Can Creativity and AI Coexist?
Northwestern University’s Charles Logan (PhD26) had just finished encouraging his audience to resist using generative artificial intelligence and “learn from the Luddites” when a voice called out from the back of the room.
“That’s all very nice, but how did that work out last time?” asked McCormick Engineering professor Larry Birnbaum, a computer scientist whose research and teaching focus on applied AI and human-AI collaboration.
Logan paused. “The tech bros won,” he said, walking off the stage. “The industrialists won. But I don’t want that future for me or my children.”
It was an uncomfortable exchange—rare for an academic conference—but precisely the type of conversation organizers of the two-day conference on art and creativity in the age of artificial intelligence hoped to spark.
Throughout the event, which culminated with music and stand-up comedy at the Sketchbook Brewing Company in Evanston, artists, educators, and researchers explored how artificial intelligence is reshaping— and challenging — human creativity through spark talks, student led-panels, poster sessions. And both Logan and Birnbaum came away feeling optimistic.
“I refuse to believe our future is settled, and I’m not backing down,” said Logan, a postdoctoral fellow with the Center for Responsible Tech, Policy and Public Dialogue who begins a new position as research assistant professor of AI and Society at the State University of New York's Binghamton University in the fall.
“I understand and, to an extent, share his concerns,” Birnbaum said later, praising the thoughtfulness of student presenters, who wrestled with balancing the benefits AI tools can provide with anxiety over the job market. “But finding the right path forward can’t start that way.” 
Sponsored by Northwestern’s Center for Responsible Tech, Policy, and Public Dialogue and the Center for Human-Computer Interaction + Design, the event was organized by School of Education and Social Policy professors Sepehr Vakil, Michael Horn, and Claudia Haase.
Most of the short talks and poster sessions tackled a central tension: while some artists are embracing AI as a creative tool, others are actively resisting it.
A panel of artists and technologists, including Aaron Wade of Google Creative Lab and Chicago-based artist Molly Jones, explained how they are incorporating AI into their work. A second group, featuring New York-based writer, director, comedian and alumnus Dan Perlman and Northwestern doctoral students, examined pushback against AI in creative fields.
The beauty of the often slow and frustrating creative process is the resulting connection with others, said Perlman, artist in residence for the Center for Responsible Technology.
“The question isn't whether the technology is useful or helps us work faster,” Perlman said. "We should be asking whether, in automating so much, we're failing to develop the skills that help us find our voice — missing out on relationships and losing one of the most vital elements of art: its collaborative nature."
Researchers also presented emerging work on creativity and learning, including studies on human-computer interaction, music cognition, and AI-assisted art.
The afternoon shifted focus to students, with undergraduate presentations, capstone projects from students in the master’s in technology, people and policy program, posters, and a showcase of a new undergraduate course on AI and creativity developed by learning sciences doctoral student Ozivell Ecford.
Data Double Consciousness
Safiya Noble, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and author of the book Algorithms of Oppression, delivered the keynote, arguing that AI systems reflect and reinforce the same racism and inequality that have always existed in society.
Drawing on W.E.B. Du Bois’ concept of “double consciousness,” she introduced the idea of “data double consciousness” — the way data systems define and misrepresent people, especially those from underserved communities.
Noble pointed to concrete examples of AI bias, the exploitative global labor chain behind AI, and tech CEOs who openly admit their products cause harm.
She later performed a standup routine, bringing tech criticism into comedy. “It’s a way humanizing these conversations and translating our work,” she said. “We have to decide: will we be Photoshop editors or will we be people with second sight who bring an analysis and use art to transform these conversations, and in fact, leave people far more powerful than the tech industry wants us to be?”
Photos by Yancey Hughes and Lily Kellams