Dictionary definitions of “art” are many and varied, but for people of a certain age – let’s say around 60 – art used to mean paintings and sculptures… pretty much exclusively.
But over those 60 years – starting around 30 years ago – art started to mean different things, although those “different” artistic expressions still often incorporated the traditional modes of expression – painting and sculpting.
One of those “different” things that came to constitute art was “installation art”, which is usually a relatively large-scale work – taking up one whole gallery room or more. Installation art uses mixed media to create an immersive experience for people to walk through and perhaps interact with or even be an essential part of.
I live in London, so it’s convenient for me to date the emergence and acceptance of “modern art” back to the opening of the Tate Modern in the year 2000. Now one of the UK’s most popular attractions, the Tate Modern is visited by around 6 to 8 million people a year. Meanwhile, the old Tate – later renamed Tate Britain – hosts about 1 to 2 million people a year.
By “modern art”, I mean those “different things” that constitute something of a departure from painting and sculpting.
More broadly speaking, the term “modern art” is used to describe art – paintings and sculpture – from the 19th century to about halfway through the 20th century. Famous names such as Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, and, later, Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock are all part of this “modern art” movement.
And while I and perhaps others think of “original” art as starting with the “old masters” – such as Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and others – that is not considered the case.
One might imagine that the old masters is where the story of art begins – ancient Rome and so on. But when you ask the Google search engine, “What is the earliest example of art?”, one of the top results is “Warty Pig”, a 45,500-year-old cave painting in Indonesia.
Whether Warty Pig is indeed the earliest or not, the point here is that cave paintings – many of which are tens of thousands of years old – are considered to be art.
Considered by whom? Well, by those who know about these things, such as… you.
Going back to dictionary definitions, our basic summary of them is “any expression that has aesthetic beauty, communicates skill, imagination and has some sort of symbolic meaning beyond what you see with your eyes in the work”.
That’s our own paraphrasing of it. But the bottom line is, art is whatever you think it is. And if you want proof of that, consider that duct-taped banana that recently got sold for more than $6 million, and then got eaten buy its buyer because he wanted to become part of history.
Art is crazy. But you don’t have to be
The above preamble was mainly to try and establish some foundations for what is considered art and humanity’s relationship to it. And although you and I and everyone else can have our own, individual understanding and experience of it, there is a very large area of common ground that we all share. In other words, we are all humans experiencing art produced by other humans.
What is new, and perhaps problematic, is “art” produced by artificially intelligent machines. What are we to make of that?
Until now, we, as humans, have wondered what the artist or artists, as humans, meant to convey through their art. Broadly speaking, it was beauty and some kind of message.
What “thought” is a robot of AI system capable of? Nothing. Such systems can only do what they are told and nothing else. No matter how sophisticated the code and how wide the parameters allowing for autonomy, they are ultimately just machines that follow orders and instructions.
One might argue, correctly, that the real artist is the person who coded the machine, essentially using the robot as a paintbrush or pencil – an instrument like any other, albeit a very highly complex one. But to imbue a robot or AI system with artistic thought, imagination or any sense of beauty is plain wrong at the moment if for no other reason than they’re just nowhere near sophisticated enough yet.
One might say that these machine learning or deep learning algorithms ingest a large amount of data, just like human beings do, and therefore could be considered similar. Yes, similar, but not the same.
Human beings have that extra ability to be genuinely creative and imagine things and express things that have never been taught to them, and never can be because they are tapping into areas of their minds that could be said to be “not of this world”.
Yes, it’s difficult to define what that special extra something is, but we all know it exists. And robots don’t have it.
That is not to say AI does not have anything valuable to offer. Certainly, the market for AI-generated images has grown quite fast over the past year or two, and is projected to continue growing. This is a particularly useful technology for those of us in the publishing sector.
Years ago, when I worked in magazines, one of the more difficult tasks was to commission and produce images that were abstract and yet illustrated a story. An editor would tell the designer they want an image to encapsulate what an article is about and often there would be much back and forth, with some perhaps tense moments along the way. And the whole process to create the “artwork” could take days or even weeks.
Now, one of these AI engines can generate an image within seconds from one single world or phrase, as was done for this article you’re reading.
Value priced
The recent sale of an art piece created by the robot Ai-Da at Sotheby’s has reignited discussions about the nature and legitimacy of AI-generated art. The price achieved was more than $1 million.
This event prompts a critical examination of the distinctions between art produced by machines and that crafted by humans, and whether creations by artificial intelligence can truly be considered “art”.
Defining art: Human vs machine
Traditionally, art is perceived as a medium through which artists convey subjective experiences, emotions, and perspectives, resonating deeply with human feelings and thoughts.
Human artists draw upon personal experiences, cultural contexts, and emotional depths to create works that reflect the human condition.
In contrast, AI systems like Ai-Da generate images based on algorithms and data inputs without personal experiences or emotions. They lack consciousness and self-awareness, leading to questions about the authenticity and emotional depth of AI-generated art.
Can AI convey human experience?
AI operates by processing vast datasets to identify patterns and generate outputs that mimic human creations. While AI can produce aesthetically pleasing images, it does not possess consciousness or emotional depth.
The absence of personal experience means that AI-generated art may lack the intentionality and emotional resonance inherent in human-created works.
However, some argue that the interpretation of art is subjective, and if an AI-generated piece evokes emotion in the viewer, it fulfills one of art’s primary purposes.
The growing market for AI-generated art
The market for AI-generated art is experiencing significant growth. In 2023, the global AI in art market was valued at approximately $3.19 billion and is projected to reach $40.3 billion by 2033, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 28.9 percent.
This expansion is driven by increasing interest in AI-generated art for its novelty and creativity, as well as growing acceptance within the art community.
And while we don’t think of ourselves as being part of the art community, RoboticsAndAutomationNews.com is increasingly using AI-generated art to illustrate articles such as this – the main image for this article, for example, is generated from the keyword “artificial intelligence” being entered into the DeepAI.org engine.
It’s definitely an enjoyable thing to do and saves a lot of time. But is it art?
The AI image generator market was estimated at $349.6 million in 2023 and is expected to grow at 17.7 percent from 2024 to 2030.
Platforms like Midjourney and DALL-E have become popular tools for creating AI-generated images, with Midjourney holding over a quarter (26.8 percent) of the global market for generative AI image tools.
This indicates a robust and expanding market for AI-generated images, both in commercial and non-commercial contexts.
Is this the future of art?
The integration of AI into the art world presents both opportunities and challenges. As AI technology advances, its ability to create complex and aesthetically appealing works will improve.
However, the debate over the authenticity and emotional depth of AI-generated art continues. The market for AI-generated art is poised for substantial growth, with projections indicating significant increases in market size and adoption rates.
This suggests that AI-generated art will become an increasingly prominent feature in the art market and creative industries.
Subjective, conscious experience
The sale of Ai-Da’s artwork for $1 million underscores the growing acceptance and commercialisation of AI-generated art.
While AI lacks the consciousness and emotional depth of human artists, its creations are gaining recognition and value in the art market.
The future of AI-generated art will depend on ongoing discussions about its authenticity, emotional resonance, and place within the broader art world.
