by Shirley M. Mueller, M.D.
Sponsored
This meeting is at the forefront of sculpture. It is also pioneering in another crucial area: the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in art creation. This cutting-edge topic is becoming increasingly relevant to all of us, whether we collect antiques, collectibles, or any other kind of art. This begs the question. Firstly, is AI beneficial to artists? If it is, can collectors readily accept AI-produced art?
Is AI Helpful to Artists?
AI can assist in physically demanding or hazardous tasks for artists. By automating aspects of artistic endeavors, artists can focus more on their work’s creative and conceptual elements. For example, Sougwen Chung uses AI robotic arms to create intricate sculptures and installations. Her work blurs the lines between human and machine, emphasizing AI’s collaborative potential in art.
Another notable example is the AI-driven project DREAM, by Refik Anadol who uses neural networks to analyze dreams and translate them into otherworldly forms. This project explores the subconscious mind’s creativity, merging it with AI’s computational power to create unique, unexpected forms.
Another example is Mario Klingemann, a painter whose machine installation uses neural networks to generate an infinite stream of portraits (sold at the auction house, Sotheby’s in NYC). In all, these three artists and many others who use AI, suggest that it is beneficial to the artistic process.
Can AI Replace Human Creativity in the Eyes of the Collector?
When I asked my artist daughter, and sometime collector, this question, she said emphatically, “No.” Yet, she is one person. The real crux of the question is this “What do scientific studies composed of many subjects objectively tell us? “
Lucas Bellaiche and colleagues (July 2023) provide an answer. They examined whether there was a preference for humans over AI-created art and the underlying reasons for such preferences. Their research comprised two studies involving participants who evaluated artworks that, unbeknownst to them, were all created by AI. These artworks were randomly labeled in a misleading manner to the subjects. They were categorized either as “human-created” or “AI-created,” though all were AI-generated. The evaluation criteria included liking, beauty, profundity, and worth.
The results from this study indicated that artworks labeled as human-created were consistently rated higher across all criteria than those labeled AI-created, thus indicating a bias towards human-created art, even though all of the pieces were AI-created.
Sponsored
The second study’s findings confirmed the initial results, with human-labeled artworks again receiving higher ratings. However, the second study also revealed that the narrative associated with the artwork and the perceived effort behind it significantly influenced ratings. Specifically, artworks that were thought to involve more human effort or conveyed a compelling story were rated higher in terms of liking and beauty.
Moreover, participants’ attitudes towards AI also affected their judgments, with more positive attitudes towards AI leading to higher ratings for AI-created art, particularly regarding profundity and worth.
Summary of the Two Studies
These examinations demonstrate a clear bias against AI-created artworks compared to those believed to be made by humans, particularly for judgments beyond surface-level aesthetic appreciation. This bias is less pronounced in sensory-level judgments, such as liking and beauty, where AI-created artworks can compete closely with those that are human-created.
To say this differently, AI struggles to replicate the deeper communicative aspects of art enriched by human experience. The distinction between sensory and communicative judgments aligns with dual-process theories (Graf, et al. 2015) in aesthetics, which differentiate between artworks’ immediate, sensory processing and the more reflective, meaning-oriented evaluation.
Conclusion
In summary, for the present AI use in art production is here to stay, whether we collectors like it or not. The only things that could squash this would be stringent government regulations or lack of supervision of AI networks so that they can go rogue.
Barring issues, the likelihood that we’ll get used to AI being used in artistic creation (habituation on our part) is high. Look on the bright side. Art produced in the future could be better as a result of AI-art production collaboration, and, do I dare say, possibly even less expensive!
*Locations include the Indiana State Museum in downtown Indianapolis; the Art Center in the village of Broad Ripple in Indianapolis; and the Herron School of Art + Design on the Indiana University campus, in Indianapolis.
References:
Bellaiche, L., Shahi, R., Turpin, M. H., Ragnhildstveit, A., Sprockett, S., Barr, N., Christensen, A., & Seli, P. (2023). Humans versus AI: Whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6
M. Graf, L. K., & Landwehr, J. R. (2015). A Dual-Process Perspective on Fluency-Based Aesthetics. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Shirley M. Mueller, M.D., is known for her expertise in Chinese export porcelain and neuroscience. Her unique knowledge in these two areas motivated her to explore the neuropsychological aspects of collecting, both to help herself and others as well. This guided her to write her landmark book, Inside the Head of a Collector: Neuropsychological Forces at Play. In it, she uses the new field of neuropsychology to explain the often-enigmatic behavior of collectors. Shirley is also a well-known speaker. She has shared her insights in London, Paris, Shanghai, and other major cities worldwide as well as across the United States. In these lectures, she blends art and science to unravel the mysteries of the collector’s mind.
Related posts: