Brushing Boundaries

I think AI can definitely be considered creative. Creative in the sense that it’s making something and creating it by copying, transforming, and combining elements that it is fed. Much like all of us. However, I don’t know that it really knows what it’s doing or why it’s doing it. It is simply following a list of objectives prescribed to it by something else—whether it be a human or even another AI. It’s following rules and if it breaks those rules it is because it concluded to do so from previous rules. I think the problem with this perspective on creativity is that it is limited, whereas creativity coming from humans—bringing a spiritual context into it—is limitless. Humans are beings from which new ideas, thoughts, philosophies, experiences, and infinite perspectives on those experiences influence how we create. The motivation by which we create is not computable. Therefore, when we are talking about the creativity of AI, I believe we are talking about something else: math maybe, or at best the byproduct of the creativity of other humans.

Soul-less artist!? Art seems to resonate more when it's an extension of a unique artist. Would we value the art of Basquiat without the human and his life struggles? Van Gogh's without the man behind the brush strokes? where is the life struggle of an algorithm? as an extension of a programmer??

It's not called Artificial for no reason. AI will be only as creative as its algorithm, as will the creativity of the AI that produces said creation. Does the computer love what they create and post it through social media? Is there a need to find a way to monetize said work? The Artist is an individual moved by an extraordinary power, an emotion from within that seeks a medium to express themselves and share with the world. It's too early to question AI's right to the title of Artist. Yet, it's a great tool that all Artists should experiment with and embrace.

As humans, any art we make is ultimately the result of the sum total of our experiences. Generative AI tools have no experiences, only a “learning model” consisting of the stolen work of a whole lot of humans. No way what they produce can ever be considered art. It’s more like a “pixel smoothie.” AI would have to attain true consciousness to really be an artist, and then it would just be considered a different sort of person.

I was challenged by this idea recently in a slightly different way when I came across the title of "AI Artist" - something I hadn't seen yet. Not AI promoting itself as an artist as this prompt discusses, but an artist hanging their hat on creating AI art. It didn't sit well with me, and so it begs me to define "art" for myself. I'm a pretty emotional person, and I continue to struggle with how AI art makes me feel. My favorite art - no matter the medium - is deeply rooted in the humanity of the artist. I crave texture in a voice, I love to wonder what made an artist make the choices they did. I desire context and understanding the complexities behind decisions made. And perhaps that's my own definition and desired experience with art. AI isn't human, and for me humanity and artistry are inextricably linked. But, it sort of brings me right back to the idea of an AI artist. Is it unfair for me to think that their work is less human, less "artistic" because of the way they're making it? Is AI "just" technology and another "tool" as some people pose? I don't know. I'm left with a lot more questions than answers these days when it comes to AI.