Should AI-Generated Artwork Be Classified as Art?
Written on
The Evolution of Artistic Expression
My earliest encounters with art date back to my kindergarten days when I first experimented with crayons. My teacher recognized my innate talent, which encouraged my parents to support my artistic journey. Over the years, I honed my skills through drawing, inking, and painting, eventually earning the title of the second most artistic student in my high school class. My passion for art led me to pursue a fine arts degree at the School of Visual Arts in New York City.
As my career progressed, I transitioned through various roles—from storyboard illustrator to digital production artist, then to educational tech manager, and finally to creative technologist. This shift toward technology is common among many artists, who often adapt their skills to incorporate new tools and methods. The landscape of artistic mediums is perpetually evolving.
The Emergence of AI in Art
Today, we are witnessing a significant upheaval in the art realm, driven by artificial intelligence, particularly through text-to-image generators that are taking the internet by storm. However, this surge brings with it a heated discussion on whether AI art should be categorized as legitimate art. Back in my college days, we debated whether art produced using software like Photoshop or Illustrator could be considered art, and that debate has largely been resolved.
I contend that AI-generated art merits recognition as art because we should judge art by its outcome rather than its creation method. When observing AI art, its artistic nature is undeniable. The more pressing question is: who qualifies as the artist? The challenge in defining this art form stems from its novelty; we have yet to establish a category for it.
Defining the AI Artist
Webster’s dictionary describes an artist as:
“a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination.”
If we adhere to this cultural understanding of an artist as someone who possesses honed skills to create observable objects, it becomes clear that an individual generating AI art through prompts does not fit this definition entirely. While crafting prompts indeed requires skill and imagination, the actual formation of the artwork, including its composition, is performed by AI.
The complexity of authorship arises from the varying degrees of human input in the final product. For instance, if an individual enhances, edits, or alters the AI's output (as in mixed-media), they are contributing creatively.
“If someone uses a very specific prompt, generates many images, selects from those images, and carries out further edits, then it could justify authorship,” states Bernt Hugenholtz, a copyright law professor at Amsterdam University. This perspective is valid, yet it raises the question: how can we determine whether an AI artwork was produced from a simple prompt or through a more elaborate editing process?
Looking Ahead
The rise of AI art compels us to rethink our relationship with artistic expression, necessitating new terminologies and classifications to integrate it within our cultural framework. This dialogue is ongoing. Much like how digital art and photography were eventually embraced, AI art too will find its place in the world of accepted art forms—but first, it must emerge and solidify as a societal norm.
The first video, titled "No, AI 'Art' is Not Art," delves into the philosophical and practical implications of AI in the art world, challenging the legitimacy of AI-generated creations.
The second video, "Why AI Art is Now Unpopular and It's No Surprise," examines the declining interest in AI art, exploring the reasons behind its waning appeal.