AI + Art = Strange Tools

It was fascinating to see a mechanism as new as AI subsumed by an entity as ancient as art.

"This is not what I expected!" That was the comment I heard most often when I asked gallery visitors what they thought of the AI and generative images and objects featured at the show I curated for Unchained.Art, "Art in the Age of AI: Evolution or End?"

While no one said precisely what they expected, several visitors did admit they came with an anti-AI bias. Seeing the work in person, they said, had changed their minds. Though one guy did stormed off, stating his contempt for tech art, I appreciated that he’d made the effort to see the work for himself.

Taste in art is very personal, and our reasons for liking or disliking a piece go deeper than the image. And while I was happy that visitors took time to study the work, I wanted to know whether the AI and generative pieces felt like art typically feels to them. Could a digital picture arouse their passions like a beloved painting might?

"If art is supposed to make you feel emotions," one guest said on camera, "Then yes," she nodded glancing back at the work, "Emotions are definitely happening."

In his book Strange Tools, Art and Human Nature, Alva Noë explains that the pictures we make or acquire confirm our version of reality. We live with them, study them, protect them, show them off, and pass them on as a record of our personal vision. The "strange tool" Noë refers to is not the medium; it's the art itself, and as a tool, its function is communication.

I think the show proves him right. While visitors first wanted to know about the underlying code, prompts, sounds, and data used to produce the pictures, once understood, their attention shifted back to the artists and their visual message.

Not surprisingly, the work stimulated conversations about humanity's future, and on several occasions, the entire gallery joined in making predictions and offering sci-fi warnings. Gallerist Christina Hiltscher said she'd never seen audiences study images so intently that most ignored the standard gallery protocol of wine, cheese, and small talk. I won’t claim the art is genius, thought I admire it all, but the work did command the kind of awe that a functioning "art tool" should command. As they left, several visitors remarked, "I came in one person, and I'm leaving another."

It was fascinating to see a mechanism as new as AI subsumed by an entity as ancient as art. The intrigue surrounding AI did play a role, but in the end, the artist's vision was the thing that activated interest and even acquisitions. Though analog, and hand-made art still dominate markets, schools, and museums, our “mind-made” art did not disappoint visitors. The show suggested that we’re beginning to appreciate the powers of our intellect in the same way we have long appreciated our physical talents and attributes.

As we become more accustomed to creative AI, it’s possible that the distinction between mind-made and hand-made art will become as insignificant as whether a painting is made with oil or acrylic paint.

Humanity evolves alongside its inventions. Apparently, for example, when reading was in its infancy, our brains had to rewire, taking some facial recognition brain cells and using them to recognize letters, words, and grammar. New adaptations naturally lead to changes that end earlier ways of being. Yet I wonder, do we grow nostalgic for the past because it has passed far enough away that we forget its limitations; the ones that drove us to search for better solutions.

The pioneering artists who use AI, GANs, and generative processing tell me they feel their creative intelligence has expanded as a direct result. One artist explained how, thanks to AI, they could bypass the dull set-up tasks and focus instead on the hard work of developing meaningful ideas that function as visual objects. Traditional artists too, have the hard task of communicating meaning, but they’re limited by their innate skills, and the physical media they use. AI can remove some of those limiting factors.

Interestingly, our audiences did what traditional audiences do, they gave their interpretations of the work. Again suggesting to me, that the visuals were flexible enough to allow people to see their version of reality in the pictures they liked.

So, my answer to the show’s title question “Evolution or End?” is yes. I think AI is the end of what we have known and that it will lead to the evolution of new, expansive abilities. That said, I think our expectations of art, will remain the same far into the future. Art must communicate to succeed, as long as it can do that; the medium doesn't matter.

Thank you to gallerist Christina Hiltscher, and to the artists Alba Corral, Simon Russell, E9, David Bennett, Shirley Steele, Jiabao Li, Belowsubconscious, James Pricer, Leo Bleicher, d.o.s., Jessica Jackson, Viktor Velikanov, and Blumquist.

Thanks for reading AI + Art on Substack, be sure to subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.