Art and AI controversies - Ai-Da: The Illusion of Autonomous Art

Marie Horodecki Aymes

Nov 25, 20243 min read

Ai-Da's portrait depicts Alan Turing, a pioneering computer scientist and early figure in A.I. research. Sotheby’s

The history of art has always been marked by technological breakthroughs and paradigm shifts. From the mastery of pigments in the Middle Ages to the introduction of photographic techniques in the 19th century, each new invention has sparked enthusiasm, debate, and controversy. The recent record-breaking sale of AI God: Portrait of Alan Turing by Ai-Da Robot, for $1.1 million at Sotheby’s, fits into this long tradition of fascination with innovation. But what does this piece truly reveal about our times? What does it tell us about our relationship with art, technology, and the very idea of creation?

Art Without the Human

Revisiting the definition of art invites us to question its essence: the artist’s hand, certainly, but above all their intent. The history of art is not merely a succession of objects; it is a narrative—a story of the desires, anxieties, and visions of humanity striving to transcend its condition since the cave paintings of Lascaux.

Ai-Da, as a humanoid machine, disrupts this definition. Is she an artist because she produces? Or is she an artist because we, the audience, decide to call her one? In this sense, Ai-Da may not represent a true artistic revolution but rather a clever narrative construction. Her humanoid appearance, her ability to simulate reflection, blurs the line between machine and human, creating the illusion of intent behind each brushstroke. But is that intent truly hers?

Materiality: A Refuge Amid the Unknown

Throughout history, art objects have often served as talismans. To own a piece of art was to claim a slice of transcendence—something beyond mere utility. With the rise of digital and immaterial art, this symbolic function has been disrupted. Ai-Da, by producing a physical canvas, seems to address this modern anxiety: offering a tangible object to a world both fascinated by and wary of new technologies.

This choice of materiality, though technically incidental, is deeply symbolic. Where other digital artists (like Refik Anadol or XCOPY) focus on immaterial or blockchain-encoded works, Ai-Da returns to the traditional medium. This canvas becomes a reassuring compromise, a bridge between the old and the new, appealing to both traditional collectors and innovation enthusiasts.

Technology: Between Spectacle and Oblivion

Ai-Da’s work, sold for a record-breaking price, has overshadowed the creations of other artists who invest their time and vision in thoughtful digital projects. Why? Perhaps because Ai-Da is, above all, a spectacle. Her performance extends beyond her painting: she speaks, interacts, and simulates humanity. But what remains if we strip away this theatricality? A complex algorithm, undoubtedly, but one devoid of any genuine will.

In contrast, the works of Refik Anadol or Pak, while less tangible, are direct expressions of human intent. They embody a reflection on our relationship with the digital, the immaterial, and the future. Yet these artists were pushed into the background, perhaps victims of our collective attraction to the spectacular novelty of Ai-Da.

Ai-Da: A Revolution or a Mirror?

History teaches us that art often serves as a mirror of its time. Ai-Da, in this sense, perfectly embodies our contemporary contradictions: fascinated by technology, we strive to make it human; fearful of immateriality, we return to tangible objects. But by glorifying a work born from a process devoid of intent, are we not at risk of erasing those who still embody vision and human will? We will sure have more Art and AI controversies in the years to come.