Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She Represents Data.
The risk technology poses to human creative expression took another step closer this week with the appearance of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the pioneer completely synthesized by artificial intelligence. Unsurprisingly, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner caused an outcry. The film was called “terrifying” by Emily Blunt while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.
Numerous issues surround Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. But the more serious point is that her face has been made from those of real actors without their knowledge or consent. Her playful premiere obscures the truth that she is part of a new model of media production that rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws overseeing artists and their creations.
Tinseltown has foreseen Norwood's debut for years. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and the 2013 production The Congress, featuring a veteran star being digitally captured by her production company, proved strikingly prophetic. Last year’s body horror The Substance, starring Demi Moore as a waning celebrity who spawns a younger clone, also ridiculed Hollywood's preoccupation with young age and good looks. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
The maker of Norwood, performer and author Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, rather “an artistic creation”, describing AI as a new tool, like a paintbrush. According to its advocates, AI will democratise film, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, all creative revolutions have been feared and reviled. There wasn’t always an Oscar for visual effects, after all. Plus, AI is already integrated into cinema, notably in animated and science fiction categories. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist and Emilia Perez – used AI to enhance voices. Deceased performers such as Carrie Fisher have been revived for after-death appearances.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike resulted in a partial victory against the use of AI. And although top stars' opinions on Norwood have received broad coverage, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – supporting and voice artists, beauticians and production staff.
AI thespians are a sure result of a world saturated with online trash, surgical enhancements and falsehood. Currently, Norwood cannot perform or engage. She lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She is not “art” either; she is data. The human connection is the true magic of movies, and that is impossible to fabricate artificially. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We do not want perfect vibes.
However, although alerts that Norwood poses a wide-eyed danger to cinema may be overblown, for now at least, that isn't to say there are no threats. Regulations are delayed and cumbersome, even as tech evolves rapidly. Further measures are needed to defend artists and cinematic staff, and the value of human creativity.
