Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Todd Cecutti
ENGL 230
Professor Rybas
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has piqued the interest of the technological world,
leading to praises, questions, and concerns. AI is currently in what technologists consider the
Weak AI stage -- examples of which include speech recognition and processing software such as
SIRI on the iPhone -- but more and more progress is being made toward Strong AI and
Superintelligence, which, theoretically, match or exceed human capability (Illing, 2017). As the
prospect of AI that can meet and exceed human capability becomes more and more achievable,
the question becomes not, What will AI be able to do? but, What wont AI be able to do? and
the even more interesting and concerning, What dont humans want AI to be able to do? Many
activities and services performed by humans will be replaced by AI, such as financial decision
making and transactions, scientific discoveries, and even educating. One realm that cannot
continue, progress, and flourish without a true human mind is art, and for the purposes of this
argument, visual art in particular -- paintings, drawings, sculptures, and other forms that may be
found in a traditional art museum. Art is a truly human activity -- as it has been for millennia
-- and legitimate art cannot be created by AI due to its need for human input and its inability to
engage in the artistic process, which includes emotions, experiences, and human cognitive
Literature Review
The coalescence of art and AI so far in the academic realm has been experimental and theoretical
with more attention being given to developing AI that can replicate existing human work or
create artwork based off of manual human input. One of the first studies done concerning AI and
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 3
The primary theoretical framework utilized throughout this argument comes from
Jenkins (2007, 2009) In Defense of Crud and Confronting the Challenges of Participatory
Culture. In Defense of Crud gives rationale for the value of bad art, which, theoretically,
cannot be created by AI because the goal of artificial processes is perfection in both process and
product. An integral component of Jenkins bad art argument is that imperfection is necessary
in order to create art and to support the field of art in general. The framework also outlines the
value of the process of art rather than just its product. Confronting the Challenges of
Participatory Culture provides Jenkins five guidelines for what constitutes participatory culture,
which, in this argument, is used to define art and disprove AIs ability to create it.
In the field of AI research, there has been some debate and publishing done around the
between humans and AI. Sorjamaas (2016) I, Author -- Authorship and Copyright in the Age
of Artificial Intelligence outlines the elements of authorship in order to prepare for a world that
is even more integrated with technology. The author argues that this preparation includes a better
understanding of what authorship is, giving this study a working definition of the term.
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 4
Sorjamaa concludes that, at least in the United States, authorship consists of creating rather than
experimenting and pushing current AI capabilities to their limits to see what they can produce or
provide, and while some have theorized about the negative capabilities that strong AI or
superintelligence may develop, none have considered the role of art as elemental to humanity
and irreplicable by machine, no matter how cognitively advanced. A gap in literature on the
topic of AI and art exists when one considers the questions of What wont AI be able to do in the
future? and What dont humans want AI to be able to do? which comprise the essential
Jenkins (2009) outlines the five guidelines that define a participatory culture as one:
2. With strong support for creating and sharing ones creations with others
3. With some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most
5. Where members feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the least
they care what other people think about what they have created).
Considering these characteristics, the art community is undoubtedly a participatory culture. Art
does not put up barriers for expression; the art community supports itself by sharing through art
shows and the like; expert artists do not necessarily know more than intermediate artists, and, for
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 5
the most part, do not protect their trade secrets from each other; artists believe that their creations
matter and are of consequence to the artistic community; art is a social culture -- in fact it is often
collaborative. Gallery spaces and art openings around the world showcase characteristics of a
participatory culture by providing forums for its expression. Jenkins contributes even further to
In Jenkins (2007) article, In Defense of Crud, the author makes an argument for the
value of low-quality products of participatory cultures. He states, We should not reduce the
value of participatory culture to its products rather than its process. Thereby, art, as a
participatory culture, finds its value not only in the final product, but in the creative process. Bad
art has some value, if not as much value as any piece of fine art. Theoretically, AI should be
unable to make a bad product or a bad decision, but Jenkins claims that, All forms of art require
a place where beginning artists can be bad, learn from their mistakes, and get better. If AI
cannot create crud, as Jenkins would say, then how can it create art? And while AI can
consume more in a short period of time than a human can -- in that it can take in massive
amounts of data (in this case art) -- does it consume in the same way that a human mind does,
using what it sees or hears to form an opinion or perspective? And in the age of weak AI, do
programmers of AI see the value of bad art? For humans, the artistic process includes complex
Googles DeepDream has been creating works of art (Fig. 2) based upon images fed
into its neural network a network of computer hardware and software that attempt to emulate
the neurons the human brain (Metz, 2016). In todays weak AI era, this is the crowning
achievement of AI creating art. The caveat, though, is that DeepDreams creations are based on
humans inputting art or images that have already been created by humans. It is purely derivative
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 6
experiences, thoughts, and feelings to create it. As noted by Cole (1991), Computers can at best
simulate, but not possess, intelligence. ...even though a computer might eventually pass a Turing
Test, no computer will ever actually understand natural language or have genuine propositional
attitudes, such as beliefs (399). It is these attitudes and beliefs, which Cole notes as the defining
difference between AI and humans, that may carry the strongest argument against AIs ability to
create legitimate art. For instance, Picasso painted Guernica to warn humanity against the
devastation of war in response to the bombing of Guernica by Nazi and Italian Fascist planes
during the Spanish Civil War; Munchs Scream was conceived by the tired and ill artist on a
sunset walk when he felt as though nature was screaming. These artists attitudes and beliefs
inspired their culturally and artistically significant work. It is highly questionable that AI can
experience the pain that these artists did the pain that inspired their beliefs and, in turn,
Beyond the experiential, another difference between a human and AI lies in its cognitive
framework -- this is the crux of the AI revolution. There are inherent differences between the
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 7
way an AI can or potentially could think and the way a human mind thinks, which is partially
based on object-specific knowledge of the external world (Cohen, 1988). AARON was an AI
created solely for the purpose of discovering how to direct AI in creating art. Cohen (1988)
states in his paper, Without any object-specific knowledge of the external world, AARON
constituted a severely limited model of human cognition. Because an AI does not share the
cognitive architecture that humans possess, it cannot even view art in a human way, let alone
create it. This is why AI cannot create original art, or art that is free of inspiration and direction
from a programmer and/or input that was first authored by a human. The fact that AI cannot
create (or has not created) original art brings into question an element essential to creativity:
authorship.
In a United States Supreme Court decision in the battle between two phonebook
companies, it was decided that originality, as it relates to copyright law, has two requirements:
independent creation and a modicum of creativity (Sorjamaa, 2016, p. 22). While the phrase
is useful when considering the role of authorship in art. Sorjamaa further explains creation by
noting that, In the United States, an author creates instead of merely gathering and setting forth
information (p. 36). By these definitions, an AI is not, by law, creating any art. The
authorship would lie with the programmers of the AI. Consider photography and the role of the
camera; when a photograph is captured, the human operating the camera is the author, not the
machine used to create it. Humans are creators and AI is just a tool.
To further expand upon legality in the world of art as it relates to AIs lack of artistry, it makes
sense to examine the moral rights that are granted to the author of a work of visual art. The
Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) was passed to protect a creator's right to receive or
decline credit for her work, to prevent her work from being altered without her permission, to
control who owns the work, to dictate whether and in what way the work is displayed, and/or to
receive resale royalties (Rosenblatt, 1998). VARA also makes clear that moral rights cannot be
transferred and only expire seventy years after the authors death. Consider DeepDream and its
art. If one is to claim that DeepDream itself is the author of the work it creates, what moral
rights does it have considering that it cannot itself decide in what scenario(s) to receive or
decline credit for the work? Or that it cannot receive resale royalties? Or that it cannot die?
United States law has gone so far as to acknowledge agency as an essential element of the
creation of art by passing acts such as VARA. DeepDream itself does not have agency; the
burden of agency in this case would fall on the programmers who input data in order for
DeepDream to create art, or even to Google as a company. The lack of AIs agency as it relates
According to moral rights as they relate to ownership of art, an artist has the right to
decide whether or not their name is included when their art is displayed, regardless of who owns
it. The right to remove their name from a piece of art would be applied if an artist deems the
displaying of their art unfit or inappropriate in a given situation. Artists also reserve the right to
prevent the destruction, mutilation, or distortion of their work, regardless of who owns it
(Schlackman, 2015). In the age of weak AI, of which DeepDream is a part, neural network
intelligences do not have the capability to judge based on artistic integrity whether its products
are being displayed inappropriately or to prevent the destruction of its art. It is doubtful that
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 9
future advanced AI will possess this sort of highly subjective and judgmental capacity. So how
can one claim that AI is the true artist of what it creates? Ultimately, these moral rights as they
relate to ownership will fall back onto those who input the data into the AI algorithm or the
company to which the AI belongs. Based on United States law, all artists possess these powers
over ownership, therefore if an artist cannot exercise these powers based on incapability, are
they really an artist at all? And is what they created even considered art if, devoid of
originality and agency, an owner can do with it as they please? The issue of an artists power
over ownership of their work brings into question the economic value of the art created by AI.
Power over ownership was put in place not only to protect an artists professional integrity, but
also to protect the value of the art in resale, from which artists earn royalties (Schlackman,
2015). Numerous factors, but primarily the author of the work, determine the original sale and
resale value of a piece of art, so perhaps the economic value of art may provide some sense of
what constitutes art and what element of that art creates its value.
Around the world, countless dollars are spent on obtaining original pieces of art created
by known artists from a range of artistic eras. Why individuals purchase art may not be
measurable, but what is measurable is how much they choose to spend on it; the prices paid for
art give some concrete idea as to how much people value the medium. For example, in March of
2017, Sothebys held a Contemporary Art Evening Auction where the average price of the first
ten pieces sold was $3.9 million (Sothebys, 2017). At a 2016 auction held by Google to sell
DeepDreams creations, the highest price paid for one of the twenty-six pieces (Fig. 3) was
$8,000 (Brueck, 2016). The many variables of selling and purchasing art (e.g. auction format,
venue, demographic of buyers) make comparison between any two art auctions difficult, but
based on these observations, one can conclude that the value of art lies in the human hand that
The Art of Artificial Intelligence 10
Conclusion
As the world becomes more and more technologically advanced, society and its values will
inevitably change and adapt. Artificial Intelligence is at the center of technological advancement
and its role in the future is uncertain, primarily because its capabilities are undefined. While AI
and technologies of the like will replace human labor in the future, art will remain in human
hands because it cannot be truly created by AI. The value of art, both metaphysically and
financially, come from its process and its humanity. Why didnt Google DeepDreams work sell
for as much as contemporary art created by humans? Because DeepDream didnt feel the pain
that Munch did when he heard nature screaming. And because it didnt experience the Spanish
Civil War like Picasso did when he felt the need to paint a warning to humanity with Guernica.
And because DeepDream simply doesnt see the world the way people see it. Visual art is
References
Brueck, H. (2016, March 01). Google's computers are making thousands as artists. Retrieved
Cohen, H. (1988). How to draw three people in a botanical garden. AAAI-88 Proceedings,
Cole, D. (1991). Artificial intelligence and personal identity. Synthese, 88(3), 399-417. Retrieved
seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Illing, S. (2017, March 8). Why not all forms of artificial intelligence are equally scary.
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/8/14830108/artificial-intelligence-scienc
e-technology-robots-singularity-bostrom
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
Jenkins, H. (2007, February 12). In defense of crud. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from
http://henryjenkins.org/2007/02/in_defense_of_crud.html
Metz, C. (2016, February 29). Googles artificial brain is pumping out trippy-and pricey-art.
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-artificial-intelligence-gets-first-art-show/
Rosenblatt, B. (1998, March). Moral rights basics. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from
https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
Schlackman, S. (2015, January 28). Creator or buyer: Who really owns the art? Retrieved
Sorjamaa, T. (2016). I, author - Authorship and copyright in the age of artificial intelligence
Sothebys Auction Result: Contemporary Art Evening Auction. (2017, March 8). Retrieved
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2017/contemporary-art-evening-auction-l17020.ht
ml