Can artificial intelligence art ever really replicate the human artist's emotional authenticity?

[HenryJamesTaylor]

Hi my name is Henry, new to Creative Spark, but finding it a really inspiring place to visit. I am currently researching art and emotional authenticity for a Fine Art thesis, asking; Can artificial intelligence ever really replace an artist’s human emotional authenticity?

I am finding it a really interesting topic, filled with passionate debate from all sides and I am gaining some extensive and thought provoking knowledge through my interactions with all types of incredible artists, from those who choose to work with more traditional methods to those embracing newer technologies.

This poll has just 3 responses, Yes, No, Unsure, but please feel free to add or send me any additional thoughts as all comments will be greatly valued.

Thank you to everyone who supports me and takes part.

Kind Regards

H.

 

[txomsy]

Define what you mean by replace.

If it is just "seem as if it had sensibility", then obviously yes. Any Art (good Art) makes you empathize, and if yo think of it, it is with the art piece, not necessarily the author. You only need to train it to blindly produce remixes of good Art.

I'd you mean create empathic work that stem from its own really felt, not simulated, feelings, then I suppose it is theoretically possible, eventually, but not in any foreseeable future.

However, we must be aware that just like an artist can make a work with which you can empathize, though de work itself lacks feelings, an AI programmer can also make their craft into an Art and produce an AI (or a book, poem,...) with which you can interact and empathize, and can do it now.

It is all a matter of working out your piece like any other artist.

What one should be careful is to avoid Pygmalion's complex. And let's be real, the better the artwork, the easier and more tempting it is.

 

[txomsy]

Sorry for the typos, typing on a cell phone with "intelligent" auto correction.

 

[Maybenartist]

I'm not sure about this, I used to post photos of birds and paintings on Facebook (I may add that I am no longer on Facebook).
Regardless, lots of people posted what they stated to be photos, which were obviously created with AI. Comments that responded to those images were gushing, how beautiful the bird/animal was and so on. Every now and again there would be a comment that said something like, stop trying to fool people with AI. The majority however, obviously felt some kind of emotion and responded as such.
I've seen software that tries to emulate the style of old masters, Picasso, Van Gogh and others and whilst I think they are sadly lacking, a majority of the general public do not!
By the way, it's not not really creative, it's much more recreative.

 

[pcj]

No

 

[JennieJo]

Define what you mean by replace.

If it is just "seem as if it had sensibility", then obviously yes. Any Art (good Art) makes you empathize, and if yo think of it, it is with the art piece, not necessarily the author. You only need to train it to blindly produce remixes of good Art.

I'd you mean create empathic work that stem from its own really felt, not simulated, feelings, then I suppose it is theoretically possible, eventually, but not in any foreseeable future.

However, we must be aware that just like an artist can make a work with which you can empathize, though de work itself lacks feelings, an AI programmer can also make their craft into an Art and produce an AI (or a book, poem,...) with which you can interact and empathize, and can do it now.

It is all a matter of working out your piece like any other artist.

What one should be careful is to avoid Pygmalion's complex. And let's be real, the better the artwork, the easier and more tempting it is.

I do hate to jump into this discussion, and maybe sidetrack it. But I am going to jump.

This thought really got my attention. "Any Art (good Art) makes you empathize, and if yo think of it, it is with the art piece, not necessarily the author. You only need to train it to blindly produce remixes of good Art."

For me, good art is definitely a relative concept. It's a fluid definition that changes over eras and generations. So, I am thinking that ... if I emphasized or connect with a work, then it's good art. Regardless of who the 'I' is?

You have got me pondering. Thanks for that.

 

[Bongo]

Could AI ever replicate human emotion that would be unrecognizable from authentic human emotion? YES!

A piece of art - painting for example - is only a simulacrum. Indeed even your face, voice, hand movements are NOT your emotions, but a simulacrum of feelings. Paintings contain NO emotions, but rather signs/signals crafted to invoke emotions in the viewer -many are cultural conventions - rain, overcast, oooo sad, moody. sunshine --- ahh happiness, .,,, red -- oo mean angry, etc,,,

So if a painting is a representation, convention, contrivance to portray an emotional state - why couldn't that be codified into an algorithm?

The emotional effect of Music, even a singer's voice, could be accomplished by AI. A much more nuanced act - listening to a singer vs looking at a painting but still not beyond the realm of AI.

John Henry could not outrun the locomotive.

 

[Bongo]

My John Henry reference just made me realize something. I have a small collection of hand-carved figures. I really cherish them, and admire them every day. I know the name of the carver but despite my research nothing else about him. He could of been an insufferable asshole for all I know.

So my admiration is for the work itself, its quirks and imperfections. But could AI and modern CNC (computer numerical control) replicate them -- ABSOLUTELY without question. It hasn't because basically nobody knows or is interested in them.

So perhaps that is the "secret" to staying ahead of AI. You're not going to create something that AI (CNC etc.) cannot - forget that - but you might make something that AI (general public) isn't interested in but a niche audience is.

 

[OliveOyl]

I SAY NO. And this is what convinced me…

So, I (still) love Nick Cave, an Australian singer/songwriter who has a blog called the Red Hand Files where people write letters to him and he responds to as many as possible. This guy named Mark asked a ChatGPT program to write something “in the style of Nick Cave” and so he shared the results on the blog. After responding that “the song sucks” and “the apocalypse is well on its way,” Cave explained why. So far, it’s the best writing (eloquent and smart) that I’ve read about the question you’re asking. And I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply equally to a visual artist as it does to a musician. It’s long but oh well….human expression just isn’t as tidy and efficient as bits of data.
————————————

What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.

Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.

What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations.

It may sound like I’m taking all this a little too personally, but I’m a songwriter who is engaged, at this very moment, in the process of songwriting. It’s a blood and guts business, here at my desk, that requires something of me to initiate the new and fresh idea. It requires my humanness. What that new idea is, I don’t know, but it is out there somewhere, searching for me. In time, we will find each other.

Mark, thanks for the song, but with all the love and respect in the world, this song is bullshit, a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human, and, well, I don’t much like it — although, hang on!, rereading it, there is a line in there that speaks to me —

‘I’ve got the fire of hell in my eyes’

— says the song ‘in the style of Nick Cave’, and that’s kind of true. I have got the fire of hell in my eyes – and it’s ChatGPT.

Love, Nick

 

[NATHAN]

Simple:

 

[MurrayG]

Complicated. AI at the moment can produce work that evokes emotion etc. But.... Not until singularity will an AI produce work from a self aware perspective where it wants to be artistic! Until then, it's a tool that mayyy be used if that rocks your boat. However, it will be interesting to see if a self aware AI can produce artwork that includes the human failings of technical oops, messages, frailty of age etc ... Only then am I interested. What I am saying is, at singularity, the AI may infact be aware to the point it carries emotional baggage of it's creation and learning, THEN it will be TRUE singularity and make art from a place of perspective of emotion, not simply reproducing a mass learnt hysteria. I also mean singularity where it not only achieves human intelligence but also the "god" state of omnipotence, a big ask.
I would rather see art made by the folk here that brings their pain, joy and limitations that exact reproductions.

 

[kwistwainiks]

Art has many aspects. Some of them are purely technical and communicative, for example: Fulfilling certain aesthetic standards ("being nice to look at"), or conveying a mood or message (a painting makes the viewer sad because it depicts a mother mourning her child). In these aspects, AI can already "replace" human artists or will be able to in the near future (something like "throwaway illustrations" for magazines or web media merely exist to catch the reader's eye and have some basic symbolic meaning).

However, "fine art" (i.e. art that's disconnected from practical concerns and purely exists for itself) has human self-revelation, human self-realisation and human communication at a deeper level than relaying a simple message at its center. The human aspect is what gives this type of art its meaning. Even now, there exist thousands of AI-generated "artworks" that are probably wonderful to look at, but I'm not really interested in looking at them. Why? Because to me, art isn't just about pretty pictures or technical skill. It's also about the human aspect, and while AI continues to evolve, the importance of that aspect will only get bigger.

Do I deeply think about the artists emotions and experiences of every painting that I look at? No. But the fact that there's a human on the other end of it is still essential. If a painting resonates with me, it could just be because the brushstrokes are perfect or the symbolism is so striking. But it could also be because I feel something that's connecting me and the artist, who has gone out of their way and spent time and effort to create something with their own hands. When the artwork is the result of an algorithm deciding on what kind of patterns are most commonly associated with some word prompt, that feeling simply isn't there.

AI will only be able to "replicate" this quality of art when we're talking about something like a robot can basically be considered a human being.

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

Sorry for the typos, typing on a cell phone with "intelligent" auto correction.

Hi there,

No worries about the typos, your comment "intelligent" auto correction made me smile especially considering the subject!

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. What I mean by replace is that as technology advances at a rapid rate AI systems are evolving and with this their emotional spectrum might widen, so will AI be able to produce the authentic emotional rawness similar to Tracey Emins narratives, without having what Walter Benjamin described the 'aura' in 'The Work of the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' and do artists feel this human 'aura' and processes by which the art is created is important to the authenticity of the artworks.

Neil Sahota wrote in Forbes innovation, 'Today AI can already express artificial empathy by reading body language, applying psychology, and using neurolinguistics to assess the emotional state of a person.' (Sahota, N. 2024)

Sorry if I am still not explaining myself properly it is a vast subject matter and there are lots of rabbit holes to explore. But it is interesting to try and understand, as well as also get the views of others, on the implications of technology on artistic creation and perception through the through empathy, human connection and lived (experienced) emotion.

Once again, thank you for taking time to give me your views, every conversation and response is opening up more areas to research and helping with my own learning and understanding of the subject.

H

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

I'm not sure about this, I used to post photos of birds and paintings on Facebook (I may add that I am no longer on Facebook).
Regardless, lots of people posted what they stated to be photos, which were obviously created with AI. Comments that responded to those images were gushing, how beautiful the bird/animal was and so on. Every now and again there would be a comment that said something like, stop trying to fool people with AI. The majority however, obviously felt some kind of emotion and responded as such.
I've seen software that tries to emulate the style of old masters, Picasso, Van Gogh and others and whilst I think they are sadly lacking, a majority of the general public do not!
By the way, it's not not really creative, it's much more recreative.

Hi there,

Thank you for responding to my question.

It is really interesting to read your comments on how others respond to AI imagery as you write, 'the majority felt some kind of emotion and responded as such,' and yet there is no authenticity to the photos, and by that I mean that there is no lived experience behind how the artwork was created, yet this lack of authenticity may not be of any consequence to how the viewer reacts to the work.

Many people have responded by saying AI is a tool, not a replacement and this for me sits in line with your final comment that 'its not really creative, its much more recreative.'

Once again thank you for taking the time to respond to me, it really is an interesting topic to be discussing with others.

H.

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

I do hate to jump into this discussion, and maybe sidetrack it. But I am going to jump.

This thought really got my attention. "Any Art (good Art) makes you empathize, and if yo think of it, it is with the art piece, not necessarily the author. You only need to train it to blindly produce remixes of good Art."

For me, good art is definitely a relative concept. It's a fluid definition that changes over eras and generations. So, I am thinking that ... if I emphasized or connect with a work, then it's good art. Regardless of who the 'I' is?

You have got me pondering. Thanks for that.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me and I'm glad you jumped in as you make a really good point,

"Any Art makes you emphasize, it is with the art piece not necessarily the author."

This is where for me it gets very interesting, if AI is able to produce the emotional rawness similar to say, Tracey Emins narratives and the viewers emotional reaction doesn't need or require the author to understand the work, would the knowledge of the complexities of human realness to the experienced by the author make the art more emotionally authentic to the viewer?

You have got me pondering on my own question, Thank you!

H.

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

My John Henry reference just made me realize something. I have a small collection of hand-carved figures. I really cherish them, and admire them every day. I know the name of the carver but despite my research nothing else about him. He could of been an insufferable asshole for all I know.

So my admiration is for the work itself, its quirks and imperfections. But could AI and modern CNC (computer numerical control) replicate them -- ABSOLUTELY without question. It hasn't because basically nobody knows or is interested in them.

So perhaps that is the "secret" to staying ahead of AI. You're not going to create something that AI (CNC etc.) cannot - forget that - but you might make something that AI (general public) isn't interested in but a niche audience is.

Thank you for responding to my question you raise some really valid points and you have me reaching for Jean Baudrillard's 'Simulacra and Simulation'

I agree that AI and modern CNC could replicate artworks, but although the viewer of the artwork is able to have emotional connections / admirations with AI produced work, does work produced this way have a certain flatness to it, or does this even matter? and is this flatness given more emotional energy when the viewer is aware of the human interaction within the narrative, making the work more authentic as emotionally original rather than a computer replication?

Once again, thank you for opening up other avenues of thought for my research.

H.

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

I SAY NO. And this is what convinced me…

So, I (still) love Nick Cave, an Australian singer/songwriter who has a blog called the Red Hand Files where people write letters to him and he responds to as many as possible. This guy named Mark asked a ChatGPT program to write something “in the style of Nick Cave” and so he shared the results on the blog. After responding that “the song sucks” and “the apocalypse is well on its way,” Cave explained why. So far, it’s the best writing (eloquent and smart) that I’ve read about the question you’re asking. And I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply equally to a visual artist as it does to a musician. It’s long but oh well….human expression just isn’t as tidy and efficient as bits of data.
————————————

What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.

Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.

What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations.

It may sound like I’m taking all this a little too personally, but I’m a songwriter who is engaged, at this very moment, in the process of songwriting. It’s a blood and guts business, here at my desk, that requires something of me to initiate the new and fresh idea. It requires my humanness. What that new idea is, I don’t know, but it is out there somewhere, searching for me. In time, we will find each other.

Mark, thanks for the song, but with all the love and respect in the world, this song is bullshit, a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human, and, well, I don’t much like it — although, hang on!, rereading it, there is a line in there that speaks to me —

‘I’ve got the fire of hell in my eyes’

— says the song ‘in the style of Nick Cave’, and that’s kind of true. I have got the fire of hell in my eyes – and it’s ChatGPT.

Love, Nick

Thank you for taking the time to post this response, it is really inciteful and definitely relates to the visual arts, I often discuss the emotionally raw work of Tracey Emin, like Nick and many artists her artwork arises out of suffering, is complex on many levels and certainly when I view it I feel her lived experiences through the way those very personal lived experiences allow her as an artist to create her work.

Nick Cave has come up in my research quite often and I feel he speaks very eloquently on the subject.

Again, thank you for taking the time to post this

H.

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

Complicated. AI at the moment can produce work that evokes emotion etc. But.... Not until singularity will an AI produce work from a self aware perspective where it wants to be artistic! Until then, it's a tool that mayyy be used if that rocks your boat. However, it will be interesting to see if a self aware AI can produce artwork that includes the human failings of technical oops, messages, frailty of age etc ... Only then am I interested. What I am saying is, at singularity, the AI may infact be aware to the point it carries emotional baggage of it's creation and learning, THEN it will be TRUE singularity and make art from a place of perspective of emotion, not simply reproducing a mass learnt hysteria. I also mean singularity where it not only achieves human intelligence but also the "god" state of omnipotence, a big ask.
I would rather see art made by the folk here that brings their pain, joy and limitations that exact reproductions.

Thank you for your response, and you are so right, it is complicated and complex subject. Your post like so many who have taken the time to respond to me has opened my own thoughts, allowing me to question the subject in different ways than I had expected.

Many Thanks.

H

 

[HenryJamesTaylor]

Art has many aspects. Some of them are purely technical and communicative, for example: Fulfilling certain aesthetic standards ("being nice to look at"), or conveying a mood or message (a painting makes the viewer sad because it depicts a mother mourning her child). In these aspects, AI can already "replace" human artists or will be able to in the near future (something like "throwaway illustrations" for magazines or web media merely exist to catch the reader's eye and have some basic symbolic meaning).

However, "fine art" (i.e. art that's disconnected from practical concerns and purely exists for itself) has human self-revelation, human self-realisation and human communication at a deeper level than relaying a simple message at its center. The human aspect is what gives this type of art its meaning. Even now, there exist thousands of AI-generated "artworks" that are probably wonderful to look at, but I'm not really interested in looking at them. Why? Because to me, art isn't just about pretty pictures or technical skill. It's also about the human aspect, and while AI continues to evolve, the importance of that aspect will only get bigger.

Do I deeply think about the artists emotions and experiences of every painting that I look at? No. But the fact that there's a human on the other end of it is still essential. If a painting resonates with me, it could just be because the brushstrokes are perfect or the symbolism is so striking. But it could also be because I feel something that's connecting me and the artist, who has gone out of their way and spent time and effort to create something with their own hands. When the artwork is the result of an algorithm deciding on what kind of patterns are most commonly associated with some word prompt, that feeling simply isn't there.

AI will only be able to "replicate" this quality of art when we're talking about something like a robot can basically be considered a human being.

Thank you for your message and responding to my post.

I have to say that I very much agree your comments, and the more time I spend researching this subject the more I am finding myself coming to very similar conclusions, especially where you write 'art that is disconnected from practical concerns and purely exists for itself.' continuing, 'the human aspect is what gives this type of art its meaning.' My artwork often concerns the narratives of anxiety and is driven by a process of making which links with the routines I use to manage my own anxieties, it can most certainly be replicated, but its the human aspect of the process that feeds into the symbolism of my work which when missing disconnects the artwork from its emotional authenticity and is then just about the superficial aesthetic.

Once again thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, its a very complex and often contentious subject and my research is opening up in ways I had not anticipated through the many varied and thought provoking responses I have received.

H.

 

[JennieJo]

I SAY NO. And this is what convinced me…

So, I (still) love Nick Cave, an Australian singer/songwriter who has a blog called the Red Hand Files where people write letters to him and he responds to as many as possible. This guy named Mark asked a ChatGPT program to write something “in the style of Nick Cave” and so he shared the results on the blog. After responding that “the song sucks” and “the apocalypse is well on its way,” Cave explained why. So far, it’s the best writing (eloquent and smart) that I’ve read about the question you’re asking. And I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply equally to a visual artist as it does to a musician. It’s long but oh well….human expression just isn’t as tidy and efficient as bits of data.
————————————

What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.

Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.

What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations.

It may sound like I’m taking all this a little too personally, but I’m a songwriter who is engaged, at this very moment, in the process of songwriting. It’s a blood and guts business, here at my desk, that requires something of me to initiate the new and fresh idea. It requires my humanness. What that new idea is, I don’t know, but it is out there somewhere, searching for me. In time, we will find each other.

Mark, thanks for the song, but with all the love and respect in the world, this song is bullshit, a grotesque mockery of what it is to be human, and, well, I don’t much like it — although, hang on!, rereading it, there is a line in there that speaks to me —

‘I’ve got the fire of hell in my eyes’

— says the song ‘in the style of Nick Cave’, and that’s kind of true. I have got the fire of hell in my eyes – and it’s ChatGPT.

Love, Nick

Thanks for this post.