Technology and photography
What about the AI algorithms themselves? Isn’t it that, rather than the artists, makes the artwork? Hearing statements like these, I can’t help but think of how photography has endured similar criticism.
Critics feared that the camera would kill art or make it too simple. However, photographs like Alexander Rodchenko’s The Stairs, Aaron Siskind’s Jerome, Arizona 21, or anything by Diane Arbus or David Lachapelle demonstrate how false it is. The subject matter, composition, and use of the tool are all as significant as the instrument itself.
Philosophers, critics, and art historians will undoubtedly engage in lengthy debates regarding AI art in the future. They will rehash stale debates about contemporary art, such as why your child could not have created what these artists accomplished. This is due to the fact that art often references to cultural ideals, connects with past works, or pushes art in new ways.
What happens next?
AI art is art in the same way that ready-mades, minimalist art, or photography are. The bulk of AI art may be awful or in poor taste, but so is most of what is written or sculpted in schools or studios. It is imprudent to ignore AI-generated art because of the plethora of terrible examples available. Sturgeon’s Law is applicable here: 90% of everything, even AI art, is garbage. However, the excellent works are just as good as conventional art pieces. And, although AI art generators are simple to use, they are difficult to master.
Furthermore, AI art fits under various definitions of art. According to philosophers Jerrold Levinson and Nol Carroll, art is created when individuals seek to make items that may be regarded as art and as part of art history. AI art generators generate pictures by examining and synthesizing art history and image collections larger than any human artist has ever utilized. And users must choose suggestions and visuals that they believe will help them achieve their aims. They are doing what conventional artists do by sharing these photos with others, submitting them in competitions, and beginning critical debates, and their work is being debated and critiqued in ways that are generally consistent with discourses of traditional art.
Take, for example, philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto, who famously claimed that anything is art if it is associated with the artworld. Artists create works of art, which are recognized by critics, examined by curators, and sold at auction houses. These are the actions of AI-generated pictures. They are presented in elite Chelsea galleries and sold at Christie’s auctions. Furthermore, the controversy surrounding Allen’s work generated discussions concerning this medium in art publications and newspapers. While there are other other ways to define art, the point is that most present definitions of art will be impossible to exclude works created by artists utilizing AI art generators.
Once we embrace AI-generated art as art, we will have a more intriguing future. Then we can get to the intriguing questions. Is the usage of AI-generated art a more severe form of Roland Barthes’ author’s death? How does it complicate Foucault’s ideas regarding the role of an author? Will AI-generated art democratize art while also creating new difficulties and political applications, as in the case of artwork reproduction? How we respond to these concerns has ramifications for key legal issues as well. A recent decision held that since AI-generated art lacks human originality, it cannot be protected by copyright. Artist Kris Kashtanova, on the other hand, got a copyright for their graphic book, which includes AI produced pictures, in September.
AI art is art, and it is as groundbreaking as ready-mades, conceptual art, and photography. The sooner we get over our first emotions to it, the sooner we can get to the intriguing, fresh concerns it poses.