Is AI art "real" art

Jason Allen’s digitally generated “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” won first place in Colorado State Fair’s Fine Arts competition outcompeting 20 other artists. According to the Colorado newspaper, the two judges assigned to the category were not aware that Allen’s submission was in fact, AI (Artificial intelligence) generated – but they added it would not have changed their decision as they were looking for “how the art tells a story, how it invokes spirit”. Although the judges found the AI generated work thought provoking, there was a lot of backlash from the public and other fellow artists. Those in opposition to the verdict pointed out that the AI had no intent in creating a thought-evoking piece, since it used algorithms to follow prompts in order to generate an end result. Looking back at my trips to Le Louvre in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Seoul Museum of Art in Seoul, I recall thinking to myself, “What is ‘real’ art?” The concept of ‘art’ is by itself arbitrary and often misconstrued. Is the neighborhood geek standing next to a blank television, paying homage to Nam June Paik’s “Video Sculpture” (1993) an artist? What about someone who flaunts a used urinal with scribbled gibberish at the bottom recreating the duplicate of Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” (1917)? Definitions of ‘art’ and ‘artist’ escape social conventions and rules as people continue to explore the world with a myriad of perspectives shedding light on whatever that had been missed before. In this dynamic evolution of the art world, how legitimate of an art is the ‘AI’ art? Provided that ‘art’ is defined as ‘creative communication of emotion or a message to reveal new perspectives about the world’. Quoting from Tabuena, ‘art’ is about “expressing oneself and understanding the world” (Tabuena 1) where intellectual ideas are communicated through music, painting and sculpture. These ideas should transfer knowledge and perspectives “to educate, persuade, move, or broaden'' (Tabuena 1) the audience’s mind by expressing themselves”. According to Tabuena, ‘AI’ art certainly fits the criteria; Allen’s “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial '' allows the audience to unravel their imagination after perceiving the artist’s fictional depiction of the Space world. The piece is aesthetically beautiful, bringing forth creativity and a vision. Olga Robak, communications director for the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and Dagny McKinley, one of the judges for the Colorado State Fair’s Fine Arts competition agreed that the discussion on the piece hinges around that ‘AI’ is simply the medium and a tool for the artist’s expression, thus posing no problem at all as to whether the product should be considered ‘art’. Indeed, “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial '' was created by fine-tuning an artificial intelligence program called, “Mid Journey”, that produces images from text prompts. Allen claimed that he had invested more than “80+ hours into this project” fine-tuning with “900+images of this particular prompt”(DelSignore) to finally obtain the output that he wanted. The main reason that Allen’s piece was considered transformative was because the judges accepted that Allen was using AI simply as a ‘tool’ to deliver his own creative ideas.

Maybe not for Allen’s “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial '' which required the human touch, but what about ‘art’ that is entirely created by an ‘AI’ itself? Is this possible and if so, should this be considered as real ‘art’? The lack of intent, identity, and originality of AI art begs the question if AI art can truly be considered ‘legitimate’ art. It appears that it may not be possible for AI to generate ‘art’ since it does not have the willpower nor the mind to generate messages and perspectives on its own, since AI does not make a conscious decision of its own stemming from a carefully controlled intent. Nevertheless, evolving AI deep-learning technology casts doubt on such traditional ideas since ‘art’ is not a static entity. Interpretation of ‘art’ is constantly evolving with time and space; popular ‘art’ transforms with time and culture. Definition of ‘art’ changes with people, who reflect their society and environment. The audience “consumes and interacts with art, where ideas are acquired and communicated” (Tabuena 1), meaning that the potential of AI art as being art has yet to be re-defined. Although AI generated-art resembles artwork created by humans, AI does not have any intent while human artists have intent. Artistic intent entails controlled decisions of an artist who communicates a personal message to the audience. AI does not ‘think’ independently when generating an artwork, nor does it intend on “communicating” a message. AI simply processes an encoded algorithm entered by the programmer who writes a set of rules. For example, when the word “Picasso” is entered into the AI, it adapts its work to aesthetically resemble Picasso’s style. Through trial-and-error, the AI adapts its final artwork to suit the requirements of the user input. Such deep-learning techniques make the final result portray a facade that the AI is actually ‘thinking’ on its own because its actions and results are so ‘human-like’ and ‘natural’. Computer scientist Blake Lemoine has created advanced chatbots that can engage in such meaningful and philosophical conversations with the user, mimicking the natural human language.

In both cases of AI art and AI chatbot, in truth, the AI does not ‘intentionally’ nor ‘willingly’ produce the effects. Thus, they do not have any ‘intent’ in the way that human artists have. Many human artists portray their hopes and dreams, while projecting their belief system into their work. They create a montage of their emotions, desires and thoughts imbuing their productions with their unique personality. As such, artists create art to deliver a message that can influence others, by tapping into their emotions. Though each artist’s intention may vary from defending political views to self-expression, the common denominator between all artists is that no artist wishes to be ignored. The artist strives to bring changes in the physical world, whether it be one person at a time or a larger group of people or even the society as a whole.For example, Imagine by John Lennon encourages listeners to imagine a better world where social changes transform our environment into a more peaceful haven, free of conflicts resulting from religious antagonism between nations. Lennon’s best-selling single preaches world peace where people are free from conflicts and boundaries. Since music is a form of art that can dramatically affect emotion by affecting dopamine and the reward center, one could say Lennon’s intent of influencing people’s emotions and perspective was successfully delivered through the artwork. AI on the other hand, does not have such “intent” of its own to provide the audience with an emotional experience. There is limited control over AI and the controlled decisions of an artist show artistic intention. For example, one of the most prominent art AI, Midjourney, was given the prompt ‘cat cartoon.’ There were four different images created that only share the same style, cartoon, and the same subject, cat. Details are able to drastically change the outcome of the work. The subtle facial expression presented in Mona Lisa evokes a sense of enigma as the audience questions what she is thinking. Da Vinci put intent into this small detail, augmenting the painting and qualifying it as legitimate art. Every stroke of a painting and every thought that laces an artwork evince the very presence of artistic intent and consequently, legitimate art. Even if AI art evolves to such an extent that the end result is so meticulously crafted to the finest detail, AI art implies that some of the art is always generated by the AI and it is impossible to have full control over every detail while using an AI to create ‘art.’

Furthermore, it should be questioned whether AI art has an identity of its own, if we were to decide on its legitimacy. Identity of an artwork defines and projects the artist’s personal thoughts and background. Such intimate details create the very essence of artwork. Every individual is unique in that this identity differentiates him or her from others and in this sense, every artist displays his or her identity in the art as a form of self- expression. Although not all artists make a conscious decision to express their identity in art, all subconsciously display themselves through their style. For example, Persepolis written by Marjane Satrapi is an autobiographical manifestation of her childhood identity growing up under the oppressive Iranian government. The contemporary AI does not have the willpower to embody nor to express its identity in their work. Art AI may collage billions of ready-made getty images and previously established artworks but it can never originally create its own identity. AI maintains its reputation of being a tool; it is a game of combination and chances as conducted by mere neural networks embedded in the computer system. Though the end result of an artistic AI may well be excellent, the work misses the fundamental concept that art must always be a conscious projection of the artist’s identity.

It could be argued that although AI itself cannot create legitimate ‘art’ on its own, AI can be used as a strong tool for humans to create ‘art’. Sometimes people with good ideas do not have the ability to execute and delineate these ideas but through AI such expression becomes possible. Many people who would not be able to create good art such as people with disabilities can also access art owing to the advent of AI tools. Removing the technical barrier required in creating art grants a larger group of people the opportunity to share their ideas, leading to diversity. There is certainly room for more ideas as computer science continues to achieve great feats. For example, AI technology liaising with a program called "EagleEyes"allowed paralyzed individuals to have full control of a computer by using their eyes, allowing more to create art (Dazed). The development of AI art removes the physical barrier for the disabled, allowing anyone with a good idea to create an artistic piece. AI can be used as a viable and practical tool for expanding opportunities for art creation, transcending physical limitations for those who wish to freely and creatively communicate their ideas. AI can broaden the world of art for everyone and anyone.

The digitally generated Théâtre D’opéra Spatial was considered to be deeply thought evoking by the judges of the Colorado State Fair, who profusely praised its artistic value, though it was generated by an AI. The truth though, is that it was not really entirely “AI-generated”, as claimed by many sensational journal articles. It was Jason Allen, the artist who determined the output using AI as a tool. If ‘art’ is defined as a creative expression of personal message then Allen's piece illustrates that regardless of the medium or tool used, the central aspect of 'art' lies in its ability to convey ideas. Art can exist without an audience, but it cannot exist without the artistic intent, which is critically lacking if an AI were to generate art without any conscious human intervention. Intent is the core concept of art. The machine simply generates an image from the inputs.

Art is not static and is constantly evolving. The advent of AI that can interpret emotional intent (Myers 1) hints at the possibility that AI art may perhaps hold a different status in the world of arts in the future. The Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence by Panos Achlioptas in 2021 created an algorithm that can categorize artwork into eight emotional categories ranging from disgust to contentment. Visual art is recorded in movements. For example, people inhabiting the Renaissance period would not have even dreamt about accepting Cubism as ‘legitimate’ art. Humans may use AI as a tool to create legitimate art. While we may not view AI art as legitimate now, there may be a movement or stream of art called ‘AI art’ in the future as technology continues to evolve. . Art is about freedom of expression and requires a manifestation of the artist’s ‘soul’, which is exclusively achievable by human beings who can cognitively weave their own thoughts and emotions into a creative flow with ‘intent’. AI art cannot be considered legitimate as it haphazardly mixes different elements from past works and generates an image. Though humans may similarly ‘borrow’ inspiration from past works of other artists, their selection is completely intentional as the artist is completely self-aware. Whether it be a tongue-and-cheek re-interpretation of a bygone idea, or a collage of popular styles from the past, the artwork created by humans is inherently different from that created by the ‘AI’, in that humans can consciously decide on the discourse that they introduce to the audience, whereas the AI cannot.While the cutting-edge advancement of AI has surpassed human intelligence and other abilities in many aspects blurring the boundary between machines and humans, AI is not capable of producing ‘art’ per se. AI can never ‘want’ to consciously produce artwork on its own, unlike human beings. ‘Art’ is not about dazzling aesthetic beauty or impressionable revelations. ‘Art’ is an explosion of motivation. A desire to inspire others. And most importantly, an expression of willpower…the quintessential essence of what makes us human.