Interview Summary
In this conversation, Ranbir Kaleka reflects on artificial intelligence as both a creative force and a profound social disruption. He acknowledges that machines can generate new ideas by connecting fields of knowledge beyond the reach of any single mind, yet questions what is lost when art no longer carries the risk, touch, and nervous energy of a human body. Moving from Buster Keaton’s death-defying stunts to the material presence of painting, Kaleka argues for the emotional power of lived experience. His deepest concern, however, is economic inequality: if AI displaces human labor, where will those already denied choice and opportunity stand within its emerging world?
There’s nobody in the world who is both the best physicist and the best chemist.Ranbir Kaleka
Where Do People Stand in the Matrix of AI? A Conversation with Ranbir Kaleka
Ariya: Can a machine genuinely discover something new if it is working from existing information and probability?
Ranbir Kaleka: It can, because it holds more knowledge than any one person can. There is nobody in the world who is both the best physicist and the best chemist. A system can contain the knowledge of both. When those fields meet, something may emerge that neither discipline could have reached alone. What emerges can be new.
Ariya: Does that change the role of the teacher, particularly in art?
Ranbir Kaleka: A teacher already has the power to damage a student. An art teacher can destroy a student by leaving them unable to think any further. If AI becomes the teacher, you do not have to follow everything it says. The danger begins when the student loses the ability to continue independently.
Ariya: If an AI-generated image showed a stunt more extraordinary than anything Buster Keaton performed, could it move you in the same way?
Ranbir Kaleka: No. Knowing it was generated would take something away from the experience. Buster Keaton gave me goosebumps because he performed his own stunts. He placed a real body at risk. He was going to get hurt. That knowledge puts you on edge. Without the possibility of injury, the spectacle may still be impressive, but it does not reach me in the same way.
Ariya: Would you feel differently about a sculpture designed or made with artificial intelligence?
Ranbir Kaleka: I would still feel closer to something shaped by a human hand. Those movements get captured in the object. They carry the record of a human being making decisions
Ariya: Could future generations stop caring whether an object was made by a person?
Ranbir Kaleka: Perhaps they could. Ways of seeing and valuing things change. But the physical presence of another person remains important. There is something in a handmade object that comes from the body, its hesitation, movement and touch
Ariya: Some people believe automation could create abundance. With universal basic income and fewer demands on their time, people might become more creative. Do you find that convincing?
Ranbir Kaleka: That argument overlooks the people who have no equality of choice or opportunity. There are people whose land is flooded. There are people living in poverty. Almost every Indian now has access to a device, but the algorithm increasingly controls their life.
What is to be done with the surplus of this humanity? Where do they stand in this matrix of AI? Creativity is the least of the ladder.
Ariya: Have you personally experienced the exploitation that digital technology can enable?
Ranbir Kaleka: Chinese websites photographed my artwork and sold it as prints. They displayed the work in staged interiors, first in a bedroom and then in a sitting room, with different prices according to size.
I asserted my rights, but I discovered that they had done the same thing to many artists. There was no practical way to engage with a company based in China. By then, they had made their money and disappeared.
Ariya: Has looking at art through screens changed the way people understand painting?
Ranbir Kaleka: I have seen critics who cannot read the painting. They can only read the image of the painting.
An image can illustrate the work, but a painting has a material presence. A screen removes that materiality. You can only experience it when the work is whole and physically in front of you.
I’ve seen critics who cannot read the painting. They can just read the image of the painting.Ranbir Kaleka
