Leonel Moura is an ambassador for the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.
You grew up in the 1960s at a time of great change and innovation. How does the modern era compare to the creative energy of that period?
The sixties saw the emergence of a new social being which was almost non-existent until then: the teenager. With some money in our pockets, a will to make a difference and lots of irreverence, we made a significant contribution to change and in many ways shaped the society of today. Take for example the Internet. It is so free because it was built by the 1960s generation. Today most people take advantage of this platform for freedom and creativity.
How has technology changed your work?
The use of technology is not by itself meaningful when speaking of art. We must remember that art is by definition technological, a techné as the Greeks coined it. And a brush, for example, is also a technology, although it might seem rather primitive today. There is, though, a difference between common technologies and what we call the 'new technologies'. They are a medium that makes products but also more new media. They are essentially generative. In that sense, thanks to new technologies, my work has shifted from making art pieces to dealing directly with the processes of creativity.
Some critics argue that the information age has increased our rapid access to facts but that we may be becoming less critical and reflective. What are your thoughts on this?
That is a typical remark of those that are afraid of freedom. It is obvious, and historically proven, that it is the lack of information that makes people alienated and uncritical. Dictators know it very well by systematically using censorship. Information is essential to innovation. Otherwise we risk re-inventing the wheel.
You make robots that can create their own paintings. Is 'artificial creativity' capable of producing genuine independent innovations, or are robots only as inventive as their inventors?
I see artificial creativity as a stalk of artificial intelligence. Some machines can 'think', and some can also 'create'. I believe I have demonstrated that with my painting robots. The production of these robots is clearly independent from me, the human that triggers the process. They gather information on their own, resulting in an evident incorporation of new material that was not predetermined by the 'inventor'.
Your work brings together art and sciences. Do you think the division between these two cultures is artificial?
Art and science are two distinct forms of knowledge. The separation is a fact because science has established, throughout its history, a set of rules based on objectivity that is not present in art. But cooperation is possible and necessary as it can help innovation to emerge in both fields. I believe that the future of the arts has much to gain from the intersection with science.
You cite biologists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson as major influences. How have these scientific thinkers impacted upon your work?
When we want to generate artificial life, like my robots, it is very helpful to learn from those that have deeply studied life itself. Biology is a powerful source of new ideas and I was lucky to have access to the teachings of brilliant minds like Dawkins and Wilson. The latter has a seminal work on ants, whose behaviour is at the base of my creative machines.
Should artists become more entrepreneurial?
Artists are by essence very entrepreneurial. We create our own 'business', we invent an original product and, although it has no practical utility, we are able to sell it, sometimes for high prices. How much more entrepreneurial can you get?
Do you think a business-like approach to art is compatible with creativity?
Art is an example of human endeavour. The business aspects are strategic as we live in a market environment. But the chief purpose of an artist is to enhance and expand human vision.
