Very nicely argued. You might find the book "The Uncanny Muse" interesting - it goes into the history of new technologies enhancing art.
It's worth making a distinction between human artists using AI as part of their creative process and AI-generated art. I don't think many people object to the first. But if somebody just uses AI to generate something without any of their own input, is that even art? Doesn't art by its very nature require a human being (or conscious entity) trying to make a point about something? Current AI can't do that.
I understand where your are coming from, but I would like to push back on the idea that "art by its very nature require a human being (or conscious entity) trying to make a point about something". I would like to posit that no, art does not need to be created by human hands trying to make a point about anything.
Most people work from a very human-centered definition of art. However, bowerbirds build elaborate displays to attract a mate. Also, pufferfish create intricate geometric patterns in the sand for the same purpose. We often describe those as beautiful, even artistic, despite there being no conscious "statement" in the way we usually think about human art.
Think about Fractals.. they are stunning. Snowflakes. Also beautiful. We can all agree they are, and they are not created by a human hands wanting to share meaning.
History shows us that we've been remarkably inconsistent about what we consider "real art." For centuries, Western institutions elevated certain traditions—primarily European ones—while dismissing Indigenous, folk, craft, textile, and many other artistic traditions as somehow lesser. This is still happening. Those judgments often say as much about culture as they do about the work itself.
All this to say that I'm not convinced art has to carry an intentional message, or be created by a human, to have value or to be considered art.
Much of what we experience from art comes from the viewer as much as the creator. Rothko is one of my favorite examples. He painted large canvases with thin washes of of oils paints and egg over and over again to create a luminous canvases of color. This is abstract art at its finest. Many people stand in front of the same painting and come away with completely different emotional experiences. The meaning isn't always embedded by the artist; sometimes it's created in the relationship between the work and the person looking at it. Art is relational.
Humans like to .. well.. human. We really think we are the GOAT. And, so, we as humans desperately try to hold on to that by saying "human stuff good/real art --non human stuff bad/not real art" ( for the record, I do not think this is what you were trying to say at all)
I wonder what would happen if we approached this with more curiosity and open mindedness rather than fall for the conventional teaching that has been handed down and molded into people's perceptions of what is "Real Art".
Interesting perspective. It seems to open up the possibility that an AI, all on its own, could create meaningful art (even if it couldn't appreciate it, but we could).
But I think I would still want to push back on that. Isn't effort and a certain type of aesthetic appreciation required to produce art? I'm happy to call a bird nest art, on the assumption that there is something in the bird's brain as it builds the nest that that makes judgments about what to put where. (I don't know if this is a plausible thing to say about bird brains.) But I don't think a spider-web is art, because I don't think the spider is trying to make it look good And snowflakes are beautiful, yes, but that doesn't make them art. I would argue that a work of art has to be deliberately created for aesthetic reasons.
So if somebody could create a program that in some sense considered different possibilities as it created a painting or composed text or whatever it was building, and made choices based on aesthetic criteria, than that would be an AI that creates art. Current AI programs don't do that.
You make a good point about human artists using AI vs AI-generated art. I think the challenge is that the line between the two is murky. Most of what we'd call AI slop is still created by humans entering a prompt, so technically they did provide their own input, even if just barely. I think it's a question of degree, and I'm not sure there's a hard line where something transitions from slop to art. I was trying to imply as much by discussing it as lazy, but I think you put it much more succinctly.
Do you understand the inherently fascist underlying tone of this by attempting to dictate how people should like or dislike something ? There are no rules in art nevermind art criticism
I have no interest in dictating anyone's taste. You're welcome to hate AI art. My point is simply that some of the arguments people make against it don't hold up well under scrutiny. If someone dislikes a piece of AI art because it's lazy, deceptive, or unoriginal, I think those are perfectly reasonable criticisms. I'm just arguing we should judge the work by the same standards we apply to any other medium.
Really great article, by the way. I loved the points you made, and how you engaged with curiosity rather an absolutes.
Hi Aaron,
Very nicely argued. You might find the book "The Uncanny Muse" interesting - it goes into the history of new technologies enhancing art.
It's worth making a distinction between human artists using AI as part of their creative process and AI-generated art. I don't think many people object to the first. But if somebody just uses AI to generate something without any of their own input, is that even art? Doesn't art by its very nature require a human being (or conscious entity) trying to make a point about something? Current AI can't do that.
Mark
I understand where your are coming from, but I would like to push back on the idea that "art by its very nature require a human being (or conscious entity) trying to make a point about something". I would like to posit that no, art does not need to be created by human hands trying to make a point about anything.
Most people work from a very human-centered definition of art. However, bowerbirds build elaborate displays to attract a mate. Also, pufferfish create intricate geometric patterns in the sand for the same purpose. We often describe those as beautiful, even artistic, despite there being no conscious "statement" in the way we usually think about human art.
Think about Fractals.. they are stunning. Snowflakes. Also beautiful. We can all agree they are, and they are not created by a human hands wanting to share meaning.
History shows us that we've been remarkably inconsistent about what we consider "real art." For centuries, Western institutions elevated certain traditions—primarily European ones—while dismissing Indigenous, folk, craft, textile, and many other artistic traditions as somehow lesser. This is still happening. Those judgments often say as much about culture as they do about the work itself.
All this to say that I'm not convinced art has to carry an intentional message, or be created by a human, to have value or to be considered art.
Much of what we experience from art comes from the viewer as much as the creator. Rothko is one of my favorite examples. He painted large canvases with thin washes of of oils paints and egg over and over again to create a luminous canvases of color. This is abstract art at its finest. Many people stand in front of the same painting and come away with completely different emotional experiences. The meaning isn't always embedded by the artist; sometimes it's created in the relationship between the work and the person looking at it. Art is relational.
Humans like to .. well.. human. We really think we are the GOAT. And, so, we as humans desperately try to hold on to that by saying "human stuff good/real art --non human stuff bad/not real art" ( for the record, I do not think this is what you were trying to say at all)
I wonder what would happen if we approached this with more curiosity and open mindedness rather than fall for the conventional teaching that has been handed down and molded into people's perceptions of what is "Real Art".
Interesting perspective. It seems to open up the possibility that an AI, all on its own, could create meaningful art (even if it couldn't appreciate it, but we could).
But I think I would still want to push back on that. Isn't effort and a certain type of aesthetic appreciation required to produce art? I'm happy to call a bird nest art, on the assumption that there is something in the bird's brain as it builds the nest that that makes judgments about what to put where. (I don't know if this is a plausible thing to say about bird brains.) But I don't think a spider-web is art, because I don't think the spider is trying to make it look good And snowflakes are beautiful, yes, but that doesn't make them art. I would argue that a work of art has to be deliberately created for aesthetic reasons.
So if somebody could create a program that in some sense considered different possibilities as it created a painting or composed text or whatever it was building, and made choices based on aesthetic criteria, than that would be an AI that creates art. Current AI programs don't do that.
weaving and integrate
Thanks, Mark. I'll have to check the book out.
You make a good point about human artists using AI vs AI-generated art. I think the challenge is that the line between the two is murky. Most of what we'd call AI slop is still created by humans entering a prompt, so technically they did provide their own input, even if just barely. I think it's a question of degree, and I'm not sure there's a hard line where something transitions from slop to art. I was trying to imply as much by discussing it as lazy, but I think you put it much more succinctly.
Do you understand the inherently fascist underlying tone of this by attempting to dictate how people should like or dislike something ? There are no rules in art nevermind art criticism
I have no interest in dictating anyone's taste. You're welcome to hate AI art. My point is simply that some of the arguments people make against it don't hold up well under scrutiny. If someone dislikes a piece of AI art because it's lazy, deceptive, or unoriginal, I think those are perfectly reasonable criticisms. I'm just arguing we should judge the work by the same standards we apply to any other medium.
https://i.imgflip.com/7ppobf.png