Title: Art in the age of AI: an investigation into the impact of Artificial Intelligence on contemporary art practice
Author: Katie Morris
Publication Year/Date: May 2024
Document Version: Fine Art Hons dissertation
License: CC-BY-NC-ND
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20933/100001303
Take down policy: If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Abstract As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, it prompts us to re-evaluate the role of human creativity in a world increasingly influenced by technology. This dissertation traverses a timespan from 1989 to the present. It investigates the pervasive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on contemporary art practice through a critical examination of the historical context surrounding art and technology, as well as confrontation of the implications that arise as the field advances. This research offers a theoretical and significant insight into AI's creative potential. With AI progressing far more rapidly than earlier technologies, its extraordinary impact has already been felt throughout the broader art world. The way in which people communicate, interact, and understand their place in the universe is being fundamentally adapted.
When considering both past and current perspectives, artificial intelligence is unambiguously more than just a tool to generate art; it serves as an extension of the artist's innate creativity. Still, the intended application of technology is often twisted, leading to destructive and problematic usage. This dissertation considers AI's significant ethical, legal, and authorship issues, as well as its vast containment problem. The purpose of this research is to scrutinse the ways in which the integration of AI will impact and shape contemporary art practice. This inquiry is vital in comprehending the revolutionary capabilities of nearing technology and its potential to alter the course of our future.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to my dissertation advisor, Anna Notaro, for her valuable advice and guidance I would furthermore like to thank my lecturers at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design, especially Pernille Spence and Calum Colvin for their support and commitment throughout my final years of study. Most importantly, I am appreciative of my partner and family’s support of my art practice and their eternal belief in me throughout the dissertation writing process as well as every day.
1.1. 08
wwwwwwwww.jodi.org (1995), internet-based artwork, image courtesy wwwwwwwww.jodi.org
1.2. 09
Olia Lialina, ‘My Boyfriend Came Home from the War’, (1996), internet-based artwork, image courtesy Whitechapel Gallery London
1.3. 10
Cornelia Sollfrank, ‘Net Art Generator’, (1999), interactive net-based installation, image courtesy Medien Kunst Netz
2.1. Lisa Larson-Walker, Google DeepDream image, (2015), 16 Image courtesy Government House NZ
3.1. 19
Leonel Moura, ‘Robot Art’, (2018), image courtesy Aldo Paredes RMNGP
Introduction
Life itself can be recognised as the universe's earliest and most sophisticated form of technology, having existed for at least 3.7 billion years. Over this vast expanse of time, it has undergone a gradual, unguided and autonomous evolution. Within the magnitude of Earth's ecosystems, countless forms of life have emerged, habituated, and interacted. However, in a recent and minuscule fragment of this evolutionary timeline, a profound transformation occurred, one instigated by humans. As described by British artificial intelligence researcher Mustafa Suleyman, we find ourselves at the precipice of a transformative period, marked by a surge of pioneering technology, with AI at its pinnacle. “There are moments that stand out as turning points, where the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. The discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel, the harnessing of electricity - all of these were moments that transformed human civilisation, altering the course of history forever. And now we stand at the brink of another such moment as we face the rise of a coming wave of technology.”
(Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp 4.)
The uncertain outcome of this revolutionary time becomes profuse ground for artistic exploration. The art world has undergone unprecedented change in recent years due to rapid advances in technology reshaping our perception of art and creativity This shift prompts us to reflect on what it means to be human in the age of AI, and to consider art as an everevolving concept, not confined to traditional practices, but constantly reshaped by the tools and technologies of our time. Contemporary artists are employing AI not simply as a tool, but also as a subject of examination, creating work that observes upon life in this abstruse period of technological progression. As a result, contemporary art practice has become a critical space in which the complexities of today's world are portrayed, assessed, and challenged, reverberating humanity’s ceaseless struggle to understand and shape its condition through the tools it has developed.
This dissertation aims to investigate the use of AI technology within contemporary art practice, scrutinising its impact on human creativity and the future of art. The research is categorised into three leading chapters, which are supported by smaller subsections. In Chapter 1, we review the historical context of AI art. A background of net.art and post internet art are discussed, as well as the birth of the World Wide Web. The works of leading internet artists such as Olia Lialina, Cornelia Sollfrank and collective JODI are analysed in terms of their historical relevance and the progressive nature of their work.
In Chapter 2, a continuum is traced. The dissertation’s focus shifts from a historic study of net.art, to a thorough investigation of the ways in which AI technology is directly altering the practice of contemporary art. It confronts significant areas of conversation, including the tackling of legal, ethical and authorship issues respecting the use of AI. Subsections delve into both the beneficial and challenging aspects of advanced technology, building upon the discussions presented in Chapter 1. This inquiry proves essential in navigating the developing debates that encompass art and technology.
Chapter 3 will discern if contemporary definitions of art apply or conflict with the concept of AI generated art. The discourse of whether works created by a machine can truly be classified as art is explored. In support of this, AI’s role as a creator will be examined. Is AI a meticulous asset in the creation of art, or does it threaten the distinctive value of human creativity? This dichotomy is crucial to investigate. It addresses the broader impact of AI's integration into creative fields, assessing how AI technology may alter our concept of ingenuity and intentionality The initial rejection towards photography and other principal technologies is studied. Lastly, the alarming growth of omni-use technologies is discussed to grasp the broad scope of the forthcoming containment challenge.
Chapter 1
1.1. Net.art
Before raising questions surrounding AI generated art, it is beneficial to first refer to the advent of the digital revolution. While computers have been employed for artistic purposes dating back to the 1950s, this chapter centres its attention on the period commencing in 1989: the year English computer scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee birthed the World Wide Web. In March 1989, Berners-Lee pitched an idea to CERN for the system that would later become known as the WWW. The document proposed an ever-growing database able to store large quantities of shared information.
“We should work toward a universal linked information system. The aim would be to allow a place to be found for any information or reference which one felt was important, and a way of finding it afterwards. The result should be sufficiently attractive to use that the information
contained would grow past a critical threshold, so that the usefulness the scheme would in turn encourage its increased use.” (Berners-Lee, 1989)
At the time of Berners-Lee's proposal, society was largely unaware that the mass medium of our time had just been ushered into existence. Research into historic internet archives shows that while technology driven art was rapidly gaining traction throughout the early 1990s, it wasn’t until approximately the mid 1990s that people began to comprehend its profound and enduring implications. An issue of Mute Magazine from November 1994, titled ‘Can Art Survive the 20th Century?’ states “In the last two years interactive work has been coming out of art schools and colleges but only in the last six months has it begun to be seen as a longterm medium. It has begun to make an impact on the design business and also the public consciousness. Multimedia, the Net and Future-tech are fast becoming mainstream news.” (Worthington, 1994) While early artistic explorations of the internet began alongside the foundation of the web itself, the term ‘net.art’ did not come into play until 1995. In December 1995, Slovenian artist Vuk Cosic unintentionally coined the term thanks to a software glitch. He “opened an anonymous e-mail only to find it had been mangled in transmission. Amid a morass of alphanumeric gibberish, Cosic could make out just one legible term - “net.art”which he began using to talk about online art.” (Greene, 2004)
Following the establishment of net.art, groups of predominately European artists began using the internet as their prime medium. This movement was characterised by artists who did not want to be affiliated with galleries. The WWW alternatively provided an opportunity to promote their art free from institutionalised and societal limitations. “Net art emerged […] when artists found that the internet was a useful tool to promote their art uninhibited by political, social or cultural constraints. […] Sites like MySpace and YouTube have become forums for art, enabling artists to exhibit their work without the endorsement of an institution.” (Tate, 2018)
Boyfriend Came Home from The War’. The black and white browser-based artwork, akin to JODI's website, was interactive and narrative driven, eluding a dialogue between two fictional characters. Regardless of the choices made by the user, the conversation does not end well.
Figure 1.2 Olia Lialina, ‘My Boyfriend Came Home from the War’, (1996), internet-based artwork, image courtesy Whitechapel Gallery London
Artist Mark Tribe and art journalist Reena Jana wrote about the importance of Lialina’s work in their book ‘New Media Art’ (Taschen, 2006) “One indicator of the historical significance of Olia Lialina’s 1996 Net art project, My Boyfriend Came Back From the War, is the numerous times it has been appropriated and remixed by other New Media artists. […] Perhaps it resonates with other artists because it is among the earliest works of New Media art to produce the kind of compelling and emotionally powerful experience that we have come to expect from older, more established media ” (Tribe, Jana and Uta Grosenick, 2007)
In 1999, German digital artist and early pioneer of net.art Cornelia Sollfrank created an interactive net-based installation titled ‘Net art generator’. The generator gathered and combined found materials from the internet, permitting users to instantaneously generate net.art. The program is a prime example of a net.art piece that directly questions the role of the artist and the authenticity of the art. It forces viewers to reflect on the value of art in the digital age, examining “the digital cultural techniques of copying and the machine-supported production” through “appropriation, repetition or plagiarism.” (Zaragoza, 2009)
dimension of Web 2.0, both as a concept and a way of forming contacts.” (Dekker, 2011) For the first time, artists from around the world could work together to create art that surpassed geographic boundaries, resulting in a more broadened and interconnected art scene. These artists viewed the growth of digital art as a collective effort, a principle still endorsed by many within the present Web 3.0 community.
In 2015, Google’s ex-CEO Eric Schmidt was questioned about the future of the internet. His response was straight forward: “the internet will disappear”. What he intended to convey here was not the death of the internet, but rather its inevitable ubiquity to the point where technology blends seamlessly into our surroundings, becoming unobtrusive. As Schmidt phrased it “you won’t even sense it […] it will become part of your presence all the time.” (Schmidt qtd. in Prigg, 2015) As society witnessed its initial encounter with the omnipresent internet, artists were prompted to reassess their relationship with the web. They began to acknowledge that the internet had become so ingrained in everyday life. Its existence was no longer a distinct, unprecedented entity. This adjustment of perspective changed the way artists engaged with digital technologies, leading to the emergence of a new movement known as ‘post internet’ .
“The term “post-internet” was first used by Marisa Olson in 2008, which, although not long ago on an art historical scale, is ancient history in terms of the evolution of the internet. In retrospect, she was speaking when Web 2.0 was only in its incipient stages.” (Souter, 2017) The main distinction between net.art and post-internet art lies in the fact that net.art is exclusively made on and for the internet, remaining tethered to being experienced through the web only. In contrast, post internet refers to works made not necessarily on the internet, but rather influenced by the digital age and online culture. Post internet works exist in various forms, both online and offline, reflecting the broadening influence of digital technology on contemporary art. In 2011, researcher and curator Annet Dekker states “a parallel movement has emerged, and many artists have also started to look at offline space to further their experiments, presenting their work in small underground galleries or Internet cafes. Now museums are also showing an interest in the phenomenon of Internet-based art.” (Dekker, 2011) Post internet was further explained by Olson in her 2011 essay ‘Postinternet: Art After the Internet’. The term was meant quite literally: she would search the internet, and then afterwards create art inspired by her findings. She furthermore suggested that “both my offline and online work was after the internet in the sense that ‘after’ can mean both ‘in the
style of’ and ‘following.’” In other words, her definition of post-internet art encompassed "art after the internet" in both a temporal and inspirational context. (Souter, 2017)
The subsequent chapter of this dissertation shifts from a historical background of internet art to an examination of our AI-driven present, with an emphasis on how AI technology is altering, defining and fostering contemporary art practice. Chapter 2 does not mark a mere leap from the past, but rather a natural progression, in which the pioneers of net and postinternet art situated the foundations for the integration of AI within contemporary art. Both the beneficial and challenging consequences of this pervasive technology will be further examined, building upon the critical information presented in Chapter 1.
Chapter 2
2.1. AI Art
The rise of AI art is not an isolated occurrence, but rather a continuation of the unrelenting progression of art and technology. A development from web-based artworks to creations driven solely by AI exhibits significant evolution within the artistic domain. Although the use of AI as a creative tool can be traced back to the 1960s, it is only in recent years that we have seen its widespread adoption in the art world. A key reason for this is the increasing accessibility of AI. “At its birth, the computer did not belong to the world of art. The machine is used to manage information and data in a utilitarian way. Towards the end of the 20th century, its diffusion allowed artists to take possession of it.” (Neutres and Dorléac , 2018)
In times gone by, creating AI generated art required a complex understanding of algorithms and programming. With the foundation of the internet, a range of user-friendly platforms and open-source tools have become available. This democratisation of technology welcomes creative minds of diverse backgrounds, leading to a proliferation of AI art as well as our general exposure to AI images. As a result, contemporary art practice is witnessing a transformative period in which traditional artistic conventions are being challenged and reconsidered. A catalytic consumption of AI generated art has raised several ethical, legal, social and philosophical questions. Which include concerns regarding authorship and plagiarism. A particularly contentious debate revolves around the copyrighting of AI generated imagery, questioning whether it warrants copyright. The following subsections aim to address such crucial, yet complicated discussions.
2.2. Authorship
In the context of art, current AI models raise questions about authorship and the artist's role in a machine-driven age. Issues regarding copyright and the ethical use of text to image generated content are ubiquitous. While AI offers conspicuous innovation, addressing its implications is crucial for the beneficial integration into creative fields. Although these problems are complicated and not easily solved, it is reassuring to discern that AI cannot yet create independently or develop consciousness. Andrew Ng, an acclaimed computer scientist at Stanford University emphasises this point, affirming that the idea of AI becoming sentient and detrimental is merely a speculative and distant fear. “I don’t see a realistic path for our neural networks, to become sentient and turn evil. I think we’re building more and more intelligent software. […] But there’s a big difference between intelligence and sentience, and I think our machines are getting more and more intelligent. I don’t see them getting sentient. I don’t work on preventing AI from turning evil for the same reason that I don’t work on combating overpopulation on the planet Mars” (Soares, 2015) To prohibit AI technologies on account of an undetermined and hypothetical future would obstruct crucial immediate developments in several key domains. Even as we are unsettled by the potential threats, the unparalleled benefits of emerging technology are now more vital than ever.
Embracing the benefits of AI technology while mitigating its risks should be of utmost importance. “Technology alone is a tool. The inability for algorithmic-driven tools to understand the social context means they do not have the capacity to drive civic innovation without significant human intervention.” (A. Vogels, Rainie and Anderson, 2020) The idea of AI being no more than a tool suggests that its advantages and consequences do not inherently lie within the technology itself. This perspective repositions our focus to the user behind the tool. Like any technology, the extent of its influence is marked by human decision. Therefore, the critical interrogation should perhaps be less on the innate moral values of AI, and more on the ethics we hold ourselves and our society to. “The benefits or harms are determined by how we humans choose to use tools and technologies. Fire can be used to cook a meal and thus be helpful. Fire can also be used to harm or destroy […] So, the bigger questions worth asking involve how we humans, both individually and in communities, choose to use technologies.” (Bray, 2020, as cited in A. Vogels, Anderson and Raine, 2020)
Our timeline is no stranger to the misuse of scientific and technological advancements, as Internet Hall of Fame member Srinivasan Ramani points out. “I do not believe that we can simplify the issues by asking if technology would be bad or good. The horrors perpetrated upon millions of people in the name of a science, ‘eugenics’ for furthering social objectives is very well documented. The good or bad is not in technology. It is in us.” (Ramani, 2020, as cited in A. Vogels, Anderson and Raine, 2020) Technology is a product of human intelligence, a tool lacking fundamental principles of morality. Its influence, whether positive or negative, is dictated by the actions of humans and the context in which it is applied. The belief that technology is intrinsically good or bad when it becomes highly evolved or comes to life is, to an extent, redundant. What is far more imperative is that the integration of AI accompanies established ethical guidelines, protection of privacy, property rights, and regular surveillance of its societal impact. “Keeping a tight rein on technology could become part of a drift to everything and everyone being watched all the time, in a dystopian global surveillance system justified by a desire to guard against the most extreme possible outcomes.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.9–10)
2.3. The Legal
A balanced view is fundamental in developing policies and frameworks that govern AI's distribution within creative fields. This cautious and level approach is exemplified by the US Copyright Office's nuanced policy on the copyrighting of AI generated artworks. The policy, published in March 2023, acknowledges the complicated interplay between human creativity and machine assisted creation. It highlights scenarios in which AI technology is largely responsible for authorship. Conversely, the policy also identifies circumstances in which considerable human intervention may impart sufficient creativity to warrant copyright protection. This approach indicates the necessity to distinguish between AI's function as a creator and situations in which human contribution plays a vital role in the final artwork. While questions regarding matters of authorship are challenging to eradicate, making this distinction is an important utterance in ensuring that the adoption of AI in creative fields respects the preservation of human creativity.
“when an AI technology receives solely a promptfrom a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology not the human user. […] In other cases,
however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AIgenerated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.” (The US Copyright Office, 2023)
2.4. The Ethics Deep Dream is a neural network algorithm created by Google engineer Alexander Mordvintsev in 2015. The generator intentionally over-processes images by identifying and amplifying patterns. In Deep Dream, the network’s learning is driven by a training process based on repetition and analysis. For the neural network to accurately discern and identify human faces, it must be supplied with numerous examples of faces. This training allows the network to learn the patterns and structures that are common to these images. (Reader, 2020)
Neural networks are a type of machine learning process modeled after the structure and activity of the human brain. While Deep Dream demonstrated the potential of these models for image manipulation and generation, current widespread AI diffusion models such as DALL-E and Stable Diffusion utilise more advanced algorithms. These models are directed mainly through textual prompts, corroborating a leap in artificial intelligence's abilities.
Ethical and social debates brought to attention by AI are often found rooted in the training data of models. Substantial concerns revolve around the fact that these networks, much like Deep Dream, are reliant on extensive amounts of data to generate outputs. The learning process analyses patterns and structures found within its training material. A study from April 2023 led by computational linguist Gašper Beguš finds that artificial and biological networks intriguingly learn in similar ways Their experiment used a generative adversarial network (GAN) comprised of two opposing neural networks, which was invented in 2014 as an image generator. Researchers compared the brain activity of humans listening to a sound to the signal produced by the neural network upon interpreting the same sound. Beguš’ research communicates that “the brain stem responses and responses in the intermediate convolutional layers to the exact same stimulus are highly similar and that peak latency differs in similar ways in the brain stem and in deep convolutional neural networks.” (Beguš, G., Zhou, A. & Zhao, T.C. 2023) Simply put, the comparison between biological and artificial neural networks were uncannily alike. Despite there being evidence of AI performing human-like observations, further research indicates that it cannot comprehend like humans. “It’s
important to emphasise the way AI systems “think” and learn is fundamentally different to how humans do - and we have a long way to go before AI can truly think like us.” (Fodor, 2022)
It is evident that while AI holds the ability to mimic human brain activity, it is unable to experience and understand like us. Considering this, is AI truly capable of creating unprecedented images, or are its outputs simply derivative imitation? It is useful here to cite Stephen M. Wolfson, the Associate Director of Research and Copyright Services at the University of Georgia School of Law. Wolfson states that AI models “do not store images, they do not reproduce images in their data sets, and they do not piece together new images from bits of images from their training data. Instead, they learn what images represent and create new images based on what they learn about the associations of text and images.” (Wolfson, 2023) Otherwise speaking, the output generated by AI is distinctly different from the original training material. If an AI is trained using a series of artworks for example, it does not enable direct access to or reproduction of the work. Instead, the AI generates new content, based on its analysis and learning from the training data. This output, therefore, is a new creation, distinct from the initial works used in training. But while the data may be “merely transitory copies that serve a transformative purpose”, the question of whether AI is able to achieve ingenuity prevails beyond the boundaries of its training material. The subconscious accumulation of seeing and absorbing another artist’s work will ultimately manifest and provoke inspiration. Isn’t the training data the machine’s way of taking inspiration? (Spicer, 2023)
Looking further into the ethical matters raised by AI technology, a document submitted by OpenAI to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2019 distributes intriguing insight into the rapid technological developments that were impending at the time. The research addresses issues related to the use of intellectual property in training datasets, particularly in the context of copyright law and fair use principles. During the time of this submission, OpenAI were on the verge of monumental breakthrough, corroborating the historic importance of the views shared in their submission. These perspectives provide an account of the legal and ethical considerations at a time when AI technologies were poised to obtain great prominence. (Young, 2023)
“Training of AI systems is clearly highly transformative. Works in training corpora were meant primarily for human consumption for their standalone entertainment value. The “object of the original creation,” in other words, is direct human consumption of the author’s expression. Intermediate copying of works in training AI systems is, by contrast, “non-
expressive”: the copying helps computer programs learn the patterns inherent in humangenerated media. The aim of this process - creation of a useful generative AI system - is quite different than the original object of human consumption. The output is different too: nobody looking to read a specific webpage contained in the corpus used to train an AI system can do so by studying the AI system or its outputs. The new purpose and expression are thus both highly transformative.” (O’Keefe, Lansky and Clark, 2019)
OpenAI’s paper argues that the transformative nature of AI training data stems from the divergence in the intent and application of these works in training, as opposed to their original purpose. Works used in training AI systems are mainly intended for direct human consumption and are intrinsically expressive. They are created to convey an artist’s message, often provoking an emotional response from the viewer. Yet, when these works are repurposed for training AI systems, their role undergoes a non-expressive and fundamental change.
While this chapter addressed the implications of AI technology within contemporary art practice, Chapter 3 asks the philosophical question: ‘What defines art?’ Subsequent sections probe the debate of whether works created by a machine can be classified as art, as well as the profuse frets surrounding the emergence of ‘omni-use’ technologies.
Chapter 3
3.1. Is It Art?
The 2018 exhibition titled ‘Artistes & Robots’ at the Grand Palais in Paris explored the significant question of whether artificial intelligence is capable of creativity, forcing viewers to rethink what it means to be human in a machine-driven age. A work titled ‘Robot Art’ by Portuguese artist Leonel Moura featured prominently at the showcase. The artwork introduced observers to a set of drawing robots that would colourfully mark blank canvases without human direction. Described in the exhibition summary, each robot works on simple algorithmic instructions, equipped with sensors and mechanisms to respond to their surroundings. They operate without a leader; instead, acting collectively, ruled solely by chance and collaboration. (Neutres and Dorléac , 2018)
To fully understand Moura's work, it is useful to cite his approach to the perpetual question:
‘Can artificial intelligence create art?’
“Purists in respect to human uniqueness will say “no”: only humans can make art. This, however, is an outdated concept. It has been understood since at least the birth of abstraction that the main issue in art is neither its production nor the individual artistic sensibility by which it is guided. The main issue of art is art itself: its history, evolution, and innovative contributions. Anything can be considered art if validated by one of the several art world mechanisms including museums, galleries, specialized media, critics, curators, and/or collectors. Only in this way has the Duchampian ready-made and most of the art produced since been accepted and integrated into the formal art realm. Whether a work of art is made directly by a human artist or is the product of any other type of process is nowadays of no relevance. Recent art history shows many examples of art works based on random procedures, fortuitous explorations, objets trouvés, and arbitrary constructions. Surrealism, for example, even tried to take human consciousness out of the loop.” (Moura, 2018)
Moura’s ideas imply that from a contemporary perspective, art’s value may not lie in the act of creation, or the artist’s intention. He suggests the answer to what constitutes art rests within art itself: its distinct characteristics, cultural importance and progressive nature. In other words, defining ‘art’ goes far beyond conventional modes of creation. Something can be art not solely based on its process or origins, but rather the way it connects within a historical context. The
digital age has revolutionised humanity. It has altered the way we think, judge and believe, as well as the way we interact with the world. If art reflects our times and connection with the world, then the inclusion of artificial intelligence is essential in depicting today's realities.
3.2. Artists vs. Algorithms
Suppose we accept the premise that AI is indeed capable of creating art. This raises yet another intriguing question: might AI's increasing artistic capacity put conventional artists at risk of extinction? If machines can generate art that resonates with viewers, coincides with existing views on art, and provokes debate, where does that leave the human artist? These are questions both compelling and problematic. Some view the emergence of AI as an ultimatum that could declare artists ineffective, ultimately signaling the demise of human artistic expression. Yet, there exists another perspective, a prediction of widespread technological adoption in which artists of the future embrace AI as a powerful asset. These opposing viewpoints bring us to the core of this matter: the concept of creativity itself, and how our understanding of art informs our thoughts on AI’s role in the creative process. It might seem unusual at first to assign a core human characteristic such as creativity to a machine. Though, as this dissertation finds, constricting concepts of creativity are conditioned by representations and assumptions that are deeply rooted in conventional notions. This stresses the necessity to diversify our perception of creativity to better understand the ways in which art and technology converge.
Whether AI will replace the human artist is an obscure conundrum that can hardly be expected to receive a straightforward answer. In tackling this matter, a fundamental starting point is to considerwhat constitutes‘creativity'.“Awidelyaccepteddefinition ofcreativity is:“Acreative idea is a novel and valuable combination of known ideas.” […] Creativity is an “advanced domain of problem solving” that involves mindfulness, analogy, rationale, and memory under constraints, among others, and is therefore possible to be replicated by computers.” (Goenka, 2022) While it is plausible that machines can replicate aspects of creativity, it does not necessarilysignal thedemiseofhumancreativity. Thisdiscussionalignswith arecurringtheme in history, where technological progression repetitively stirs substantial fear. An applicable instance is the advent of photography, which initially sparked concerns amongst traditional artists about their craft becoming obsolete. One Dutch periodical published a letter warning "an invention...which could cause some alarm to our Dutch painters. A method has been found
whereby sunlight itself is elevated to the rank of drawing master, and faithful depictions of nature are made the work of a few minutes." (Gershon, 2022)
Hans Rooseboom, the Rijksmuseum's curator of photography unearthed various accounts indicating a revival in the art world during a time when many thought the camera's invention would attest to the end of traditional art. “Artists had long scoffed at portrait painting as a lesser form, and some welcomed the idea that photography would replace it, leaving painters to do more ambitious work.” (Gershon, 2022) In 1846, Dutch painter Jan Adam Kruseman deemed that "after a long period of languishing" art “had awakened with renewed life and again made great advances." As early as 1855, predictions on how photography "would be the death of art" had proven mistaken, and "experience shows that” photography marked “the breaking of a new dawn for art by producing a different, unexpected outcome each day." (Gershon, 2022) It here becomes evident that society has consistently opposed new technologies with a coalescence of apprehension and fascination. Today, it is apparent that these early worries, while understandable, were not entirely founded. Despite the popularity of portrait painting facing an overall decline, it did not disappear. Painting to this day remains a commended and valued art form with its ability to create distinctive representations. It is possible that Al could progress like photography, ultimately shifting from technological skepticism into an artistic medium in its own right.
3.3. Pervasive Fears
Major fears surrounding technological advancement can be found ingrained throughout history. For example, “electricity, elevators, and automobiles. […] were feared, boycotted, protested, regulated… and, ultimately, adopted.” (Keil, 2021) “In 1877 the New York Times fulminated against the "atrocious nature" of Alexander Graham Bell's improved version of the telegraph: the telephone. Invasion of privacy was the charge. Twenty years later, the indictment stood: "We shall soon be nothing but transparent heaps of jelly to each other," one writer predicted.” (Stephens, 1998) The well-documented pattern of resistance towards new technologies corresponds with present frets regarding the emergence of AI art. Like how preceding technologies faced criticism and concerns about their impact, the use of AI in contemporary art practice has sparked comparable arguments.
There exists an ongoing belief that AI art undermines the very creative and conceptual ingenuity that is often considered to constitute art. Research shows that AI will not conceivably replace human creativity, but rather coexist alongside it. The fear of Al rendering human artists extinct can be considered an iteration of the past. But while history has a way of repeating itself, it is critical to remember that these recurrences are never identical. Human agency has grown into a vital component of the artistic process and is here to stay, according to an Oxford University study titled 'Art for our sake: artists cannot be placed by machines.' The inquiry states it was clear from their research that advanced machine learning is becoming a tool for artists but will not replace artists. The creative judgement of a human artist is something that our present technology is unable to replicate. (Oxford University, 2022) Considering this knowledge, Al is far from replacing the dexterity of human artists. While Al can provide valuable assistance, it remains reliant on human input and direction to produce purposeful art. In this manner, the strengths of both human ingenuity and machine efficiency are intended not to supplant the artist, but rather to augment their proficiencies.
A further anxiety resides in AI’s uncertainty, “an unfolding labyrinth of consequences that no one can fully predict or forestall.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.36) Its broad applications, although benign in one circumstance, may prove devastating in another. The worry is AI's adaptability and the unpredictability of its coming purposes. Inventions often acquire a life of their own, surpassing their creators' original intentions and being harnessed for uses that can be groundbreaking or, at times, troubling. “Thomas Edison invented the phonograph so people could record their thoughts for posterity and to help the blind. He was horrified when most people just wanted to play music. Alfred Nobel intended his explosives to be used only in mining and railway construction. Gutenberg just wanted to make money printing Bibles. Yet his press catalyzed the Scientific Revolution and the Reformation, and so became the greatest threat to the Catholic Church since its establishment” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.35) In contrast to everyday technologies with defined objectives, the future of AI remains cloaked in obscurity. As technology becomes more pervasive, the proliferation of these powerful tools, paired with accessibility, escalates the possibilities for harm that is impossible to fully anticipate or prevent. “Think of the way that prescription opioids have created dependence. [...] or how the proliferation of satellites and debris known as “space junk” imperils spaceflight.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.36) The knowledge that we are dealing with an intelligence whose ultimate capabilities and repercussions are unknown, is where our apprehension can be found grounded
3.4. Containment
In the case of advanced technology such as AI, fears are often heightened due to their 'dual usage,' Mustafa Suleyman points out.
“Dual-use technologies are those with both civilian and military applications. In World War 1, the process of synthesizing ammonia was seen as a way of feeding the world. But it also allowed for the creation of explosives, and helped pave the way for chemical weapons. Complex electronics systems for passenger aircraft can be repurposed for precision missiles. […] Dual technologies are both helpful and potentially destructive, tools and weapons. Technologies of the coming wave are highly powerful, precisely because they are fundamentally general. If you're building a nuclear warhead, it’s obvious what it’s for. But a deep learning system might be designed for playing games yet capable of flying a fleet of bombers. The difference is not a priori obvious.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.110-111)
Suleyman goes on to elaborate that a more suitable term for AI technology is ‘omni-use’. The label aptly suggests that AI's boundless applicability and potential to reform sets it apart from narrower technologies such as the telephone. Omni-use technologies do not simply fill a specific niche; they ripple through society, reshaping industries, human interaction, culture and inevitably our daily lives. AI, thus, holds great potential to transcend its initial intentions. This rapid spread of advanced technology, alongside the power it holds to influence “is the containment problem supersized.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.112) If the challenge of containment cannot be eradicated, then the development of certain technologies may be curtailed. “Containment is about meaningful control, the capability to stop a use case, change a research direction, or deny access to harmful actors. It means preserving the ability to steer waves to ensure their impact reflects our values, helps us flourish as a species, and does not introduce significant harms that outweigh their benefits.” (Mustafa Suleyman, 2023, pp.36) The capability to prevent a technology from proliferating, thereby managing the unanticipated outcomes, prioritises prudence and control over unrestrained creativity. Although this cautious approach certainly safeguards the ethical and beneficial evolution of AI, it carries the risk of hindering notable discoveries, or preventing them from emerging altogether.
Conclusion
Theabidingte-chnologicalpresenceofthedigital age promptsartists toprobe thelinkbe-tween art and technology. It forces us to re-evaluate the role of human creativity and ask the ambiguous question: ‘What is art?’ It can be concluded that from a contemporary perspective, art’s value may not lie in the act of creation, or intentionality. The answer to what constitutes art can be found within art itself: its historical significance and progressive nature. As technology’s grasp on our lives is tightening, it is only logical for art to reflect this shift.
This dissertation opened with a scrutiny of the foundation of the internet itself, specifically Tim Berners-Lee's original proposal of the World Wide Web. Artists have since progressively shifted from using HTML webpages as a mode of creation, to working in direct collaboration with machine intelligence. Both past and present applications of technology have undoubtedly shaped society’s perception of creativity The work of artists such as Olia Lialina, Cornelia Sollfrank and collective JODI paved the way for the rise of AI art, developing a premise for the use of technology within contemporary art.
Chapter 2 instigated a larger conversation about authorship and the ethical, legal and social implications surrounding AI. It exhibited the actions of organisations such as the United States Copyright Office to address such challenges. OpenAI spoke on the transformative nature of AI material data, asserting that such material complies with the factors of fair use. Their research offers an important step towards ensuring AI's ethical integration into the art world. While we have a long way to go before completely managing the implications, these efforts are an important step in balancing the rapid advancement of technology with ethical and social considerations.
Throughout history, people have continuously feared developments in technology before inevitably embracing them. The final chapter of this dissertation focused on the initial objection towards the emergence of photography and other technological advancements. Telephones and electricity were first viewed doubtingly but later proved indispensable. While the integration of AI in contemporary art may be evocative of these past technological disruptions, AI's individual attributes guarantee that its impact on creative practices will be nothing short of an idiosyncratic chapter in art history. AI holds a level of complexity and versatility that is unprecedented, meaning that AI’s influence on art will unfold in ways that differ from past technological breakthroughs.
Debates of AI’s capacity to preserve human creativity were found to be ubiquitous. The proposition that machines with intelligence will replace human artists is a significant and widespread dread It was found that AI will be most beneficial when it centres on human collaboration and aims to foster, but not undermine human creativity. In a study conducted by Oxford University, covered in Chapter 3, it is evident that advanced neural networks may well assist artists, but cannot substitute for them. Research shows that the creative judgement of a human cannot be replicated by present technology. Thus, AI functions as an extension of the artist's vision, regardless of its facilitation. Despite the challenges presented, AI is not yet near a stage of sentience, where it can autonomously create or innovate without human intervention. Our technologically influenced age holds great capacity to alter our comprehension of creativity through the disputing of our pre-installed beliefs. The idea that art and creativity are strictly human traits can be found deeply embedded in historical notions. This long-maintained view is now being questioned, owing to the diffusion of AI technology. While traditional art adheres to established norms, it can be discerned that algorithms excel in deconstructing and redefining these very structures.
AI technology, charaterised as 'omni-use,' can be employed for both helpful and harmful actions. This conflict of use appears to derive not from AI's innate morals, but instead from its application, for which humans are responsible for. Strict control measures could cultivate imminent technology, aiming to curtail its proliferation, preventing the most disastrous of outcomes. While the introduction of safety frameworks is necessary, there is a sentiment that these technological fears may be mere speculations, constituting a dystopian future that is more fictional than probable. Such a perspective engages in a cautious yet progressive approach in which AI's unpredictable implications and advantages are impartially considered.
In just the last few decades, humanity has brought about tremendous changes to our way of life. This brief yet revolutionary time has been equipped with a rapid acceleration of technological advancement. Humans have greatly altered the course of history in ways that no other species has. The rise of AI art signals a turning point in which the distinctions between human and machine, creator and creation, dissipate into uncertainty. We are urged to question what art truly is, as well as what it might become in a world where algorithms can both imitate and complement human creativity. Through perpetual technological progression, our relationship with art and creativity will undeniably be adapted. The result of this alteration, whether favourable or harmful, remains uncertain. Humanity, as the creator of this
new reality, wields decisive power over its trajectory, and it is they who will ultimately determine the state of our future.
Bibliography
A. Vogels, E., Rainie, L. and Anderson, J. (2020). Experts Predict More Digital Innovation by 2030 Aimed at Enhancing Democracy. [online] Pew Research Center, p.51. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wpcontent/uploads/sites/9/2020/06/PI_2020.06.30_digital-innovation_REPORT.pdf [Accessed 4 Dec. 2023].
Beguš, G., Zhou, A. & Zhao, T.C. (2023). Encoding of speech in convolutional layers and the brain stem based on language experience. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-02333384-9 [Accessed 22 Nov. 2023].
Berners-Lee, T. (1989). The Original Proposal of the WWW, HTMLized. [online] W3.org. Available at: https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html [Accessed 11 Sep. 2023].
Broeckmann, A. (1997). nettime: Net.Art, Machines, and Parasites. [online] nettime.org. Available at: https://nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9703/msg00038.html [Accessed 12 Sep. 2023].
Dekker, A. (2011). Post-Internet Art | what’s next? [online] What’s next? Available at: https://whtsnxt.net/037 [Accessed 15 Oct. 2023].
Fodor, J. (2022). We’re told AI neural networks ‘learn’ the way humans do. A neuroscientist explains why that’s not the case. [online] The Conversation. Available at:
https://theconversation.com/were-told-ai-neural-networks-learn-the-way-humans-do-aneuroscientist-explains-why-thats-not-the-case-183993 [Accessed 24 Nov. 2023].
Gershon, L. (2022). Did Photography Really Kill Portrait Painting? [online] JSTOR Daily. Available at: https://daily.jstor.org/did-photography-really-kill-portrait-painting [Accessed 29 Nov. 2023].
Goenka, A. (2022). Artificial Intelligence Catalyzes a Revolution for 21st Century Human Creativity and Modern Art. [online] p.1. Available at:
https://archive.org/details/httpswww.ijtsrd.comcomputer-scienceartificialintelligence49150artificial-intell/mode/2up [Accessed 2 Dec. 2023].
6470, Volume-6 | Issue-2, February pp.83-85, URL: www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd49 1
Keil, C. (2021). New technology has always been scary. [online] Pronounced Kyle. Available at: https://medium.com/pronouncedkyle/new-technology-is-always-scary8bf977a13773#:~:text=Technology%20changes%2C%20but%20people%20stay [Accessed 2 Dec. 2023].
MoCDA (2020). In The Studio: Cornelia Sollfrank. [online] MoCDA v2. Available at: https://www.mocda.org/post/cornelia-sollfrank [Accessed 07 Oct. 2023].
Moura, L. (2018). Robot Art: An Interview with Leonel Moura. [online] 16 Jul. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/7/3/28 [Accessed 31 Oct. 2023].
Murphy, B. (2019). Bitnik Interview - Discussing art, Virtual reality, and State Surveillance. [online] Delphian Gallery. Available at: https://delphiangallery.com/bitnik-interview/ [Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
Mustafa Suleyman (2023). The Coming Wave Crown, pp.4–112
Neutres, J. and Dorléac , L. (2018). ARTISTES & ROBOTS. [online] Available at: https://www.grandpalais.fr/pdf/Dossier_Pedagogique_ARTISTESetROBOTS.pdf [Accessed 28 Oct. 2023].
O’Keefe, C., Lansky, D. and Clark, J. (2019). Comment regarding Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OpenAI_RFC-84-FR-58141.pdf.
Oxford University (2022). Art for our sake: artists cannot be replaced by machines - study | University of Oxford. [online] www.ox.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/202203- 03-art-our-sake-artists-cannot-be-replaced-machines-study [Accessed 03 Dec. 2023].
Ploin, A., Eynon, R., Hjorth I. & Osborne, M.A. (2022). Al and the Arts: How Machine Learning is Changing Artistic Work. Report from the Creative Algorithmic Intelligence Research Project. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK. [Accessed 03 Dec. 2023]
Prigg, M. (2015). Google’s Eric Schmidt claims the ‘internet will disappear’. [online] Mail Online. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922460/Google-sEric-Schmidt-claims-internet-disappear-life-gets-connected-says-robots-WON-T-world.html [Accessed 10 Oct. 2023].
Reader, T.M.P. (2020). DeepDream: How Alexander Mordvintsev Excavated the Computer’s Hidden Layers. [online] The MIT Press Reader. Available at: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/deepdream-how-alexander-mordvintsev-excavated-thecomputers-hidden-layers/ [Accessed 3 Nov. 2023].
Soares, N. (2015). Powerful planners, not sentient software. [online] Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Available at: https://intelligence.org/2015/08/18/powerful-planners-notsentient-software/ [Accessed 16 Nov. 2023].
Souter, A. (2017). Post-Internet Art: The Search for a Definition – Roman Road Journal. [online] Romanroadjournal.com. Available at: https://romanroadjournal.com/post-internetart-the-search-for-a-definition/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2023].
Spicer, T. (2023). AI art replicates inequity at scale. We need to learn about its biases – and outsmart the algorithm. The Guardian. [online] 23 Feb. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/24/ai-art-replicates-inequity-at-scale-we-needto-learn-about-its-biases-and-outsmart-the-algorithm [Accessed 23 Nov. 2023].
Stephens, M. (1998). The rise of the image, the fall of the word. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tate (2018). Internet Art – Art Term | Tate. [online] Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/internet-art [Accessed 13 Sep. 2023].
Tech, T. (2015a). Exposing the Invisible . [online] exposingtheinvisible.org. Available at: https://exposingtheinvisible.org/en/films/collections/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2023].
The US Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/595961/Nutrition_Technical_Guidance.pdf [Accessed 14 Nov. 2023].
Tomme, N.V. (2011). From Readymade to Readybought: An Ongoing History of Computer Art: JODI in Conversation with Niels Van Tomme. Art Papers Magazine 35:1, [online] Jan., pp.30–35. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/4/44/Van_Tomme_Niels_2011_From_Readymade_to_Readybo ught_An_Ongoing_History_of_Computer_Art.pdf [Accessed 17 Sep. 2023].
Tribe, M., Jana, R. and Uta Grosenick (2007). New Art Media. [online] Köln: Taschen. Available at: https://www.robertspahr.com/teaching/net/new_media_art_tribe.pdf [Accessed 17 Sep. 2023].
Wolfson, S. (2023). Fair Use: Training Generative AI. [online] Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/2023/02/17/fair-use-training-generative-ai/ [Accessed 22 Nov. 2023].
Worthington, M. (1994). Can Art Survive the 20th Century? Mute Magazine Vol 1, No. 0 , [online] 30 Nov., p.2. Available at: https://archive.org/details/mute-vol1-no.0-can-artsurvive-the-20th-century-1994-nov-issn-1356-7748-01/page/n1/mode/2up [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].
Young, B. (2023). Previous Documents Reveal OpenAI’s Stance on U.S. AI Copyright Laws [online] W&B. Available at: https://wandb.ai/byyoung3/ml-news/reports/PreviousDocuments-Reveal-OpenAI-s-Stance-on-U-S-AI-Copyright-Laws Vmlldzo1NTk1Mjg1 [Accessed 5 Dec. 2023].
Zaragoza, S. (2009). Review of Expanded ORIGINAL. Cornelia Sollfrank. Available at: https://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2009/09/16/review-of-expanded-original-corneliasollfrank/ [Accessed 12 Oct. 2023].
Zylinska, J. (2020). AI ART : machine visions and warped dreams. [online] S.L.: Open Humanities Press. Available at: https://archive.org/details/ai-art-machine-visions-andwarped-dreams/page/166/mode/2up [Accessed 6 Nov. 2023].