious where it can be turned over in ways that are not possible in consciousness owing to a various inhibition that exist there.

And it is along these lines that hopefully the problem solution or illumination will emerge. That will then percolate up into consciousness, back into consciousness to the [00:14:00] verification stage. But what then when asked the question, what drives this process? What are the dynamics behind creativity? What is the cynical one on of creativity?

I call them characteristics of creativity and among those that have emerged from my studies of haughty creative people are competitiveness, perseverance. Unpredictability being out there and having emotional experiences like falling in love and I am so on. And I go on in my book, discuss how machines can out these human characteristics of creativity.

And so be creative like us. Okay.

Nir Hindi: So, I have a question for you. Do you think that creativity is something that we can develop and hone? Because the general belief is that, okay, you have the geniuses, they are creative, and I am not creative. What would you say to someone that say, okay, I am not creative?

Arthur Miller: Well, there is, what is known as a little C and big C creativity.

Okay. Little C creativity is discovering a new way to work. [00:15:00] That’s the creativity that people say everybody is creative. That is all. Well, good enough. Then there’s big C creativity, which are discoveries that change the direction of fields in art, literature, science, music, and, and so on. Unfortunately, it is not an even seat.

We are not all born equally smart and a genius or a very high-level thinker. That sort of thinking is something that deliberate practice will, will not, you will not achieve this through deliberate practice. I mean, you can study physics seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but you will never be an Einstein and he can play chess.

24 hours a day, seven days a week, and never be a Bobby Fischer, a magnets cost. And so on. Certain people have certain of something very special in their brains, but we can learn from these people, although we can never be an Einstein Picasso. And so, we can learn from these people, we can learn how they think.

And one thing you learned from them, As that they will not be afraid to make mistakes. They learn from them.

mistakes.

Nir Hindi: Obviously, mistakes are part of creativity, but again, in [00:16:00] society, we are being punished for doing mistakes, especially in the job environment. If you do mistakes, most likely it can cost you your job.

What, from your experience, studying those type of figures, how do they deal with mistakes? How do they maybe frame it?

Arthur Miller: Take it to heart. They, they just take the situation as it is. And think of any, what they could have done. Other than that, that is what they did. There are at bell labs in the early days of bell labs in the fifties, for example, when the big inventors, the great scientists, the ones who made enormous number of mistakes, it was almost a joke they had.

How many mistakes did you make today? But of course, they did eventually. I mean, if they just kept on making mistakes, then they were fired. Look it, look back at these mistakes. Look back at these errors to introspect is extremely important. Introspection is an important part of creativity where you it is very difficult to do you sit by yourself in a room, maybe in the dark.

And you think about what you are thinking about. You think about what you did [00:17:00] that day and things can move together somehow or another. All those pieces in your mind can come together and you can have that spark, that idea.

Nir Hindi: I think bell labs was one of the first companies back in the days, fifties, and sixties that they gave one day a week for their employees to.

Do things that outside of their job,

function

Arthur Miller: Google, which,

which is very nice. They think of their employees one day a week. To work on a Google related problem other than the one that, that task

was.

Nir Hindi: Yeah. Yeah. It is funny that people think it is Google when bell labs did it already in the fifty’s sixties, the whole organization experiments and out in technology that came out from bell labs started from the one day a week of engineer called Billy Kluver.

Arthur Miller: Actually,

I must bake the difficulty you hear. Cause I wrote about it did that in the evening outside of work, that that was the agreement. They can do whatever they could do, that art science stuff. Outside of work and that was.

it.

Nir Hindi: When at least, you know, at [00:18:00] least the framework was there to kind of do it.

I have another question that kind of interests me. And it is about similarities between artists and scientists. I mean, often we tend to think that science and art are very, very different, but you, as someone that live in those spaces, I am interested, what are the, some of those similarities between artists and scientists that you.

see.

Arthur Miller: Well, one similarity is that they are both interested in symmetry, beauty concepts like that. And aesthetics, of course, the scientists express themselves in mathematics, artists express themselves in various media. That is the similarity between them. They are both at a, at a very high-level scientists working at a very high level.

Artists working at a very high level are interested in probing a world beyond sense appearances scientists do with mathematics. Artists do it withdrawing with painting and so on. And today they can do it with the 3-D devices. And so [00:19:00] on virtual reality, augmented reality, the tools, well these are not tools.

Okay. Maybe we can get into this more next time. But paint is a tool. A paint brush is a tool, but the painting bots are not tools. These instruments can increase your creativity.

Nir Hindi: I want to ask you something about this thing. When you speak to people often, you will see the relation between art artists.

That means to put paint on a canvas, but those as you just said are just tools. So how we can change the perception of what art is, why people still think about art as the object is just the painting, the, what they put on the canvas and not go beyond.

Arthur Miller: I thought people always do that. I mean, you can look at a painting, you could have a Picasso, whatever you try to imagine what he is doing.

What is the meaning of that painting is why is he reducing forms to geometry is to look beyond appearances? We do not see objects like that. [00:20:00] If you see a painting. Well, the objects of that. So, then you can look at different perspectives of it. You can see a different meaning in that scene.

Nir Hindi: when you speak about Picasso so, and then we just spoke about tools and you wrote about the thought process that the Picasso had.

I am interested too. If we were able to get into Picasso mind or find it in your book, what led him to try and challenge the perception of what art is? How did he approach painting and trying to break it?

Arthur Miller: Well, here is the approach at first. I mean, he always saw the world differently, but seeing it radically differently is something else.

And he began to see the world. I think the change came when he was struggling with Les Demoiselles Da’vion and he became acquainted with developments and mathematics, science, and technology, and particularly the mathematics of fourth dimension for him. The fourth dimension was a spatial dimension. If you could get up into that [00:21:00] dimension.

You could see a world of spirit. You can see a world of other than you would see in the world in which we live. And the science that he was interested in was a science of x-rays, which enabled you to see beyond what you are you can see with you beyond what you could observe with your perceptions. And technology to him was photography.

And again, with photography, although he did not use it so much in Les Demoiselles Da’vion you know, he, nevertheless was experimenting for example, with taking photographing his paintings and laying the negatives one on top of another, so to speak, seeing cubism to the nth degree. So, he was always interested in.

Probing the world with implements of the 20th century, but implements of mathematics, science, and technology,

Nir Hindi: obviously, Picasso had his own artistic activity and Einstein maybe had his own scientific creativity. And I wonder, is there a difference between artistic creativity and scientific creativity.

Arthur Miller: The great artist and a great scientist have this nascent moment of creativity, [00:22:00] boundaries blurred between them.

And they both think along conceptual lines. For Einstein, it was thinking towards a new version of aesthetics to use in physics. And this was the aesthetics of minimalism framing, a theory with the least possible hypothesis. Because theories in 1905 were heavily Laden with hypotheses 2030 of them. This was based on two, but Picasso worked towards what he discovered was an S the aesthetics of cubism of reducing forms to geometry.

So, it was a quest for a new aesthetic.

Nir Hindi: I want to ask you something over here and that’s discussion goes beyond maybe science or the similarities between them, because the first one that tried to reduce it into shapes were Suzanne. In that focused on three, a geometric shape and then come Picasso and take it much further.

And what I am always interested is that. What makes someone to kind of, why are these need to push those boundaries in many [00:23:00] ways? It is similar. It reminds me of the way scientists work is all the time. Okay. Take the, what we know and push the, what we know more. It is like, I always say that for me, it started in the borders between what we know to what we do not know.

And by them creating. art or in certain or poetry or books or whatever, they put a language to something we do not, we did not know until they show it to us. What are your thoughts on that?

Arthur Miller: You’re

absolutely right. Like scientists, artists experiment and seasons experiments were to push the entire scene.

Against the picture plane. When you do that, you eliminate a single perspective point, and you have multiple perspective points, and it is that is what impressed Picasso. And that is a property of Cubist paintings, Cubist art. There is no single perspective point and Picasso went further. Of course, because Picasso had developments in mathematics in mind as well and had seen books with a geometrical picture [00:24:00] in them, which very much impressed him.

And these books were shown to him by a friend and his Lagonda. Because once again, this man was an accountant. Who is where who’s Porsche was multi-dimensional geometries? We have the book that the Casa looked up. And you can see the various figures in

  1. Yeah.

Nir Hindi: So, I am interested. Yeah. I mean, why societies always conformed to the boundaries we always have out the scientists and I, from my perspective is also entrepreneurs that always kind of take an audacious, maybe step into the unknown and try to formulate new language, new technologies.

New discoveries in science. It is other questions, just kind of a reflection, but it does make me want to ask you about science and art again. And we often tend to think that art is influenced maybe by science or technology. And I am interested if it happened in the other [00:25:00] direction, has scientific creativity ever been sparked by art.

Arthur Miller: Yes, there,

there are two very nice examples. Let me tell you what they are. First is Neil’s boils discovery in 1927 of what he called the principle of complementarity. And by 1927, the Neil’s bull was a great Danish scientist. Great. Danish physicist accidentally in 1927. It had been established experimentally.

That is the electron is both a wave and the particle and the physicist agonized over this because how can, how can something like that be how can something be a wave in a particle will be continuous and discontinuous while cannot be visualized. In other words, it cannot be image. It cannot be imagined.

There are many paths to the way boar finally dealt with this phenomenon, the so-called wave particle duality. One of them that seems to be important to me comes from bore being a generalist his reading in art, particularly in Cubist art. I believe that bore before [00:26:00] 1927, before he made this discovery had read a widely circulated book written by two minor Cubist artists.

Alpha glasses dramas on Jake, but who will major theorists, cubism? That book was on cubism and a passage that must have struck boy just awestruck and was where they described, how you look at what a Cubist painter does a Cubist painter, puts on a single piece of paper, single piece of canvas, all perspective of a scene at once and what you do when you walk around an object, you see one perspective at a time.

So how you see it, that is what it is. And that struck bore, because it must have occurred to him that how you see an electron, how you experiment on it. What do you do? An experiment to bring out its wave side or its particle side? That is what it is. But the electron is the collection of all of these, of all these properties and the principle of complementarity.

Well, something can be a totality yet [00:27:00] you pick out one side or another side, depending upon how you view it. And one of the pieces of evidence that led me to investigate this side of bore is in his study at the Neosporin, it had to study at the Institute for theoretical physics in Copenhagen bore had hung a painting by John MESS on Jake and titled Lake.

We have now the Institute was funded, but I taught Carlsberg brewery. And so bore had caught lodge to buy whatever he wanted. The hanging on his wall why didn’t he buy a Picasso or a Brock? Why a second-rate Cubist painting? Well, because I think he was paying homage to bits, Andre, and this painting shows so nicely, the multiple perspectives all at once.

And how you look at that writer, that equestrian. That is what it.

is.

Nir Hindi: Great. So, you mentioned two examples. This is the first one I want to hear the other.

one.

Arthur Miller: One is the chemist Harry Kronos discovery of the structure of the molecule cobalt 60 carbon 60, which is extremely [00:28:00] important. It is found everywhere in the universe and as uses on, on the earth as well.

He, the data that he and his team took, or of course two-dimensional data, but I believe that his experience as a graphic designer, early in his life gave him the means. To imagine two-dimensional data in three dimensions. And the structure of that is that they discovered carbon 16 is called a book. Mr.

Fullerene. It is like a, a football, a soccer ball in that exact little structure.

Nir Hindi: Do you have more examples? I love to hear more examples to pick your brain because then it is always helping me to kind of speak about the science in art. I can understand how science influence art I am interested, how art influence science.

Arthur Miller: Not now that could be later. I am sure. I am sure I should have come. Galileo was an artist and a scientist. Yeah. Yeah. He, in fact, he took courses at the Florentine school of art to make better drawings of the moon. That he looked out through his, through his telescope.

So that is a way [00:29:00] that, that art involved him in making these scientific discoveries and discovering how to represent, discovering the surface of the moon and then how to represent it.

Nir Hindi: Yeah. It is a great discovery and a great story about Galileo. I also love it because. While Galileo develop his own telescope.

There was another scientist in the UK. They do it that they did. It is just in Galileo, took drawing classes. And when he looked the money understood that it is not the perfect, the shape of Pearl that we people thought. But it has a landscape. It is amazing to see the drawing by Galileo and the.

Pictures of the moon to see the similarity.

Arthur Miller: in this book and story messenger.

That they are quite the same.

Nir Hindi: Yeah. It is beautiful. I am kind of interested to ask you more about the insight of genius. Say book, the imagery and creativity in science in art, and kind of ask you, I guess that the main takeaway from the book is the discovery that artists and scientists think through the [00:30:00] imagination, but I am interested.

Maybe, what are the other learnings that you had from writing this book? Insight of genius, imagery and creativity in science and art.

Arthur Miller: I thought of it.

a little long, but it really came to me hard that how much generalists are great scientists and great artists. Look at Leonardo Galileo, Einstein, Picasso, and Cezanne also had some knowledge of science artists who made breakthroughs had some knowledge of science.

That was one thing that, that came through to me. The other is that I should write a book on Einstein and Picasso.

Nir Hindi: And I am interested do you do art?

Arthur Miller: When I was in high school? My, although I was good in science and good and art, I took a lot of extra art courses. I had wanted to be a photographer. So, yes, then I did a lot of the recently, no, I have not done much at all.

Although I still enjoy taking pictures, but of course I enjoy art to the extent of always going to art museums and art galleries, and I have curated art exhibits as well. That concern art and [00:31:00] science.

Nir Hindi: I do. I have last question. Who are your favorite artists?

Arthur Miller: Well, the name going to be that comes to mind is Picasso.

And I mentioned him as I mentioned him so many times because of his creative powers. They are inspirational. And then I will bring it up to the present. My favorite AI artist is Mario Klingemann.

Nir Hindi: Yeah. Is a whole different topic. And you wrote the book, the artist and the machine, the world of AI power, creativity, and your thoughts about.

creativity, art, and machines are a surprising sometimes it is scary. And because you have so much to say about this topic, we decided to have another episode together. But in the future episode, we are going to discuss this book and your philosophy. So at least for now, Arthur, I want to say thank you very much for taking the time in sharing all your thoughts about art science, creativity, because Einstein

Arthur Miller: great pleasure to be here Nir.

Nir Hindi: And stay tuned for the podcast about [00:32:00] art in AI. You are going to love it. Have a great day.

 

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This