Often, what makes art, art is attributed to humanity: intent, emotion, and sheer personality. Can art exist without this humanity?
Nowadays, we increasingly integrate technology into our daily lives, from scheduling and note-taking to surveillance and security. Some argue that A.I. cannot fully replace many fields, and among these irreplaceable areas resides art. Many believe that music, literature, and the like are impossible for an insentient being to fully replicate. However, to some, this has already happened.
In 2018, a piece of art created by A.I.—the “Portrait of Edmond Belamy”—sold for $432,500. This specific piece came after the A.I. was exposed to thousands of other portraits, gradually learning the different aesthetics. All in all, this artwork, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, was created from a formula—does that make it still art?
Utilizing A.I. to create art isn’t an unfamiliar topic; it has been occurring for at least fifty years. The results of this, though, are never consistent and always lack intent.
At least, that’s what some argue. Others propose that intent doesn’t lie in the specific product of art determined by the person (or intelligence) directly creating it—but rather in the process. The creative process itself allows for debatability in the definition of art, another subject altogether.
Further still is the A.I. that generates images to learn from, making it an almost autonomous, fully-functioning artist of its own. More often than not, when presented by A.I.-created art, viewers thought that pieces were produced from a living, breathing human being.
You can easily find guides online on how to create art using A.I., making this seemingly complicated process surprisingly simple.
So—is A.I. the tool used by the artist or the artist itself?
SOURCES
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/art-created-by-artificial-intelligence/
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist