On January 13, Graham Granger was arrested after ripping art, made with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), off the wall and promptly eating it in protest. Witnesses described him tearing up the pictures and “shoving” them in his mouth as fast as he could. Granger swallowed most of it, but spat some out, intentionally mimicking the way in which “AI art chews up and spits out art made by other people.” When asked, Granger said that his actions were both a direct protest towards the University of Alaska’s AI policies but also an act of performance art, neither of which he thought would be noticed beyond the campus, let alone go globally viral as it did. One reason for this might be its intriguing relevance, drawing attention to the question: was Granger justified in his extreme feelings of offence and anger at AI?
Granger, noting that the artwork was personal and contained much “substance,” stated that AI art is “art that takes away from its own substance by not being created by the artist himself.” He was also irritated by how little “effort” had been put into the artwork, especially compared to the surrounding works of the exhibition. So, if an artwork involves little effort or personality, is it art at all?
Many thinkers have attempted to define art, both to understand its meaning and function, and also to determine what we do and don’t view as art. For instance, Plato viewed art as “mimesis,” or imitation, valuing close replication of its subject. However, society has changed so much that this definition is long outdated. In the early 20th century, R.G. Collingwood argued that art is the imaginative expression of emotion. Then, in the late 20th century George Dickie asserted that an object can only become art in the context of “the art world.” Arthur Danto fortified this perspective, observing that you can have two objects that look identical but one is art while the other is not. What makes something a work of art might not be visible to the senses but rather an atmosphere of theory.
So, if you define art just as Plato did, then AI induced art can indeed qualify, however, if you deem expression of emotion or originality of ideas defining, then AI cannot create art. Granger stated that “AI art isn’t art,” but that there is no “perfect argument that can be made for this because […] at its core art is subjective.” Granger disapproved of how one artist’s laziness had undermined the validity of the exhibition, and, like many of us, felt a resistance to the infiltration of AI into unnecessary aspects of life. Ultimately, though, whatever your feelings are towards his protest, Graham Granger has set new standards for AI opposition, all while getting a free breakfast.
Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash