The Art of Artificial Intelligence 1

Not Quite Human:

The Art of Artificial Intelligence

Todd Cecutti

ENGL 230

Professor Rybas

March 26, 2017

 The Art of Artificial Intelligence 2

Not Quite Human:

The Art of Artificial Intelligence

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

framework. Furthermore, authorship

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

art was Cohens (1988) How to Draw Three

People in a Botanical Garden. This study

provided the world of AI with its, seemingly, first

glimpse into how to teach AI to create art (Fig. 1).

Cohens findings show that weak AI is dependent

on human cognitive framework in order to create,

Figure 1: AARON Drawing
which is an element of this argument.

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

ownership/authorship issue, which contributes to understanding and arguing the difference

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

gathering and transmitting information (2016).

Researchers, technologists, journalists, and bloggers so far have been interested in

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

questions for this argument.

Jenkins: Art as Participatory Culture and the Value of Bad Art

Jenkins (2009) outlines the five guidelines that define a participatory culture as one:

1. With relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement

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

experienced is passed along to novices

4. Where members believe that their contributions matter

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

this conversation by substantiating the role of bad art in participatory cultures.

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

psychological and emotional elements, including risk-taking.

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

-- a manipulation of existing art. A

counterpoint to this argument is that

humans have been using technology to

create art for centuries, such as Johannes

Vermeer and, as Metz (2016) noted, Hans

Holbein. But in the end, the genesis of

Figure 2: "Art" Created by DeepDream
their art was in the human mind, using their

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,

informed their art.

What We Are and What It Is: The Problem of Authorship

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

a modicum of creativity is broad and seemingly open to interpretation, independent creation

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.

Moral Rights, Ownership, and the Economic Value of Art

 The Art of Artificial Intelligence 8

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

to moral rights also bleeds into the issue of ownership of art.

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

creates it. Humans create art that is of a moment

and the result of individual experience and

process, as opposed to an AI that creates art

constricted to manipulating human-generated

input. Presumably, the computer code (created by

a human) that enables DeepDream to make art

would sell at auction for far more than $8,000.

Figure 3: Unveiling a Purchased Piece of
DeepDream Art, via Instagram User grayareaorg

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

human, and it will stay human.

 The Art of Artificial Intelligence 11

References

Brueck, H. (2016, March 01). Google's computers are making thousands as artists. Retrieved

March 24, 2017, from http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/google-deepdream-art/

Cohen, H. (1988). How to draw three people in a botanical garden. AAAI-88 Proceedings,

846-855. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from http://www.aaai.org/

Cole, D. (1991). Artificial intelligence and personal identity. Synthese, 88(3), 399-417. Retrieved

March 10, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20116948?

seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Illing, S. (2017, March 8). Why not all forms of artificial intelligence are equally scary.

Retrieved March 10, 2017, from

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

21st century. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

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.

Retrieved March 10, 2017, from

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

April 26, 2017, from http://artlawjournal.com/visual-art-ownership/

 The Art of Artificial Intelligence 12

Sorjamaa, T. (2016). I, author - Authorship and copyright in the age of artificial intelligence

(Unpublished master's thesis). Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki.

Sothebys Auction Result: Contemporary Art Evening Auction. (2017, March 8). Retrieved

March 24, 2017, from

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2017/contemporary-art-evening-auction-l17020.ht

ml