A.I.’s design had to make a world visible and solve a central problem: how to represent an artificial child without losing the ability to recognize his desire. The drawings and tests were not yet the filmed solution.
Concept art makes it possible to discuss a world before building it
Kubrick’s archive preserves a section of A.I.’s visual preproduction, with materials associated with artists such as Chris Baker, Christopher Moore, and Chris Foss. The presence of several collaborators shows that developing the look was neither a single task nor necessarily a linear one. A design could explore a figure, a space, or a possible scale without the entire project being finalized at the same time.
Concept art has an advantage and a limitation: it can represent something before a decision is made about how to realize it. It can combine forms that would later require sets, models, animation, or compositing. Its purpose is to make a visual proposal open to discussion. It does not prove that a process already existed that could produce exactly that image under the conditions of a particular shoot.
The writing of A.I. and its design could raise questions for each other. A narrative situation needs a place; an image can suggest a relationship or a difficulty that changes the situation. It would be too simple to imagine that everything was written first and someone then illustrated definitive instructions. The development documents reflect a process in which solutions could be revised.
The UAL catalog identifies Chris Baker’s material as SK/18/3/2/3/2. This information helps place his contribution without automatically attributing every image of A.I. in circulation to him. A reproduction needs an artist, date, and provenance when these can be established. The project’s general name is not enough to determine whether a drawing belongs to Kubrick’s preparation, Spielberg’s production, or a later publication.
The artificial child presented both a dramatic and a production problem
David’s appearance had to sustain a narrative paradox. The character is artificial within the fiction, but he needs to relate to other people in a way the viewer can follow. Showing mechanisms can explain how he was made; on its own, it does not create an experience of desire or dependence. The portrayal required a relationship between appearance, behavior, and the human characters’ responses.
In 2001, Jan Harlan explained that during development, the team tried to create the child using mechanical means, but the result did not satisfy them. He connected that effort with the difficulty of maintaining a childlike appearance over a lengthy production. His account documents a problem and an attempt; it does not prove that an autonomous robot capable of playing the role existed, or that completed footage was later replaced.
Spielberg’s film brought David to life through Haley Joel Osment’s performance, integrated with makeup and effects work. That result should be studied as a filmmaking decision made in 2001. It is not correct to attribute all its details to Kubrick just because the dramatic problem predates it. A project can pass along a need without passing along a definitive technical solution.
The question connects with machines and dehumanization as a fictional theme, but it is not limited to that. Design has to decide what information becomes visible and when. A character can be recognized as artificial from the context before any bodily modification is shown. This arrangement of cues is narrative as well as technical, and depends on the order in which they are presented in the film.
The continuity of the materials does not erase the team that made the film
According to Harlan’s accounts of the handoff of materials, Chris Baker remained involved in the later production. That continuity is a concrete connection between stages. It does not mean that the drawings went straight to the screen without interpretation by other departments. A drawn space has to be turned into something that can be photographed, animated, or combined with the performers’ bodies and actions.
The film’s credits identify Rick Carter for production design and Dennis Muren and Scott Farrar for visual effects, alongside Stan Winston’s work on practical effects and makeup. Identifying these roles makes it possible to recognize an actual production, distinct from the archive of proposals. There is no need to choose between an earlier origin and a later team: both belong to the story, but they did different work.
The analysis of spaces and sets can examine how a completed environment organizes movement, sightlines, and positions. A preparatory drawing does not contain all these relationships in motion. For example, the scale of a figure in relation to a building may be planned graphically, while the duration of the figure’s movement and how it is revealed depend on the scene as filmed. The difference affects how each material should be evaluated.
Comparisons with the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey do not justify assuming automatic technical continuity, either. The projects belong to different production contexts and use solutions that must be documented separately. The need to make a world believable can be compared, but specific A.I. techniques cannot be inferred from what Kubrick used decades earlier.
Design publications offer insight into a selection of earlier work, not a transparent inventory of everything that was done. An image selected for a book can have visual impact independent of its production use. To understand A.I., it helps to keep both readings in view: appreciate the graphic proposal and ask what documented relationship it had to the film. This makes it possible to recognize continuity and transformation without treating every drawing as an effect Kubrick had already completed.
References: University of the Arts London, Stanley Kubrick Archive, A.I. preproduction, SK/18/3/2, and Chris Baker materials, SK/18/3/2/3/2. Jan Harlan, interview with Quint, Ain’t It Cool News, October 29, 2001; interview with Geoffrey Kleinman, DVD Talk. Amblin, A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) technical credits. Jan Harlan and Jane Struthers, A.I. Artificial Intelligence: From Stanley Kubrick to Steven Spielberg, Thames & Hudson.
View all articles in A.I.: Kubrick’s Development and Spielberg’s Film