In a simple conclusion free of nuance, yes. But limiting art to that only nuance would be the end of it and humanity as we know it because what it lacks would never be able to fulfill the void left by the destruction of other creative mediums.

Once humanity started to evolve enough to adapt out of having to live in survival all day, art blossomed. There were always traces of that need for processing and expression, even when danger was always around. Innovation bloomed as that part of our brain was given more space to be.

Looking at AI art from a professional art setting/group’s perspective, the common conclusion seems to be that AI images could never be art because the artistic community would never peer-review it. Is AI creative technology evolving so quickly that it could very quickly adapt in a way that would make it impossible not to consider? Absolutely. But again, nuance. Within the traditional artist communities – though many of them would argue they are anything but – what makes something worthy of being peer-reviewed? The common theme amongst all mediums can be boiled down to the process, and we are not considering technique or mediums within this extremely simplified scope. The process that each qualified peer group reviews always looks at what you were trying to explore, be it feelings or a thought, the impact of creation on your processing and the lessons learned during the journey, and whether you can provoke that same awakening or feeling in someone else with the result that came out of that.

It’s a process of mindfulness. It’s a state of trance and meditation and breakthrough that some will share with spoken or written words, some with painted strokes, some by capturing the story told by a static moment painted by shadows and the lights with their cameras. Simply arguing that cameras did not replace paints would be a false fallacy and a clear indicator that while the person might be interested, exploring the interest without understanding the benefits of art will only leave them with a sense of unfulfillment with their creations. Coming in from this perspective, fooled by the guise that it lowers the barriers of entry, only makes the intangible barriers of entry in the world of art even more intimidating. If the process of thinking of prompts and manipulating software allows you to have a breakthrough and you manage to share that journey with people, then you have created art, whether the community has accepted it yet or not. Creativity breeds creativity so while the products of AI images might not make it to the status of art, it is inevitable for them not to spur strikes of inspiration in the person dabbling with art through AI, as well as more advanced artists and therein lies its greatest value. But with all change comes a surge of resistance.

Is AI advanced enough for each individual image to be considered within the art community? Not yet. Perhaps not ever. Looking into the mechanics of weighted machine learning that make up the bones of AI, it is not a structure capable of producing new original abstract thoughts. If AI produces a piece of content, it can only do so with the data it contains. Has the technology evolved fast enough to capture new data received from interacting with users? Have their algorithms advanced enough to quickly adapt back that answer at you as if the thought was produced by it? Yes. Is it capable of bias? Due to the nature of data, also yes, but the ethical issues surrounding AI’s development and management are quickly buried and would deserve their own thought piece. Are the conversations that are being fuelled by the users of AI image generation tools from prompts and artists? They absolutely could be if they manage to step into the mind of a true artist instead of giving in to the temptation of becoming a capitalist’s best arsenal in “streamlining” the production of creative projects for the “benefit of the economy.”