When he stuck his “R. Mutt” autographed urinal in a museum, Marcel Duchamp altered the course of art history. If presence in a museum converted pedestrian objects into art now, where might it stop? Good question. And one that’s tested often. Who hasn’t strolled through a contemporary art gallery, stopped at a piece, mouth ajar, and thought, “Seriously?”
You’ll have to forgive me for chuckling when people confidently claim AI-generated art lacks a certain “essence.” Perhaps human essence was at fault when I threw up a bit of lunch in my mouth while viewing an installation festooned with elephant dung. I wish I were kidding.
In between bites at a recent lunch, an artist friend of mine claimed AI art lacked the “soul” or intention of the artist. While I agree that understanding intention can enhance an experience, I remember not being able to peel my eyes from “I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold” without knowing it was an homage to a William Carlos Williams poem. And with AI art already appearing on the walls of MoMa, can we deny that AI-generated art is already on par with its human-generated analog?
But is it “original?” AI art is often dismissed as derivative. Of course, it is. All art is derivative. We artists tap into the sum of our experiences, filter these experiences through talents we’ve acquired – like drawing or painting – and, voila, we create an “original work.”
How is that different than what AI is doing? Is AI copying any more than any artist copies? Whether you’ve posted physical prints of Cezanne landscapes around your studio or recalled Magritte’s pipe from your memory banks, you’re “standing on the shoulders” of those who preceded you to make “original” art.
The main difference is that Midjourney is pulling from an almost infinite range of experiences. While that might seem unfair, it certainly doesn’t seem like it relegates it to being subpar or, worse, not art.
People tend to overestimate the originality of most creative endeavors. Particularly their own. And while I agree it’s unsettling to see how machines convert prompts into beautiful illustrations in seconds, that doesn’t mean we should be prejudiced against their contribution.
Top neuroscientists are quick to say how little we know about how the human brain operates. And most AI researchers can’t tell you exactly what their own algorithms are doing.
Are we sure we’re that far away from machines emulating human creativity?
Perhaps AI is more “human” than we think.
If that’s even close to true, it’s time to take AI art more seriously. It might be time to recognize that while we might be worried about the implications of AI-generated art, there’s no denying that it’s legitimate.
As for me, I’ll take AI art over its elephant dung brother. Particularly after lunch.