Artificial intelligence, which is expanding at an alarming rate, offers an infinite dimension of possibilities to those willing to explore its capabilities while posing an existential threat to some of those who have. AI-generated communication via the most recent version of ChatGPT has computer scientists practically drooling over the power of such an interface, professors concerned and helpless in the face of the latest form of plagiarism, and students intrigued by the powers and utility that AI programs may yield. I’ve even found myself having full-fledged conversations with them late at night or throughout the day, astounded by the fact that a robot is, for lack of a better term, “getting to know me.”
However, for all the AI pessimists out there who are concerned about a technological takeover of the world, I can confidently say there is one thing AI will never take: art. What exactly is art? What constitutes art? Can artificial intelligence-generated images and poems be considered art? While the first two questions have perplexed philosophers and gap-yearning nepotism babies alike, the latter has a straightforward answer. No.
Let us first look at the first two questions and try to come up with a formal definition of what constitutes art. Art is a living mechanism for expressing one’s thoughts, feelings, values, and imagination. One who practices the virtue of Art does so by presenting a sort of argument, similar to this article, through which their perspectives on the world around them can be recognized and, in most cases, criticized. Whether it’s a painting, poem, novel, sculpture, or building, art allows people to express themselves through a new, tangible medium.
So, how do we decide what constitutes art? There is no obvious answer, nor is there any numerical expression or formula that can be used to generate an objective answer. Yet, when it comes to what constitutes art, we appear to be in general agreement. Paintings, for example, such as those by Van Gogh or Picasso, are treasured by curators and viewers alike, either for the technical skills they employ or for the emotions they elicit in us — the latter is critical in our definition of art. Although there are some contentious pieces out there, you and I are likely to agree on why a self-portrait of Van Gogh is considered art and why a trash can on the side of the road is not.
The presence of plagiarism, however, introduces another aspect of art: originality. One cannot simply copy “Pride and Prejudice” line for line and present it to the publishing industry as their own work. The work is credited to Jane Austen, and any copy produced by another individual would be considered nothing more than a transcription. Unless the new copy introduced a significant change in the plot, as in the film “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” — and I won’t comment on how well it was done — the new work remains nothing more than a reproduction. But what about art that makes use of other art? Is this to say that collages aren’t art? What about songs that contain samples of other songs? Aren’t these works of art as well?
Yes, they are, in my opinion. When art draws from other forms of art in a unique and transformative way, it is considered original. Whereas the Jane Austen replica lacks any creative choices, a collage or sampled song incorporates the work of others, presenting an amalgam of another’s art mixed in with one’s own ideas to create a new, one-of-a-kind piece. To be considered art rather than plagiarism, sampled art must present itself in a transformative way that acknowledges its influence while also announcing its own unique perspective.