KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 45 Sayı: 2

Engineering Art-ificial Intelligence in Music Production: Art for Engineers, Engineers for Art

Borabay Erbay(İZMİR EKONOMİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5744-1638
Emin Baki Adaş(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9360-5804
Sayfa
734–764
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Second, it critically evaluates how this process of co-creativity reproduces social forces such as capitalism, imperialism and colonialism.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study investigates how software engineers working on music AI systems conceptualize music, art, and creativity, and how they integrate artificial intelligence (AI) as a co-creator in music composition processes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Drawing on 35 in-depth interviews with engineers based in the USA and Türkiye, the research explores the values, assumptions, and interpretive frameworks that shape their technical and aesthetic practices.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Second, it critically evaluates how this process of co-creativity reproduces social forces such as capitalism, imperialism and colonialism.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Music · Co-Creativity · Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

This study investigates how software engineers working on music AI systems conceptualize music, art, and creativity, and how they integrate artificial intelligence (AI) as a co-creator in music composition processes. Drawing on 35 in-depth interviews with engineers based in the USA and Türkiye, the research explores the values, assumptions, and interpretive frameworks that shape their technical and aesthetic practices. Findings reveal that while engineers often frame AI solely in computational terms, they tend to frame artistic creativity as a quality accessible only to human beings, positioning the human as the creative force in music as an artistic field and juxtaposing AI as a collaborative tool that can be utilized to unleash musical creativity in previously unexplored ways, which represents a new, hybrid form of artistic creativity. However, this collaboration is mediated by engineers’ own worldviews, which are often shaped by technocentric, efficiency-driven logics that position AI as a means, leading to a blind faith in technology and ignoring the social forces such as capitalism, imperialism and colonialism embedded in AI. The contribution of this study to the sociology of AI literature is twofold. First, by emphasizing how cultural imaginaries of art and music are being reshaped in the co-production of music, the study provides an understanding of music as a form of art created through human-machine interactions. Second, it critically evaluates how this process of co-creativity reproduces social forces such as capitalism, imperialism and colonialism.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Erbay, B., Adaş, E. B. (2025). Engineering Art-ificial Intelligence in Music Production: Art for Engineers, Engineers for Art. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 45 Sayı: 2, 734–764. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2025.45.2.0902

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (74)

  1. Acemoğlu, D., & Johnson, S. (2022). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. New York: PublicAffairs. google scholar
  2. Adorno, T. W. (1997). Aesthetic theory (R. Hullot-Kentor, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1970) google scholar
  3. Amerika, M. (2011). remixthebook. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. google scholar
  4. Anantrasirichai, P., & Bull, D. R. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in the creative industries: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1), 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7 google scholar
  5. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published ca. 350 BCE) google scholar
  6. Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author (S. Heath, Trans.). In R. Barthes, Image–Music–Text (pp. 142–148). London: Fontana Press. (Original work published 1967) google scholar
  7. Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. USA: University of California Press. google scholar
  8. Bellanova, R., & de Goede, M. (2022). The algorithmic regulation of security: An infrastructural perspective. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12338 google scholar
  9. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. UK: Polity Press. google scholar
  10. Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.). New York: Henry Holt and Company. google scholar
  11. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Routledge. google scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature (R. Johnson, Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
  14. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008. google scholar
  15. Briot, J.-P., Hadjeres, G., & Pachet, F.-D. (2019). Deep learning techniques for music generation – A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(1), 1–35. google scholar
  16. Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. USA: MIT Press. google scholar
  17. Bucciarrelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. USA: MIT Press. google scholar
  18. Casey, M. A., Veltkamp, R. C., Goto, M., Leman, M., Rhodes, C., & Slaney, M. (2008). Content-based music information retrieval: Current directions and future challenges. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(4), 668–696. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2008.916370 google scholar
  19. Casilli, A. (2025). Waiting for robots: The hired hands of automation. USA: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
  20. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. google scholar
  21. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. google scholar
  22. Danto, A. (1964). The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571–584. doi:10.2307/2022937 google scholar
  23. Davis, N. (2013). Human-computer co-creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. In Doctoral consortium at the ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment (AIIDE 2013), 1-12. google scholar
  24. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. google scholar
  25. Devon, R. (2004). Engineering education and the social. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 87–94. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00790.x google scholar
  26. Dhariwal, P., & Jun, H. (2020). Jukebox: A generative model for music. OpenAI Blog. Retrieved from https://openai.com/blog/jukebox google scholar
  27. Downie, J. S. (2003). Music information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 295–340. doi:10.1002/aris.1440370108 google scholar
  28. Durkheim, E. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published in 1912) google scholar
  29. Dyer-Witheford, N., Kjøsen, A. M., & Steinhoff, J. (2019). Inhuman power: Artificial intelligence and the future of capitalism. London: Pluto Press. google scholar
  30. Ekbia, H. R. (2018). Heteromation and other stories of computing and capitalism. In H. R. Ekbia & B. Nardi (Eds.), Heteromation, and other stories of computing and capitalism (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  31. Elias, N. (1993). Mozart: Sociology of a genius (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published 1969) google scholar
  32. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press. google scholar
  33. Erbay, B., & Adaş, E. B. (2024). Exploring perceptions of algorithmic bias among software engineers: A case study of software engineers in İzmir, Türkiye. Sociology of Science and Technology, 15(4), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.24412/2079-0910-2024-4-142-162 google scholar
  34. Erbay, B., & Joyce, K. (2025). Opening the black box of AI: A sociological study of AI as a network. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 71, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2024-1467424 google scholar
  35. Ford, M. (2015). The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic Books. google scholar
  36. Fujita, M. (2017). Towards posthuman creativity: Artificial intelligence and co-creativity in digital music. Journal of Creative Music Systems, 2(1). Retrieved from https://jcms.org.uk/ google scholar
  37. Galanter, P. (2016). Generative art theory. In C. Paul (Ed.), A companion to digital art (pp. 146–180). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118475249.ch5 google scholar
  38. Goetze, T. S. (2024). AI art is theft: Labour, extraction, and exploitation [Conference presentation]. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24) (pp. 186–196). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658898 google scholar
  39. Graham, G. (1997). Philosophy of the arts: An introduction to aesthetics (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. google scholar
  40. Gray, M. L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. google scholar
  41. Hall, S. (1992). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128–138). Routledge. google scholar
  42. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
  43. Herremans, D., Chuan, C.-H., & Chew, E. (2017). A functional taxonomy of music generation systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(5), 1–30. google scholar
  44. Huang, M., Jin, M., & Li, N. (2024). Augmenting minds or automating skills: The differential role of human capital in generative AI’s impact on creative tasks. arXiv. google scholar
  45. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.03963 google scholar
  46. Jaton, F. (2020). The constitution of algorithms: Ground-truthing, programming, formulating. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  47. Joyce, K., Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S., Bell, S., Cruz, T., Hoffman, S. G., Noble, S. U., & Shestakofsky, B. (2021). Toward a sociology of AI: A call for research on inequalities and structural change. Socius, 7. 1-11. google scholar
  48. Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790) google scholar
  49. Katz, Y. (2020). Artificial whiteness: Politics and ideology in artificial intelligence. New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
  50. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  51. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  52. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self: A sociology of self-tracking. New York: Polity. google scholar
  53. Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. Sage Publications. google scholar
  54. Marx, K. (1978). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader (2nd ed., pp. 66–125). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work written 1844) google scholar
  55. McCormack, J., Gifford, T., & Hutchings, P. (2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 145–152). Association for Computational Creativity. google scholar
  56. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill. google scholar
  57. Moore, P. V. (2017). The quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. London: Routledge. google scholar
  58. Muldoon, J., & Wu, B.A (2023). Artificial intelligence in the colonial matrix of power. Philos. Technol. 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00687-8 google scholar
  59. Neff, G., & Nafus, D. (2016). Self-tracking. USA: MIT Press. google scholar
  60. Noble, D. F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Press. google scholar
  61. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: NYU Press. google scholar
  62. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown Publishing. google scholar
  63. Park, S. (2024). The work of art in the age of generative AI: Aura, liberation, and democratization. AI & Society, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01948-6 google scholar
  64. Plato. (1961). Ion. In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 215–228). Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Original work written ca. 375 BCE) google scholar
  65. Wagenaar, H. & Prainsack, B. (2021). The pandemic within: Policy making for a better world. Policy Press. google scholar
  66. Sadowski, J. (2020). Too smart: How digital capitalism is extracting data, controlling our lives, and taking over the world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  67. Schedl, M., Gómez, E., & Urbano, J. (2014). Music information retrieval: Recent developments and applications. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 8(2–3), 127–261. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000042 google scholar
  68. Schopenhauer, A. (1818). The world as will and representation (E. F. J. Payne, Trans., 1958). New York: Dover Publications. google scholar
  69. Seaver, N. (2019). Knowing algorithms. In J. Vertesi, D. Ribes, & G. C. Bowker (Eds.), DigitalSTS: A field guide for science & technology studies (pp. 412–422). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  70. Silverman, D. (2020). Interpreting qualitative data (6th ed.). Sage Publications. google scholar
  71. Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (S. Kalberg, Trans.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. (Original work published 1905) google scholar
  72. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  73. Wingström, R., Hautala, J., & Lundman, R. (2022). Redefining creativity in the era of AI? Perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2), 177-193. doi:10.1080/10400419.2022.2050569 google scholar
  74. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs. google scholar