Week 10 Readings

The constant reassurance that arises in many of the readings posits that by no means is the progression of creative AI going to replace artists but instead aid them in creations of art. A mutually beneficial partnership between the artist and the creative AI system, a new form of extension of the artist’s agency through the use of creative AI systems. Mazzone and Elgammal made an interesting comparison of AI art with the acceptance of photography in a world where painting was the only acceptable form of art, which gave them hope that the resistance towards AI art today will slowly diminish and will eventually be accepted. But creative AI systems are different from other forms of art because 

“the process was always first instigated by the artist looking at something in the world, and photography, film, and video retained that first step of the art-making process through light encoding” – Art, Creativity, and the Potential of Artificial Intelligence (Mazzone & Elgammal)

AI does not follow this pattern, it doesn’t require anything from the natural wold, it only requires its internal apparatus for encoding imagery of any kind which consists of receptors for  numerical data. The idea then focuses on machine that can create art. 

“The idea or concept is untethered from nature, being primarily located in the synapses of the brain and secondly disassociated from the dictates of the material world. Most AI systems use some form of a neural network, which is modeled on the neural complexity of the human brain. Therefore, AI and conceptual art coincide in locating the art act in the system network of the brain, rather than in the physical output.” – Art, Creativity, and the Potential of Artificial Intelligence (Mazzone & Elgammal)

The question then arises how creative AI systems change the way we perceive art? And the genuineness behind the creation of art through the use of AI systems. With photography there has to be a distance with the object- it intrudes and trespasses invisible boundaries but it isn’t possessive, the act of taking a photograph entails detachment due to its ability to be conducted from a distance. In AI the same could be said despite its differing plane of existence within the digital realm untouched by nature, it lives within its own abstracted world with very little to no attachment from nature. As humans we would be presented with the illusion that art created by AI is inspired by the natural world but it is a new form of art that doesn’t follow this primary foundation. 

Yet, one could argue it is due to the initial input of the artist’s work that is inevitably inspired by nature but I would argue that data inputted into the AI system is only used as a guideline to spot patterns of what humans would consider aesthetically pleasing or ‘beautiful’.  Once the convergence is done creative AI systems have created art that is untethered from human conception and nature which adds more to its novelty. The only issue lies in the AI’s ability to be motivated in the creation of art which is devoid of passion and due to its lack of agency.

“Because symbolic CC cannot ground meaning, it also cannot give rise to goals which are meaningful from the system’s own perspective.” – Addressing the “Why?” in Computational Creativity: A Non-Anthropocentric, Minimal Model of Intentional Creative Agency 

At the end of the day creative AI systems today don’t have the intrinsic ability to garner a genuine interest and passion for the art they create. However what can change is our ability to perceive creativity and expand the boundaries as what it means to be creative. Is it sufficient enough that an AI is extrinsically motivated by the commands and goals of its creators? which then gives shape to its behaviour? I personally think that if any form of art has the ability to incite a feeling from its audience it is creative through the way it selectively chooses to display certain features in order to create art.