In an artists’ Messenger group, the discussion (inevitably) turned to the legitimacy of A.I. output as “art.” This was my response, and it was the longest thing I’ve written in a while, so I figured I would repost it here to preserve it, with a couple of my comments down the thread.
This response was long enough that I composed it in Notepad to keep it all together before I posted it. We’re going deep, people.
What just about every conversation about the perils of A.I. deliberately dances around like an elephant-shaped centerpiece is the Big Question:
What Is Art, Anyway?
(First copout answer: It’s such an ingrained right-brain human thing that even trying to ask the question with left-brained language for left-brained analysis means that there’s no way the question can be answered in a way that satisfies the left brain. But that just short-circuits the discussion, and leaves people still dancing around the elephant.)
Is art the physical relic? If so, a cunning forgery is exactly equal to the original — and every copy of a digital work IS the original, in that there is nothing to privilege one physical object (or even more, the digital file) over another. (And if you bring up NFTs, I will slap you with a foul-smelling haddock.)
Is art the physical relic, insofar as it is the evidence of the artistic effort and intent? That explains some of the privilege for “originals,” but it leaves out three major trains of thought:
#1. Is something just as much “art” if it only appeals to the artist, and not to any audience? If so, then what makes “great” art? I mean we’ve just invalidated the audience’s assignment of value, so Lula Dollyrimple’s great acrylic ode to her cat Mr. Fuzzylumps is just as much “art” as any Rembrandt.
#2. What about photography, or assemblage and college, or “found art,” or any discipline which acknowledges its reliance on elements or objects which were not made with an artistic intent (if they were “made” at all)? The artifact is not entirely, or possibly not even overwhelmingly, the end result of an artistic intent; is the mere recontextualization by the intent-driven artist enough to transform the geologic tableau, or the Campbell’s Soup can, or the toilet seat into “art?”
#3. In the course of typing, I’ve forgotten the third train of thought. If I recall it before I’m done, none of you will ever see this note. If I don’t, I’ll leave this comment here as a reminder that all of this commentary is worth exactly what you paid for it.
And then there’s the other big bugaboo: The distinction between “fine art” and “illustration.” If the artistic relic/output is created for purposes other than pure self-expression — if its purpose is to [gasp] sell a product, like a paperback or a CD, is it not art?
Ah, but then, is any “fine art” whose impetus was to sell either itself or giclée prints and coffee mugs also adulterated by considerations of audience appeal? (By that metric, maybe Lula Dollyrimple is actually MORE of an “artist” than that hack Rembrandt.)
Let’s say, to keep this from going too far into the weeds (hey, nice weed, guys!), that every piece of “fine art” is adulterated by its creator’s consideration of curb appeal, even those pieces which serve no purpose but to impress the grant committee, and that the dividing line is just how much filthy audience appeal impinges upon “This above all, to thine own self be true” purity.
So. Let’s say that [artist in the group] paints a picture of a crow, because he felt like painting a crow. Elon Musk sees it, raves about it, and gives him a million bucks for it.
So [artist in the group], not being an idiot, PAINTS ANOTHER CROW.
Is the first crow “art,” and the second “pandering”? I’m sure that question would keep Sean up at night when he should be sleeping on a huge pile of money…
So. Now down to the initial question, about A.I. output.
Is it “art”? I don’t know, because the left brain still hasn’t come up with a workable definition.
Is it “illustration”? Well, yes, if it serves an external purpose of “must have a swordsman against a moonscape with a pet sheep because that’s what the book is about.” In which case, the A.I. “artist” is more like an art director, soliciting raw content and judging it for suitability.
I don’t know that I have a point, but one point: I don’t know that “art” was ever definable, but it certainly can’t be retroactively defined at the point in our civilization in which technology can mimic the techniques of artistic output — can synthesize the “relic” of artwork — well enough that we have to insert extra footnotes into our understanding of art to “protect” human output from indistinguishable machine output.
I hope you didn’t get to the end of this all expecting a world-shaking revelation. If anything, #3 above should have been fair warning.
Of course, these questions have been asked for ever (probably since Thog swiped Urg’s gazelle stance in a cave painting). The issue is that the “answers” really don’t end up as answering anything (which is why we still ask the questions). But in order to discuss the “Is A.I. output art?” question, there has to be an existing, accepted definition of what art IS as a foundation point, and most discussions of the A.I. question simply avoid the underlying question as a fourth rail. (Wow, I just came up with a TL;DR version of my post.)
In even simpler terms: Answering the A.I. question is contingent on the underlying art question being answered. And since that question sure seems unanswerable, the second-order question is as well.
I’d hate to say it comes down to “I don’t know if it’s art, I just know if I like it,” but…
Just because I’m like that, the featured image is the result of me telling Grok:
Generate an image to accompany the article “Can artificial intelligence produce true art?”
And by the way, I never did remember what #3 was supposed to be.