At Cardinal Keyboard day a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to observe a masterclass and lecture by Elizabeth Grace, M.M. Ms. Grace is an expert in the Taubman Approach, a holistic method of movement that attempts to eliminate tension that could cause injury, specifically for pianists. Dorothy Taubman (1917-2013) believed that “if playing the piano doesn’t feel delicious and euphoric, you’re doing something wrong,” and she studied anatomy thoroughly to develop a system of coordinate motion that would prevent injury before it began.

Ms. Grace discussed the principle of alignment (joints moving naturally as opposed to straining or moving in unhealthy ways) as well as stability vs. mobility (joints as systems of leverage that should be powerful and properly balanced but still able to move quickly) in her lecture, as well as addressing troublesome habits such as curling the fingers, twisting at the wrist, collapsing knuckle joints, stretching in unnatural ways, and isolating digits from the palm when playing the piano. Instead, she suggested some good methods for maintaining proper alignment, like sitting at the proper height and distance from the piano, using whole-body movement, and ensuring the torso, forearm, hand and fingers, and thumb remain aligned but not tense when practicing. She also recommended that pianists utilize techniques such as horizontal movement into the keys, confirming correct fingering, and taking mid-range notes with different hands, all of which should be noted on the score as best practice. 

If you or someone you know experiences pain or tension when playing piano or any instrument, please research the Taubman Approach for a helpful and holistic set of techniques to eliminate misalignment that could cause injury. We are often told as musicians that pain is just something that happens when you practice for long periods of time and should be ignored as a sign that your muscles are underdeveloped, and this is why many musicians suffer injury or near-injury before realizing that it’s not a lack of physical strength, but a lack of knowledge and technique causing the issue.

Through the past two years, artificial intelligence (AI) has threatened to replace every facet of humanity that it can. It has forced writers to change the way they write, teachers to change the way they write, and eliminated position after position in the real world. Yet AI has so far been unable to touch the performing arts sectors: we still need singers, instrumentalists, cast, crew, and the various things that make performances a form of art.

A new AI “actress,” Tilly Norwood, represents the first serious challenge.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that there’s no chance for AI to succeed in this area: the first film to be entirely written by generative AI—“Post Truth,” which released earlier this year—claimed to get a lot of press attention despite being an awful lot of nothing. Review aggregators Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes don’t list any reviews for the film. An AI film “starring” Norwood, “AI Commissioner,” similarly fell flat. A review from the Guardian described Norwood’s performance as “someone whose perfect teeth keep blurring into a single white block in their mouth” being used to “deliver sloppily written, woodenly delivered dialogue.”

Other forays into AI generated audio or performative art have similarly fallen flat. AI “rapper” FN Meka began using anti-Black language within two weeks of signing with CMG and subsequently got dropped by the label. The human behind the AI’s voice—it wasn’t just an AI after all—wasn’t fairly compensated for his work in the endeavor.

Norwood’s “existence,” if one can even call it that, represents serious ethical concerns. AI talent studio Xiocia is considering signing the computer program, a process usually reserved for flesh-and-blood actors. It is indeed quite telling that The Industry’s first foray into “AI talent” is not a normal kinda-okay-looking-if-you-squint actor. Instead, the first AI making the rounds with talent agencies claims to be a teenage or early twenties girl designed to steal eyes.

It should not surprise anyone that the first AI created for acting purposes is designed to be sexualized. Artificial intelligence programs are not designed to push back against their sexualization, as a human performer might do. Fiona Sturges of the Independent sums it up nicely: “Here is an actor who will not set unreasonable terms for her employment. She won’t insist on a script that passes the Bechdel test, or on financial parity with her male co-stars. There will be no need for insurance, or stunt safety, or intimacy coordinators.” I question Sturges’s use of the pronoun “she” for a computer program, but concede that people have been using these pronouns for other computer programs (e.g., Siri, Alexa).

This is the next logical move for AI businesses: use their infinite-content-generation-machine to sell sex, or things that look like it. OpenAI is actively loosening ethical standards and enabling users to generate AI “erotica for verified adults” (read: pornography). Deepfake technology already exists, and has been used to generate sexually explicit images of children. Grok has “spicy mode,” whatever that means. Adults have already tried to propose to ChatGPT’s voice chatbots even before it loosened erotic restrictions. 

If you’re an AI company looking to make a quick buck, exploiting human loneliness sounds like a great way to do that. You don’t even have to worry about regulation, because there isn’t any! (The Trump administration repealed Biden’s EO on safe AI.)

Artificial intelligence is a tool: when used properly, it can automate things that are tedious, or that humans don’t feel like doing. But it should not come at the cost of human interaction or involvement, and should be built with safety and informed consent in mind. I want an AI to fold my laundry so I can work on artistic pursuits, not the other way around.

I do not want Hollywood executives telling a computer program masquerading as a barely-adult “actress” how to behave. Humans make art; programs do not.

Pop and football fans alike were in for the shock of a lifetime last month when the nation’s sweethearts, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, announced that they were officially engaged. The creative caption used to encapsulate this moment was: your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married, and honestly, everybody was ecstatic. The relationship between the football star and the pop star began in the summer of 2023 and took the world by storm. 

Their romance began, as explained on the Travis’ and his brother, Jason, podcast New Heights, when the football player insisted on seeing Taylor at one of her concerts simply because he wanted to meet her. The original plan was for Travis to pass off a signature friendship bracelet, a tradition that became popular at Swift concerts, but instead he walked away with more than just a bracelet. According to Swift on the New Heights Podcast, the football star was enchanted to meet her and blurted out, “I want to date you,” and the rest was history.

Their relationship immediately after the concert took over social media and NFL coverage alike with Swifties losing their minds every time the two were spotted in public. Fast-forward two years after their first meeting and the fan-based dream came true. The proposal took place in a beautiful garden located in Lee’s Summit, Missouri and looked as dreamy as one of Taylor’s Eras Tour performances. Flowers surrounded the couple as Travis got on one knee and popped the question. 

The antique ring was an elongated cushion-cut diamond and was handcrafted in 18k gold. No official price for the ring has been discussed, but in an article published by author Brides Benjamin Khordipou, at Estate Diamond Jewellery, estimated the piece to be around $550,000. This ring was just the beginning of the world’s speculations about the wedding. The theories for the wedding dresses, bridesmaids and future drama are the hot topic of gossip sites, even though the couple hasn’t even been engaged a full month.

The leading theory is that the couple will participate in an intimate ceremony with the hopes of not drawing attention. However the question remains: will this be possible with the wedding being the most anticipated event of the year? Many are beginning to refer to it as the American version of a royal wedding, and it doesn’t seem too far from the truth. As Swifit’s song is titled, this relationship is truly “So Highschool” in the sense that it’s a classic love story from start to finish, and fans can’t wait to see what happens next. 

Photo by Kristina Gadeikyte via Uplash.

When we talk about colonization, we usually focus on land, armies and political control. But Great Britain’s empire-building wasn’t limited to geography. It also involved the mass appropriation of art and cultural heritage. Much of that legacy is still sitting in British museums today, far from the communities that created it.

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as Britain expanded across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, it also collected, or more accurately, took an enormous amount of art. Religious relics, royal treasures, sculptures, and manuscripts were removed from colonized nations, often through violence, coercion or exploitation. These objects were shipped back to London and celebrated as symbols of Britain’s supposed cultural superiority.

The British Museum stands as the clearest example of this legacy. Established in 1753, it houses millions of artifacts from around the world, many of which arrived during the peak of imperial expansion. One of the most famous (and controversial) cases is the Elgin Marbles, taken from the Parthenon in Greece by Lord Elgin in the early 1800s. Despite decades of requests from Greece, the marbles remain in London. The story is similar for the Rosetta Stone, which Britain seized from Egypt after defeating Napoleon’s forces in 1799.

Britain’s colonization of art wasn’t just about taking objects. It was about reshaping narratives of culture and civilization. Non-Western art was often exhibited as anthropology rather than high art. African sculptures, Indigenous American artifacts and Asian ceramics were categorized as curiosities, reinforcing racist ideas about Western superiority and “primitive” others. This practice didn’t just misrepresent the art itself; it actively undermined the cultures that produced it.

While some institutions, like the Horniman Museum in London, have begun making small steps toward restitution, many, including the British Museum, have remained resistant, often citing legal barriers or claiming that the artifacts are part of global heritage. But critics argue that real global heritage cannot be built on theft and denial.

Art is not just decorative. It is deeply tied to history, memory, and identity. Keeping these works in British institutions without consent perpetuates the very inequalities created by the Empire. Britain’s colonization of art didn’t end when the Empire did; it is still happening in how museums display, narrate and justify possession today.