Explainable AI (XAI) is concerned with how to make AI models more understandable to people. To date these explanations have predominantly been technocentric - mechanistic or productivity oriented. This paper introduces the Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) manifesto to provoke new ways of thinking about explainability and AI beyond technocentric discourses. Manifestos offer a means to communicate ideas, amplify unheard voices, and foster reflection on practice. To supports the co-creation and revision of the XAIxArts manifesto we combine a World Caf\'e style discussion format with a living manifesto to question four core themes: 1) Empowerment, Inclusion, and Fairness; 2) Valuing Artistic Practice; 3) Hacking and Glitches; and 4) Openness. Through our interactive living manifesto experience we invite participants to actively engage in shaping this XIAxArts vision within the CHI community and beyond.

This second international workshop on explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) brought together a community of researchers in HCI, Interaction Design, AI, explainable AI (XAI), and digital arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts. Workshop held at the 16th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C 2024), Chicago, USA.

This first international workshop on explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) brought together a community of researchers in HCI, Interaction Design, AI, explainable AI (XAI), and digital arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts. Workshop held at the 15th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C 2023).

The position paper highlights the range of concerns that are engulfed in the injunction of explainable artificial intelligence in art (XAIxArt). Through a series of quick sub-questions, it points towards the ambiguities concerning 'explanation' and the postpositivist tradition of 'relevant explanation'. Rejecting both 'explanation' and 'relevant explanation', the paper takes a stance that XAIxArt is a symptom of insecurity of the anthropocentric notion of art and a nostalgic desire to return to outmoded notions of authorship and human agency. To justify this stance, the paper makes a distinction between an ornamentation model of explanation to a model of explanation as sense-making.