A Brief Critical Look at Artificial Intelligence and Art

Robert Maddox-Harle

by Robert Maddox-Harle

 

This unprecedented phenomenon is very complex and needs to be looked at from both technical, philosophical and cultural perspectives, in this article I will try and expose the main points so as to encourage further research and analysis.

 

AI (Artificial Intelligence) has three main, and quite distinct aspects to be considered.

(1) The technical, machine/computation nature of an AI “mind” [sic].

 

(2) The practical application of AI used in day-to-day areas such as medical/scientific analysis/diagnosis, commerce, Internet search engines used extensively by such organisations as Google and Facebook, the absurd AI assistants (chat bots) on banking, shopping and most interactive sites, I say absurd because generally these are a waste of time and can only answer simple questions that most users do not need to ask anyway.

 

(3) How AI has the capability to supplant human creativity, its (AI) creation of art, and how it cannot think out-of-the-box as almost all original creatives do. It is point three that is the main thrust of this essay.

 

Looking at Point (1) the actual function of an AI computer mind, which is a combination of original programming, high-end hardware, data storage and internet connectivity has become astonishing, I find this exciting and fascinating and like nothing humans have ever created. Prior to AI, calculators, computers, punch card weaving looms were programmed to function as humans wanted them to, now AI computers can actually think for themselves? (see Figure 1)

 

 Artificial Intelligent Machines (AIMs) can now create original art, not from rule based programming, that is, they are thinking, whether or not “intentionally” is perhaps debatable. I personally believe the machines being discussed are displaying or employing  intentionality, in a Searlean sense. However, the latest AIMs, with convoluted neural networks, do raise some very interesting ontological questions. “The crucial point is that the machine was producing images that were not programmed into it.” (1)

 

As Elwes has discovered, when the generator is cut loose from the discriminator (in these GANS), it is free “to meander in its own latent space”, perhaps analogous to the human non-conscious (subconscious). This machine’s state is a world outside of our experience. The images Elwes has shown are from this latent space, and, “we have no inkling of what these images are in the machine’s multi-multi-dimensional universe” but they do exist! To me this is one of the most exciting discoveries, or perhaps inventions, ever made. Nelson who quips AI stands for Artificial Imbecile would argue that even this “latent space intelligence” is still a human construct, I beg to differ, mainly because, yes of course we have created these machines and yes, we are analysing their intelligence from a human perspective, but these machines are doing things we do not know about nor understand. (2) “By saying a machine can be creative you are not anthropomorphising the machine,” Akten asserts, “but liberating it by expanding the term ‘creativity’ to go beyond humans.” (3) 

 

Figure 1 Inside an AI Mind (no AI used) giclée on art paper

(how I imagine an AI mind looks like from a Quantum perspective)

 

Point (2), practical AI is now being used more and more, used in this way AI is a very powerful and useful tool, and used mindfully it could or may? be a great thing for humanity, but as usual, humans throw the baby out with the bath water and paradoxically end up being enslaved to the tools we have created to help us. I believe, due to our brilliance but lack of wisdom, AI is the final stage in the “dumbing down” of humanity!

 

As with most things humans have invented  there are great benefits and significant dangers. The mobile phone is an incredible technological achievement, unthinkable when I made crystal sets as a child to listen to the radio station. However, the dangers of mobile phones both physical (CVS and RSI), but more importantly psychological/mental health problems – addiction, loss of real social skills, belief in anything that crosses the screen (Dr Google diagnosis of illness) are very serious problems for humans. We must learn to use these devices as tools to help us, not become enslaved by them!

 

The output of AI is devoid of critical thinking, without critical thinking we accept almost everything we see and hear – the nightly news (and fake news), Google search information, apart from having our opinions given to us by those who control these sources, the danger lurks in becoming “sheeplings”, or Soma swallowing, Huxley-like Epsilons.

 

This is becoming more and more an insidious mind programming endemic and therefore dumbing down - as a couple of examples; people say, “just Google it”, totally unaware that there are numerous other internet search engines which give slightly different results than the ubiquitous Google, incidentally the search results are gradually tailored to your lifestyle and buying patterns. If “religion is the opium of the masses”, Google is the new mind/personality opium of the masses. Google is an incredibly powerful tool but should not be used ‘uncritically’ unless you are happy to be an ignorant, manipulated Epsilon.

 

AI is/will be exactly the same! Great invention/discoveries, such as penicillin, happened because the inventors extended their thinking “out-of-the-box” – AI cannot in its practical applications think “out-of-the-box” in this way. Yes, within its own ‘thinking’ can produce unique things (artwork for example) that we don’t understand (as mentioned), and have no control over.

 

However practical AI, asking, with our input, for a certain artwork or essay will return an amazing ‘seemingly original’ image or essay (not really original) based on its massive data analysis power. These images or essays are similar to a junior student ‘more-or-less’ copying say, Picasso’s style Cubism or writing an accurate, well written descriptive essay, devoid of original creative input. Sometimes, ‘out-of-the-box’ original creation produces rubbish, sometimes astonishing new creations, AI is a very sharp two-edged sword, if we are to exercise any wisdom it must be used with caution, mindfully and critically.

Figure 2 Self Portrait #2 Work in Progress (giclée print on art paper).

This work is an experiment/test using some AI generated sections, it’s

easy to see which figures are AI and not a human artists’ creations.

 

 

Point (3) concerns not the “dumbing-down of humans” but the replacement of human creation by AI producing artworks of all genres which belong to it, not the human driving the engine so to speak. A poignant example of this is the Ghibli phenomenon, Japanese artist Hayao Miyazaki once called artificial intelligence "utterly disgusting" and "an insult to life itself". He even said he would "never wish to incorporate this technology into [his] work at all". (4)

 

Miyazaki created, by meticulous hand drawing, an artwork style of cartoon characters which achieved world fame and almost cult following, Chat GPT created an AI application which copied Miyazaki’s drawings and now anyone using this can produce his unique style and absurdly pretend they are the (an) artist. Miyazaki has said himself this is not being inspired by my work it is direct stealing! The artworks alluded to by Elwes in point (1) above are a very different matter.

 

Of course all creatives stand on the shoulders of others, are inspired by others works/styles but while “plagiarism is the greatest form of flattery” it is also the lowest act existential inauthenticity imaginable, this is why plagiarism is the worst offense a student can commit at university, when detected immediate failure or suspension occurs.

 

Some mindful, honest artists use AI tools to help their own creativity, but do not pass the work off, either deliberately or mindlessly, as their own. Figure 2 is a work I created to test an AI application in this regard, the stylised skeleton head is quite obviously an AI generated component of the artwork, not mine at all. I believe, just as we have copyright and Intellectual Property laws to protect creators, we should have laws that if AI, in any form, is used in a work it must be declared. It is worth considering that most AI applications, which more-or-less encourage plagiarism and stealing others’ works have originated in America, the land of the most extreme reinforcement of copyright breeches and extreme copyright laws. Whilst it is still legal in America to reproduce a small portion of written text for educational purposes (fair use) it is illegal to reproduce images, for the same purpose without the express consent of the copyright holder. This means, as an example, I cannot scan the cover of a book I am reviewing, to go with the written review, without trying to find the owner of the copyright! I consider this new American law an infantile, absurd manifestation of paranoia!

 

It is vitally important to get the difference clear between an artist’s original work, (perhaps created with technological tools, such as Photoshop, Poser or Bryce or photographic processes), and AI assisted artworks, and AI generated artworks that have nothing artistic to do with the person issuing the commands/text prompts.

 

I tested this for myself a year or so ago, I asked an AI application for a poem about Nepal, and separately for a critical essay on the poetry of Sylvia Plath. It immediately returned an infantile-like poem listing facts about Nepal with a little poetic flavour? The critical essay was very well written, factually correct but had no critical discussion at all, not even mentioning established, publicised critiques of Plath’s work.

 

We have transcended clever, incredibly capable robots-cyborgs-androids, which are driven by sophisticated sensors and amazing, complex programming. AIMs have evolved [sic] with a mind [sic] of their own, they have partly learnt rule-based operations, like we humans learn, how as a child say, to behave in public. “When you show it something new,” like an undefined image of a cloud, “it tries to make sense of what it’s seeing in terms of what it already knows, which is” – and this is the crux of the matter – “ how we make sense of the world”. “Perception is in the brain, whether it be our brain or that of a deep neural network.” (5)

 

AI when used as a helpful tool for humans, in any of our endeavours, will be a powerful assistant, however an abhorrent disaster when used by individuals to create work which they think is theirs. I agree with Miyazaki, it is disgusting. This act heralds the end of being human, negates any notion of existential authenticity, and supplants the need for real effort, practice and training.

 

References:

 

1 – Miller, A. I. 2019. The Artist in the Machine. The World of AI-Powered Creativity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts p.64

2 – Nelson, P. L. 2022 Artificial Intelligence: The Perfect Psychopath https://independent.academia.edu/PeterNelson44?swp=tc-au-93904532

3 - Miller, (op. cit.) p.76

4 - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-03/the-controversial-chatgpt-studio-ghibli-trend-explained/105125570

5 - Miller, (op. cit.) p.75

 

---

Setu, May 2025