Read Text I and answer the question that follow it.
Text I
Generative Art – What’s real?
There is nothing new about the concept and creation of
‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion
of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and
unintended) hit the headlines last week.
Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award
2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his
entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen
himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not
photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with
the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are
prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.
The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running
the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an
element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate:
“While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of
image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to
be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of
photographers and artists working in this medium”.
[…]
The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to
recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The
question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter
the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system
merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic
idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in
terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate
looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation
and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and
use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and
the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.
Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/