The case against AI “art”
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve more than likely heard about Artificial Intelligence (AI).
In recent years, there’s been a surge in AI generated creations across various domains, including art. From generating paintings and music to crafting poetry and stories, AI algorithms are churning out massive amounts of so-called “creative” content. But can AI “art” truly be considered art?
In this post, I'll delve into the arguments against labelling AI art as art and explore the broader implications of this ongoing discussion.
Lack of Genuine Creativity
The first thing to consider is whether or not AI can employ genuine creativity.
Dictionary.com defines creativity as:
noun
the state or quality of being creative;
the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.
AI systems operate based on predefined algorithms and datasets. They analyze patterns and generate output based on learned information. So if they are using existing datasets they cannot logically be creating meaningful new ideas. They are simply rearranging data that already exists and on which they are trained. True HUMAN creativity involves a deeper level of understanding, emotion and intuition. Art and emotion in particular are inextricably linked, both from the artist’s perspective as well as the viewer.
Absence of Intention and Emotion
Generally, art is seen as a medium for expressing emotions, ideas, and perspectives. As artists, we infuse our creative works with intentionality, drawing from lived experience, cultural influences and philosophical insights. AI does not have lived experience. It relies purely on computational logic. I’ve had many heated debates with other visual artists who argue that they are making art simply because they create a detailed “prompt” – which their AI system of choice then uses to create an image. Essentially what they are admitting to with that statement is that they are a machine operator. They are directing a machine to produce a desired outcome. That bears no relation to transforming experience, emotion and understanding into a piece of art. Can a machine that does not have a heart or soul create anything that speaks to the heart and soul of a person? I don’t believe so. Its our humanity as artists that connects to the humanity of others.
Replication versus Innovation
AI is good at replicating existing styles and patterns. It does not innovate or make unique contributions to the world of art. As a result, so much of what is being churned out on AI systems (at least in the world of visual art with which I am most familiar) looks the same. Anyone who’s been on Etsy lately looking for wall art must have noticed the flood of AI generated “art” on the platform. Sadly this is leading to a lack of true originality and creativity.
Ethical Considerations
Another problem I personally have with AI generated art is that the systems were trained on existing art. This was done by scraping images from the Internet. And a huge amount of them were copyright images by living artists. If for no other reason, this makes the use of AI ethically questionable. Art produced by AI cannot be copyrighted, which speaks volumes to me about its legitimacy as an artform. Many self-styled AI “artists” claim they should be permitted to copyright their work while ignoring the fact that the AI system they’re using stole from other artists in the first place. Without that theft, there would be no system for them to use. So who REALLY owns the copyright? This is a legal minefield and only time will tell how its resolved.
The Lazy Person’s Guide to Art
Finally (and no doubt I will receive pushback for this one) I think the idea of “creating AI art” is just a cop-out. Its for people who can’t be bothered putting in the time and effort to master an artistic discipline. I read a comment recently about using AI which said something like “I can’t even draw a straight line, but AI has turned me into an artist”. Well, newsflash, you’re still not an artist. This may seem brutal, but this mentality is just sheer laziness. It takes hard work and years of dedication to truly master any art technique. There is no shortcut to reach a point where you know your tools and medium so well that you can focus purely on creating something unique. But in today’s “I want it now” world, the only thing that’s valued often seems to be speed.
After expressing my opinion recently that AI art was not art, I was asked was that not the same as people who, back at the advent of photography, argued that it was not art when compared to painting. However, I see this as a false equivalence. Photography is still the product of an artist’s lived experience. A photographer has to master their craft and you can instantly see the difference between the work of a master photographer and an amateur. Comparatively, there’s little skill in writing a computer prompt. If two people put exactly the same prompt into an AI system they’ll get very similar results.
Art, Soul and Divine Inspiration
While the debate is no doubt going to rage on for years to come, for me the idea of creating art is deeply connected to soul and how an artist sees the world. Does anyone really believe that the impact of a Monet painting (incidentally one of the most copied styles I’ve seen in the world of AI art) would be the same if he’d simply typed a command into a computer that said “paint a semi-abstract picture of a lily pond”? Is there any chance that AI will be the source of the next art movement? Unlikely, since most art movements throughout history have grown organically or resulted from a spark of inspiration in a creative mind. Art has evolved as artists pushed boundaries and sought new styles, new ways to express themselves, new ways to see and interpret the world around them. A machine that learns by copying and processing data cannot possibly do that. Although I’m sure there’s someone out there who will dispute that statement.
Which brings me to the final argument against AI art being true art….which is the question of divine inspiration. I daresay most artists would say that their inspiration comes from something greater than themselves. If you are a committed artist and show up each day and start working, there is a moment when you find yourself in the flow. Its called by many different names, but that sense of collaboration with a force beyond oneself is the heart of inspiration. The Divine speaks to us through art. That’s why we can see a piece of art and feel moved by it.
At the end of the day, everyone has to make their own decision about whether they consider something generated by a computer to constitute “art”. It becomes a question of why you buy art. Is it simply to hang a pretty picture on the wall, or is it because it speaks to your soul? And if does, would you feel differently about it if you learned that it had been created by a machine?