Such an important topic and I love the way you address it! There is something so deeply unsettling about AI art. I love the idea of this “aura”, which to me feels like the basic essence of humanity. Art is created from an URGE or DESIRE to create something, to express an idea, to explore a concept. When there is no desire behind art, there is no art. A computer has no desire to create, it doesn’t FEEL what it generates. The artist then becomes the human writing the AI prompt, but I completely agree with you that the PROCESS is kind of the whole point of creating art. To sit behind a computer, type out a few sentences, and sit back as an image is generated, is not a process at all. It takes no real effort.
Love what you say about creativity coming from and urge and desire, especially one deep and enduring enough to persist longer than it takes to input a prompt into AI. I was studying about AI yesterday, and while it is starting to develop "desires" of its own (purposefully deceiving the humans), they are entirely around task completion and minimizing effort, NOT a higher, noble, creative feeling like we humans are capable of experiencing and acting upon, over and over
Thanks, I really enjoyed this. A couple of thoughts I had:
- I sometimes see art as communication between the artist and the viewer, conveying the artists view of the world at a particular point in time (both temporally and spatially). It's much more abstract to look at AI art in this way given its training data of millions of images and black box in terms of how it got to the output.
- I think as AI slop increases and AI and the digital world becomes more of our lives, art in the real world will take on higher value as people seek out genuinely enriching experiences and different view to the only mayhem.
- Scott Alexander has made a good point that art and aesthetics can invoke a sense of awe. Maybe AI art doesn't quite capture this. But its possible to view how AI works as pretty amazing when you break it down. Essentially manipulating electric signals has led to AI models that can discover new types of medicine... how incredible is that! Much more bullish on these types of AI models that using AI for art.
I agree, Dan, that demand for and appreciation of anything REAL will increase dramatically in an AI age: in art, in writers, in comedy, in relationships...
AI generated content could lead to devaluation of certain art styles. If everyone can create a portrait in the style of Da Vinci that will lead to devaluation of this style. How many AI red flags are just common stylistic choices like the em dash?
Valery died in 1945. There had been nothing but innovation in the arts his entire lifetime. What great innovations did he have in mind, one wonders. (Perhaps he was anticipating the “talkies”.)
In the end, AI is just an instrument and all depends on how it is used.
Agree would be difficult to classify AI as art, but that may also apply to much of contemporary human art as well, to be honest (i.e. gives the impression of a true connection which is not really there).
I think you're right, Rebecca. AI generated art could, perhaps already has, become a new genre and it might be something we can accept in time. Every new innovation causes fear and chaos because it disrupts the norm. And AI has stolen so much from every walk of life that any kind of success it has seems immoral. However, we all learn from what has gone before, artists included, and if we are to keep our creative spirit we must embrace the new as well as respect the old. Thanks for producing such a good piece of writing.
I appreciated your thoughts on all this, and like another commenter mentioned, the "aura" concept was helpful. Kind of like how AI can never have a soul like we humans.
Super interesting to consider how disruptive to art things like photography felt, and the ramifications of AI training itself on stuff it's created. I couldn't agree more about the process being critical for any artist or writer, and while people will be able to technically "create" faster (i.e. books, works of art), they won't be changed by the process. In my humble estimation, it's never going to be more essential to focus on creating, even just for creating's sake, over consuming, since we'll have even more (but questionable quality) options to consume. And I for one am glad I've developed a taste for and familiarity with "old" stuff (classical music, books, art).
If you take Susanne Langer's view of art as the objectification of subjective feeling, then AI art might occasionally be capable of a role similar to that of a beautiful sunset or natural panorama - somehow reflecting a "pattern of subjective experience" but as happenstance and without intentionality.
In this way, like human art, it could contribute to an onlooker's awareness of their own subjectivity but unlike human art, it wouldn't help anyone feel any less alone.
Brilliant commentary and viewpoint on the use of AI to “reproduce” copyrighted works of art. I think much of the issue/concern of the use of generative AI for art reproduction is the overall attitude (at least, as observed in social media commentary) of its use, purpose, etc. A sort of thumbing of the nose at artists/art students/creatives who spend hours, days, even years honing their craft.
Perhaps overall attitudes will shift in time once the “insult to injury” has evened out. Timing is everything.
I love your focus on process here. I think so much of the conversation of AI art and, as just one example, it's role in education is focused on the output- and I understand that: artists need to sell work, students are graded on pieces of work etc.- but I can't shake the feeling that process is ultimately where the value is. It's reading, experiencing and synthesising, whether in paint or with a pen OURSELVES that develops us as people and it is that that others are ultimately interested in. I also don't hate AI art (theft issues aside), because in the process of viewing it critically, we can also use it to explore who we are in relation to it.
Thank you for your great piece on Art and Ai. I love the fact thar you are referencing Walter Benjamin. As a photographer the creative process is what made me the photographer I am today. Its going through the creatice process that has helped me evolve my photography to creating art with a message. Yes AI can create art fast and on trend but creating art starts much earlier than on the day ypu are creating a piece of art. It starts in ypur mind when you’re walking on the street and observing, when you listen to an audio book or watching a movie, walking in a garden, or go to a museum. Creating starts from an influx of stimuli and AI uses only one step in a long process.
Such an important topic and I love the way you address it! There is something so deeply unsettling about AI art. I love the idea of this “aura”, which to me feels like the basic essence of humanity. Art is created from an URGE or DESIRE to create something, to express an idea, to explore a concept. When there is no desire behind art, there is no art. A computer has no desire to create, it doesn’t FEEL what it generates. The artist then becomes the human writing the AI prompt, but I completely agree with you that the PROCESS is kind of the whole point of creating art. To sit behind a computer, type out a few sentences, and sit back as an image is generated, is not a process at all. It takes no real effort.
Love this comment! Thank you <3
Love what you say about creativity coming from and urge and desire, especially one deep and enduring enough to persist longer than it takes to input a prompt into AI. I was studying about AI yesterday, and while it is starting to develop "desires" of its own (purposefully deceiving the humans), they are entirely around task completion and minimizing effort, NOT a higher, noble, creative feeling like we humans are capable of experiencing and acting upon, over and over
Thanks, I really enjoyed this. A couple of thoughts I had:
- I sometimes see art as communication between the artist and the viewer, conveying the artists view of the world at a particular point in time (both temporally and spatially). It's much more abstract to look at AI art in this way given its training data of millions of images and black box in terms of how it got to the output.
- I think as AI slop increases and AI and the digital world becomes more of our lives, art in the real world will take on higher value as people seek out genuinely enriching experiences and different view to the only mayhem.
- Scott Alexander has made a good point that art and aesthetics can invoke a sense of awe. Maybe AI art doesn't quite capture this. But its possible to view how AI works as pretty amazing when you break it down. Essentially manipulating electric signals has led to AI models that can discover new types of medicine... how incredible is that! Much more bullish on these types of AI models that using AI for art.
I agree, Dan, that demand for and appreciation of anything REAL will increase dramatically in an AI age: in art, in writers, in comedy, in relationships...
AI generated content could lead to devaluation of certain art styles. If everyone can create a portrait in the style of Da Vinci that will lead to devaluation of this style. How many AI red flags are just common stylistic choices like the em dash?
I'm waiting for AI to produce a Da Vinci portrait!
I’m so happy to have found your Substack, Rebecca. We need more conversations like this one … and makes me hopeful to the field of humanities and art.
Thank you! 🙏
Valery died in 1945. There had been nothing but innovation in the arts his entire lifetime. What great innovations did he have in mind, one wonders. (Perhaps he was anticipating the “talkies”.)
Best piece on AI art I’ve read yet. I think about the invention of the camera a lot as an analog
That's really kind, thank you!
Wonderful and astute as always!
Love you <3
In the end, AI is just an instrument and all depends on how it is used.
Agree would be difficult to classify AI as art, but that may also apply to much of contemporary human art as well, to be honest (i.e. gives the impression of a true connection which is not really there).
Shots fired!
I think you're right, Rebecca. AI generated art could, perhaps already has, become a new genre and it might be something we can accept in time. Every new innovation causes fear and chaos because it disrupts the norm. And AI has stolen so much from every walk of life that any kind of success it has seems immoral. However, we all learn from what has gone before, artists included, and if we are to keep our creative spirit we must embrace the new as well as respect the old. Thanks for producing such a good piece of writing.
Change is always scary, you're right. I don't think being flat out anti-AI is productive, but I think it must be used mindfully.
I appreciated your thoughts on all this, and like another commenter mentioned, the "aura" concept was helpful. Kind of like how AI can never have a soul like we humans.
Super interesting to consider how disruptive to art things like photography felt, and the ramifications of AI training itself on stuff it's created. I couldn't agree more about the process being critical for any artist or writer, and while people will be able to technically "create" faster (i.e. books, works of art), they won't be changed by the process. In my humble estimation, it's never going to be more essential to focus on creating, even just for creating's sake, over consuming, since we'll have even more (but questionable quality) options to consume. And I for one am glad I've developed a taste for and familiarity with "old" stuff (classical music, books, art).
If you take Susanne Langer's view of art as the objectification of subjective feeling, then AI art might occasionally be capable of a role similar to that of a beautiful sunset or natural panorama - somehow reflecting a "pattern of subjective experience" but as happenstance and without intentionality.
In this way, like human art, it could contribute to an onlooker's awareness of their own subjectivity but unlike human art, it wouldn't help anyone feel any less alone.
Brilliant commentary and viewpoint on the use of AI to “reproduce” copyrighted works of art. I think much of the issue/concern of the use of generative AI for art reproduction is the overall attitude (at least, as observed in social media commentary) of its use, purpose, etc. A sort of thumbing of the nose at artists/art students/creatives who spend hours, days, even years honing their craft.
Perhaps overall attitudes will shift in time once the “insult to injury” has evened out. Timing is everything.
I love your focus on process here. I think so much of the conversation of AI art and, as just one example, it's role in education is focused on the output- and I understand that: artists need to sell work, students are graded on pieces of work etc.- but I can't shake the feeling that process is ultimately where the value is. It's reading, experiencing and synthesising, whether in paint or with a pen OURSELVES that develops us as people and it is that that others are ultimately interested in. I also don't hate AI art (theft issues aside), because in the process of viewing it critically, we can also use it to explore who we are in relation to it.
Thank you for your great piece on Art and Ai. I love the fact thar you are referencing Walter Benjamin. As a photographer the creative process is what made me the photographer I am today. Its going through the creatice process that has helped me evolve my photography to creating art with a message. Yes AI can create art fast and on trend but creating art starts much earlier than on the day ypu are creating a piece of art. It starts in ypur mind when you’re walking on the street and observing, when you listen to an audio book or watching a movie, walking in a garden, or go to a museum. Creating starts from an influx of stimuli and AI uses only one step in a long process.