Can Artworks by Artificial Intelligence be Artworks?

Authors

  • Yeonsook Park

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i20.332

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, creativity, creative adversarial networks, processed accumulated information, producing artworks by AI

Abstract

The thinking power of Homo sapiens made human beings the lord of all creation. The ability to reason is also the premise of human existence. We, however, now know that this is not confined only to human but to Artificial Intelligence. Over the history of humankind, human beings have attempted to create an immortal being that could surpass their abilities and complements their inferiorities. We are making something immortal and transcendent, which are different properties from our own. Artificial Intelligence may be able to evolve on its own like humans have been doing. As a kind of numerical being, humans are able to be omnipresent with the technology provided. This new kind of existence makes us think about and see things differently. Humans are attempting to create ‘beings’ that can generate art, take care of weak human beings, talk and discuss human issues, and even fall in love with humans. As our minds can run beyond the boundaries created by our body limitations, we would like to infuse our creativity into AI that might evolve from its original state. Similar to what Prometheus did, humans are attempting to share their legacy with another existence. Recently a research team from Rutgers University in New Jersey proposed a system named CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks for generating art with creative characteristics. The team demonstrated a realization of this system based on a novel, creative adversarial network. Their proposed system possesses the ability to produce novel artworks which make people believe human artists produced them. The data the team proposes proves that AI now attempts to do something considered as a creative activity. With this research, the definition of art should be reconsidered. Since the Fountain(1917) by Duchamp, open concepts toward artworks have been embraced by many artists and their colleagues. However, it is time to contemplate the new phase. When we regard something as artwork, should it be created, selected, and combined by human beings? Is it possible that the thing that is accepted as artwork by people can be art? This paper seeks to propose several opinions regarding these questions.

 

Article received: June 23, 2019; Article accepted: July 6, 2019; Published online: October 15, 2019; Review article

 

Author Biography

Yeonsook Park

Yeonsook Park
Kyungpook National University, Daegu
Korea, Republic of

Yeonsook Park, born in Daegu, South Korea, I have spent most of my time in Daegu except while attending High school in CA, US. My interests in Interactivity between viewer and artwork or among viewers are my central study theme. My Ph.D. these are “Play Effects of Interactivity in Maurice Benayoun's Artworks” (2009) and “Interactivity in Digital Performance: Open Text Structures & Differentiation of Aesthetic Experiences” (2016). However, recently Artificial Intelligence and human interactivity issues draw my attention. Particularly producing artworks and qualification of artworks, regarding AI involvement, lead me to investigate what is the difference between artworks by human and AI.

References

Berlyne, Daniel. “Arousal and reinforcement.” In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 15, edited by David Levine, 1–110. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.

Boden, Margaret. Dimension of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2437.001.0001

Boden, Margaret. “Creativity: How does it work?” Accessed May 1, 2018, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/120e/b04b9b69b5f892904a2f6870b8c04cb33f82.pdf.

Boden, Margaret. “Creativity in a nutshell.” Think 5, 15 (2007): 83–96. doi: 10.1017/S147717560000230X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S147717560000230X

Danto, Arthur. “The future of aesthetics.” Accessed May 1, 2018, http://faculty.winthrop.edu/paulinoc/FALL15/ARTH%20680/Arthur%20Danto.pdf.

Dixon, Steve. Digital Performance. A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation. New York: MIT Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2429.001.0001

Elgammal, Ahmed, Bingchen Liu, Mohamed Elhoseiny, and Marian Mazzone. “CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks Generating ‘Art’ by Learning about styles Na Deviating from Style Norms,” the extended version of a paper published on the Eighth International Conference on Computational Creativity, (2017). Accessed January 30, 2017, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07068.

Kurt, Deniz. “Artistic Creativity in Artificial Intelligence.” Master diss., Radbound University, 2018.

Løvlie, Lars. “Is there anybody in cyberspace? On the idea of a cyberbildung”. Utbildning & Demokratic 14, 1 (2005): 115–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48059/uod.v14i1.793

Martindale, Colin. The Clockwise Muse: The predictabilities of artistic change, New York: Basic Books, 1990.

McLuhan, Marshall and Eric McLuhan. Law of Media: The New Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.

Park, Hyun-jung. “Ontological Review on Virtual Reality.” Ontology 37 (2015): 133–63.

Schank, Roger. “Where’s the AI,” AI Magazine 12, 4 (1991): 38–49.

Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1948.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i20.332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i20.332

Downloads

Published

15.10.2019

How to Cite

Park, Y. (2019). Can Artworks by Artificial Intelligence be Artworks?. AM Journal of Art and Media Studies, (20), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i20.332

Issue

Section

Main Topic: Contemporary Aesthetics of Media and Post-Media Art Practices