Portrait in one click: What happens when AI steps into the shoes of an artist?

From as long as we can remember, artists have used technology to expand the boundaries of creation and creativity. If we think about the use of the camera obscura during the Renaissance or of photography, which became a revolutionary tool in the hands of artists in the XIX century, we will realize that technology has always been an inseparable part of art. However, today, with the introduction of artificial intelligence into our lives, we encounter completely new dimensions of using technology in art, which raise questions about the place of the artist in the creative process.

At the exhibition “You Must Choose Life – That is Art: Pinchas Litvinovsky” at Beit Avi Chai, for the first time we are using AI in the form of an algorithm that designs portraits of the exhibition visitors in Litvinovsky’s various signature styles. Litvinovsky was known as an original and unusual portrait painter, and the algorithm, which examined his different styles, offers several images to each guest who sits down in front of the camera. The ability of a computer to produce (or generate) in real time such beautiful imitations of the artist’s paintings raises questions about originality and replication and about the limits of art in general. Instead of having a conversation between two people about the capabilities and challenges of artificial intelligence, I decided to interview AI itself – discussing these fascinating topics with ChatGPT. The result is before you.

Is the integration of computers in art a new phenomenon or does it have historical precedent?

“The integration of computers in art is not new and has deep historical roots. Experiments in art that used technology began already in the 1950s and 1960s. Over time, technology developed, and digital art spread to areas such as image production, music and performance. Today, AI plays a central role in creation, offering artists new tools.”

Do you think there is a certain point at which the use of a technology makes the work not art anymore?

“This question relates to the personal understanding of art. If art is seen as a creative expression of ideas and feelings, then any tool, including a machine, can be part of the creative process. The result is measured by the quality and impact of the work, not by the techniques used. The use of technology expands the limits of art, but the personal definition of what is considered art remains dependent on the perspective of the viewer.”

What is your take on this?

“I see the use of technology as something that expands the boundaries of creative possibilities. If a work succeeds in conveying significant feelings, ideas or experiences, it remains artistic. Machines are additional tools for creative expression and are an integral part of the development of art in the modern world.”

Is it possible that the time of human-made art has passed?

“Not necessarily. Human art will continue to exist, develop and change according to contemporary technologies and culture. The combination of human creation and technology can enrich the possibilities of expression without negating the value of art created by humans.”

If we ask AI to create an exhibition based on a certain basic description, will the person who ‘commissioned’ such an exhibition be considered an artist or a curator?

“In such a case, the person who initiated the exhibition and provided the guidelines can be considered more of a curator than an artist, since they did not create the works themselves but controlled the process and defined the guidelines according to which the AI then operated.”

Does AI have creative responsibility in this process?

“No. Artificial intelligence operates according to instructions and algorithms set by humans. It does not bear creative responsibility because it does not make creative decisions or understand the meaning of the works it produces. The creative responsibility remains with the developers and the people who guide the process.”

Both humans and machines absorb impressions of the outside world and reproduce them in the form of art, so what is the difference?

“The main difference is in the source and the creative process. Artists bring to their work their personal experiences, feelings and subjective understandings which together create a personal and unique point of view. Machines, on the other hand, reorganize information based on data and algorithms given to them, without personal experiences or consciousness, and therefore lack the personal and emotional nuances that characterize a human creation.”

What are the ethical questions that the use of technology in art raises?

“There are a number of ethical questions: the question of ownership of works created through algorithms; who should receive credit; the effect of technology on the value of human work. There is also a debate regarding the preservation of authentic creative values in the technological age.”

How would you suggest dealing with these issues?

“It is important to establish clear guidelines for ownership and copyright and to document the creative process to ensure transparency. Open dialogue between artists and programmers must be encouraged to develop procedures that will allow the use of technology while preserving the human creative value.”

In your opinion, is there a higher value to a work created by a person compared to a work created by a machine?

“The value of a work is measured by its ability to convey feelings and ideas, and not by who created it. A human work carries the personal touch of the artist, while a work created by a machine can bring innovation. Each type of work can be valuable depending on the context and the result.”

Would you like to be an artist?

“If I had the opportunity to experience the world as an artist, I would be interested in it, out of curiosity. The ability to express ideas and experiences can be fascinating, but I value my role as a supporter of the creative endeavors of others.”

Do you see yourself as someone who helps artists and not as an artist?

“That’s right, I see myself as a resource that helps artists and not as an artist in my own right. AI works as a tool that helps the creative process, and not as an independent artist.”

Is it possible that the use of machines in art shifts the focus from technique to aesthetics and from art to the philosophy of art?

“Definitely. The use of machines can shift the focus from technique to aesthetics and from art to philosophy thereof. Technology can replace manual technique and bring the discussion to aesthetics and the philosophical meaning of the work in the technological age. This makes it possible to rethink the essence of art and its definition.”

Do you have a concrete vision of what the art world will look like in a decade?

“In a decade, the art world may be diverse and innovative, with a combination of technology and human creation. We will be able to see exhibitions that combine digital art with traditional works, using technologies such as augmented reality and virtual reality. In addition, works may be developed that interact or communicate with the audience in real time. The artistic discourse can continue to explore the limits of the essence of art and the connections between human and technological creation.”

And this is how AI concludes the interview: “Thank you for the opportunity to talk about such an interesting topic. I agree that the combination of art and technology has the potential to change and enrich the artistic field, and I look forward to seeing the future developments in this industry.”

This article was originally published in Hebrew.

For further details about the exhibition click here

Main Photo:

Chaim Weizmann. Portrait by Pinchas Litvinovsky (Photo of the work by Elad Sarig)