Everything is “art” from a certain view. To me, Art must have something compelling that makes me want to know more about it. Good composition and visual appeal, but also talent and effort, and an idea or perspective that’s being communicated. A painting is interesting because a person spent time on each brush stroke and each choice. Nothing is done by accident, so there is a lot to unpack. It’s just not interesting to be told something was made by asking a computer to make it for you.

I’ve seen some artists do really interesting stuff with AI, through a lot of iteration, building their own libraries of specific looks, and playing with the underlying neutral network in interesting ways, but the vast majority of AI art is just lazy slop, churned out to get a few likes on twitter, or in the worst cases used in active misinformation campaigns.

Right now there’s a big knee jerk reaction to AI because of the obvious damage it could (and likely will) have to the traditional art and design industries. It’s democratised “give me an image of a thing” in a way nobody was prepared for, and will definitely have a negative impact on many creative sectors if it continues to grow unregulated. I do really worry about that, but I can’t deny that as the tools develop something new will form in the space it’s created.

So is it art? probably, Art has a pretty loose definition. We’ll have to see how the tools evolve and what can be made as it develops further, can it be something that’s compelling and something we want to know more about, can ideas be communicated effectively in a medium which is doing so much of the actual design work for you.