L4 - AI Art Flashcards
Describe the romantic / objective criteria / conventionalist view of art.
Describe and explain whether and how, according to this view…
a. … AI-generated works can be art.
b. … AI can be artists.
The romantic view of art sees a work of art as an artistic expression of inner states be it emotions, feeling etc. The meaning of the work is fixed by the expressive intention of the artist. According to this view, AI-generated works are art only in the case that humans are involved. Thus, AI cannot be an artist because it is not creative, has no intention because it merely simulates this.
The “objective criteria” view says that a work is art when it has aesthetic features (beautiful, surprising, realistic,…) regardless of how they came to be. The objective criteria view holds that art is defined by measurable qualities like creativity, skill, and adherence to cultural conventions. AI-generated works can be considered art if they exhibit creativity, emotional impact, and aesthetic value, meeting the recognized criteria within the artistic community. AI can be deemed artists if they demonstrate creativity, skill, and expression in a manner accepted by the cultural and artistic community. Recognition as artists depends on societal acceptance of their contributions.
The conventonalist view states that an artwork is art if it accepted/perceived as such by the artworld: relevant art institutions and people who are seen as authorities. AI work is art if it is accepted and presented as such. AI can be an artist if they are perceived (and credited) as such.
You could also be asked to analyse a specific work of art based on one or more of these three views of art (romantic / objective criteria / conventionalist)
*Picture in answer sheet
Explain why the controversy surrounding whether AI-generated images can be art is often compared to the early controversy on whether photography can be art. How are these comparable? And do you personally think this comparison is apt? Explain why (not).
- Mechanical Reproduction: Both AI-generated images and photography involve mechanical processes. In the early days of photography, critics questioned its artistic merit because it relied on a machine (the camera) rather than direct human craftsmanship. Similarly, AI generates images algorithmically, prompting similar skepticism about the role of human creativity.
- Shift in Paradigm: The introduction of both photography and AI-generated images challenged established artistic norms. They pushed the boundaries of traditional artistic creation and representation, leading to a reevaluation of what constitutes art.
- Role of the Artist: In both cases, there’s a reconsideration of the artist’s role. Early photography raised questions about the photographer’s influence, as the camera captured reality without direct human intervention. Similarly, AI-generated art challenges traditional notions of authorship, as algorithms play a significant role in the creative process.
I personally think that one cannot compare the mechanical practice of photography to the algorithmic AI generations. The camera is still in the hands of the human that is pushing the trigger and pointed at a desirable angle at a certain point in time. With AI art one cannot see what will come out as it is a black box procedure and not so much created through the eye of the artist.
Philosophers often discuss whether AI is a tool, an author, or a co-creator in art creation. Which one do you believe is the most correct? Explain your answer and support it by giving one argument for your choice, and one argument against each of the options you did not pick.
There are three main ways in which to label the authorship of AI: as a tool, an author or a co-creator.
AI as a tool is an instrumentalist view of labeling the AI. Technology is merely a tool that generates the image in the service of the human, who had a goal, a concept and an image in mind and had the general goal of creating the work of art. AI is a neutral instrument, used to reach a pre-established goal. I do not support this view and an argument is that AI does transcends toolhood because what it does is not merely causally related to the artist’s intentions/actions. It is not just passive, as seen when AI is trying to represent “hands”, but is not able to so even with the artists intentions.
The second view is AI as an author, that basically extends and enhances the user’s creativity. The artist and AI created the image, with the argument that the agency of the author is improved. An argument that I want to present against that is just the fact that AI is never just a mere extension or enhancement of what was already there. Different things are done/created, which wouldn’t have been done/created without AI. For example the author wanted the salmon fish in the water, and AI created a piece where there is an actual piece of salmon in the water, which was not the artists intention.
The last view is AI a co-author or quasi-other. The appears as another, living being as like an artist’s assistant. It is providing artistically relevant labor that is not itself necessarily aesthetically creative. It is not bringing any creativity per se, but relevant to production process in a mechanical/technical way, by acting out instructions. While AI may lack the subjective, emotional, or conceptual depth associated with human creativity, its proficiency in handling technical aspects contributes significantly to the overall artistic production. As a quasi-other or co-author, AI serves as a valuable tool in the artist’s toolkit, augmenting and enhancing the creative workflow by handling mechanical and technical tasks, allowing human artists to focus more on the conceptual and expressive aspects of their work.
Trujillo states: “We should accept AI-generated art as art for the very same reasons that we accept some of the most famous pieces in art history as art.”
a. Explain what he means by this, using the example of at least one work that was historically accepted as art, and is comparable to AI art according to Trujillo.
According to Trujilo, academic work about AI art often misses the point by focusing on intention. It is less important to focus on the “Mind of the AI program and more important to compare AI-generate art to works we already praise, which is a conventionalist view of art. An example is ready-made art e.g. Duchamps fountain, that uses already available material and Trujillo raises the question how it differs from AI using existing materials. Another example is the conceptual artwork from Kosuth “One and Three Chairs”, where he just gave instructions on how to set up the artwork, meaning the artwork was the idea, not the material execution. Trujillo raises the question how that differs from giving AI prompts based on a good idea you have.
Do you think Trujillo’s comparison makes sense? Explain why (not).
I can see where Trujillo is coming from, but I disagree with the intent of the comparisons between readymade, conceptual art, photography and AI. Trujillo states with these comparisons that AI art is no less revolutionary than any of these art styles and I have to disagree. There is much more depth to these comparisons that Trujillo does not bring up.
Firstly, the Lack of Conscious Intent: AI lacks conscious intent and genuine subjective experience. Unlike artists who bring their thoughts, emotions, and intent into their creations, AI operates based on algorithms and data patterns. Some argue that this lack of genuine intentionality diminishes the depth and meaning associated with traditional art forms.
Secondly, the limited Understanding of Context. AI may struggle to grasp the rich contextual and cultural nuances that human artists embed in their works. Traditional art often reflects the socio-cultural and historical contexts, while AI-generated art may lack a deep understanding of these elements, leading to a potential loss of the profound meaning found in traditional forms.
