3D Models
3D Print Models
3D Scans
Animation & MoCap
Textures
Materials
Skin Textures
2D Game Assets
Sound Effects
Brushes & Tools
Reference Photos
Stock Images
HDR Images
3ds Max
Maya
Blender
Unreal Engine
Unity
ZBrush
Cinema 4D
LightWave
Marmoset
SketchUp
FBX
DAE
DXF
GLBChatGPT Answers The Question: Is Generative AI Art?
3Article by Ion Hatzithomas
This is an actual conversation I had with ChatGPT using the "ChatGPT 4o" model. I am posting it here with only very minor edits for readability. The discussion was about whether generative AI output is art, I think you will find the conversation to be very surprising.
- ChatGPT
Good morning! How can I assist you today?
- Me
Lets have a conversation, leave out those bullet or numbered points, lets just chat. Is that ok?
- ChatGPT
Of course, that's perfectly fine! What would you like to talk about?
- Me
I would like to talk about what art is.
- ChatGPT
Art is a fascinating topic. At its core, art is a form of expression. It's a way for people to convey emotions, ideas, and perspectives through various mediums like painting, sculpture, music, literature, dance, and more. What aspect of art are you most interested in?
- Me
The Oxford Dictionary defines art as such...
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Would you agree with this definition?
- ChatGPT
Yes, I think that's a solid definition. It captures the essence of art as a creative expression that resonates with people on an emotional or aesthetic level. However, I also believe art can be appreciated for more than just beauty or emotional power. It can provoke thought, challenge norms, tell stories, and even serve as a tool for social and political commentary. Do you agree, or do you see it differently?
- Me
I do agree. And I would add that art should be as unique for each artist as each person is unique in their own way, would you agree?
- ChatGPT
Absolutely, I agree. The uniqueness of each artist's work reflects their individual experiences, perspectives, and creative processes. This diversity is what makes art so rich and compelling, as it allows us to see the world through countless different lenses. Each piece of art is a unique expression of the artist's identity, emotions, and thoughts. Do you have any favorite artists or art styles that particularly resonate with you?
- Me
So I ask this question, would you say that generative AI, weather visual or written would be considered art?
- ChatGPT
Whether generative AI can be considered art is a fascinating and complex topic. Traditional definitions of art often emphasize human creativity and intent. generative AI, while capable of producing visually stunning or emotionally resonant works, operates based on algorithms and data. Some people argue that without human creativity and intent, AI creations lack the essence of true art.
On the other hand, many view generative AI as a tool that artists can use to enhance their creative process. In this sense, the final output can be considered art because it involves human input, direction, and interpretation. As technology evolves, so does our understanding of art, and generative AI could be seen as a new form that challenges traditional boundaries and definitions. It opens up possibilities for new types of expression and collaboration between humans and machines.
Ultimately, if an audience perceives generative AI creations as art and they evoke an emotional or intellectual response, they could be considered art. The appreciation and interpretation of art are highly subjective. What do you think? Do you see generative AI as a tool, a new form of art, or something else entirely?
- Me
But when an artist creates an art piece, they intend an emotional response. Take as an example when an architect designs a cathedral like St Patrick's in NYC, you enter a space that gives the feeling of being in the presence of divinity. It is hard to feel otherwise in such a space, and this feeling is intentional in the design. I would argue that this level of control over the art piece does not exist when using AI to create work.
- ChatGPT
You make an excellent point. The intentionality behind an artist's work is indeed a critical aspect of what makes it impactful. When an architect designs a space like St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, the goal is to evoke a specific emotional response, such as a sense of awe or spirituality. This deliberate intention and the deep connection between the creator and their work is a fundamental characteristic of traditional art forms.
In contrast, generative AI lacks the capacity for such intentionality. AI tools create based on patterns and data fed into them, without an inherent understanding or purpose behind their creations. While these tools can produce aesthetically pleasing or intriguing works, the level of emotional and conceptual control that a human artist exercises is generally absent.
This distinction underscores a key difference: human-created art often carries the weight of the artist's intent, experiences, and emotions, while AI-generated art is the product of algorithmic processes. The human element of purpose and emotional direction is what often gives traditional art its profound impact.
So, while generative AI can certainly be a valuable tool and produce impressive results, the unique and deeply personal connection between the artist's intent and the viewer's experience remains a defining characteristic of human-created art.
- Me
So would you agree that at least generative AI does not rise to the same standard as human created art?
- ChatGPT
Yes, I would agree that generative AI does not rise to the same standard as human-created art in terms of intentionality and emotional depth. While AI can produce impressive and aesthetically pleasing works, it lacks the human touch the personal experiences, emotions, and deliberate intentions that are intrinsic to traditional art forms. The unique, deeply personal connection between the artist's intent and the viewer's experience is something that generative AI cannot fully replicate.
- Me
I would also like to consider the work of another artist. H.R. Giger is known for his biomechanical art that is often nightmarish and evokes strong emotions for just about anyone who sees it. While his work is undoubtably impactful, it is also extremely unique. It is arguable that no one has ever done anything similar before him, and it is likely that no one will ever in the future. He exhibits a true uniqueness and consistency in his work that is a hallmark of a real artist. Would you agree?
- ChatGPT
Absolutely, H.R. Giger's work is a perfect example of the uniqueness and consistency that characterize a true artist. His biomechanical art is not only distinctive but also deeply evocative, often stirring strong emotions and reactions in those who view it. Giger's ability to create a cohesive, original style that is instantly recognizable and profoundly impactful is a testament to his creativity and vision.
His work is a blend of surrealism and horror, combining organic and mechanical elements in ways that are both fascinating and unsettling. This unique aesthetic has left a lasting impression on various fields, from fine art to film, most notably in the design of the iconic creatures and environments in the " alien franchise.
Giger's art is a clear demonstration of the power of individual vision and the depth of human creativity. His ability to consistently produce work that is both unique and impactful sets him apart as a real artist, whose legacy continues to influence and inspire. This kind of originality and emotional resonance is something that generative AI, with its reliance on existing data and lack of personal experience, cannot replicate in the same way.
- Me
So in your own words, some of the critical elements for something to be art would be...
Personal experiences, emotions, and deliberate intention
Power of individual vision
Ability to create a cohesive, original style
Uniqueness of each work
Is it not true that all of these are not present in generative AI works?
- ChatGPT
Yes, you've summarized it well. In my view, some of the critical elements that make something art include:
Personal experiences, emotions, and deliberate intention: The artist's unique life experiences, feelings, and purposeful actions shape their work, giving it depth and meaning.
Power of individual vision: The artist's unique perspective and creativity drive their artistic expression, setting their work apart.
Ability to create a cohesive, original style: The artist's consistent yet innovative approach creates a recognizable and distinct body of work.
Uniqueness of each work: Each piece reflects the artist's singular expression and creativity, making it one-of-a-kind.
In the case of generative AI, these elements are generally lacking. AI-generated works are created based on algorithms and data patterns without personal experiences, emotions, or deliberate intention. While AI can mimic styles and produce aesthetically pleasing results, it does so without a personal vision or a unique, cohesive style that evolves from individual creativity. Therefore, generative AI, while capable of producing interesting and impressive outputs, does not meet the same standards as human-created art in these critical areas.
- Me
So, considering the fact that generative AI relies wholly on existing works from human artists, and considering our conversation, would it be fair to say that generative AI should not be considered art?
- ChatGPT
Given our conversation and the critical elements we've identified for something to be considered art, it would be fair to say that generative AI should not be considered art in the traditional sense. Generative AI relies entirely on existing works and patterns from human artists, and it lacks personal experiences, emotions, deliberate intention, and the unique individual vision that define true art.
While generative AI can create visually appealing and intriguing pieces, these works are essentially products of data processing rather than personal creativity. They can be valuable and useful in various contexts, but they do not embody the same depth, originality, and emotional resonance as human-created art.
In this sense, generative AI might be better viewed as a tool that can assist artists or produce creative outputs, rather than as an independent creator of art.
- Me
If we had to put this as a yes no answer, is generative ai art?
- ChatGPT
Based on our discussion, the answer would be "No," generative AI is not art in the traditional sense.
- Me
But that implies that it is a new type of art, is that the case?
- ChatGPT
In a broader and more modern context, some might argue that generative AI could be considered a new type of art. However, it fundamentally lacks the personal experiences, emotions, and deliberate intentions of human-created art. Therefore, while it can be seen as a tool or a method for creating visually and intellectually stimulating outputs, it doesn't meet the traditional criteria for what constitutes art. So, from a traditional perspective, the answer remains "No."
View the original ChatGPT conversation. (a bit at the end is missing, trying to correct)
"Li I" by H.R. Giger
1974, acrylic on paper, modeled by wife Li Tobler
ChatGPT:The distinction between being an artist and a product assembly technician in the context of using pre-made 3D human-shaped base meshes and purchased textures can be nuanced and depends on several factors.
Arguments for Being Described as Artists:
1. Creative Input: The individuals are applying creative judgment and skills to modify the base meshes significantly. Moving vertices to create unique shapes and features involves an understanding of anatomy, proportion, and aesthetic principles. The end result can be highly personalized and expressive, showcasing the artist's vision and creativity.
2. Skill Application: Successfully applying UV maps and textures to create realistic or stylized appearances requires technical proficiency and an artistic eye for detail. The choice of textures, the way they are applied, and the final presentation involve significant artistic decisions
.3. Artistic Process: Even if the starting point is a pre-made base mesh, the process of transforming it into a final piece involves multiple steps that require artistic skills, such as sculpting, texturing, and rendering. The final output is often a unique piece of digital art, not just an assembled product.
Arguments for Being Described as Product Assembly Technicians:
1. Use of Pre-made Assets: Relying heavily on pre-made meshes and textures can be seen as more of an assembly process than original creation. The base elements are created by others, and the user is combining and modifying these elements rather than creating something from scratch.
2. Limited Originality: If the modifications to the meshes and textures are minimal or if the process is highly automated, the role may be perceived as closer to product assembly, where the creative input is limited compared to the creation of the base assets.
3. Commercial Context: In some commercial settings, the emphasis might be on efficiency and consistency rather than artistic originality. The role might involve following specific guidelines or templates, making it more akin to a technician's work.
Conclusion.
Most people in this field likely fall somewhere between these two extremes. While they do use pre-made assets, the degree of modification, creative input, and skill application often leans more towards artistry, especially when the final product is unique and reflects personal creativity and style.In many creative industries, the use of pre-made elements is common and doesn't necessarily detract from the artistic nature of the work. The value lies in how these elements are transformed and combined to create something new and meaningful. Thus, these individuals are more accurately described as digital artists, though the extent of their artistry can vary based on their specific practices and the context in which they work.
ME:
So based on your previous answer would it be fair to say a commercial enterprise that relies on brokered sales of prefabricated 3D Character models with pre packaged, third party texture maps created by persons with no actual 3D modeling or texture painting skills, is not morally or ethically superior to a commercial enterprise that uses generative AI to create visually engaging content using for use in the communication of themes , story narratives and Ideas.
ChatGPT:
Yes, based on the considerations discussed earlier, it would be fair to say that a commercial enterprise that relies on brokered sales of prefabricated 3D character models with third-party texture maps is not morally or ethically superior to a commercial enterprise that uses generative AI to create visually engaging content. In essence, the morality and ethics of these enterprises are shaped by how responsibly and transparently they operate within their respective frameworks, rather than the specific tools or methods they use.
And we can add: From a modern perspective, the answer could be "Yes".
The problem with AI is that it is a tool based on human creativity. It has no will of its own apart from that implemented by its designers and whose complexity generates something which is neither anticipated nor truly controllable.
