AI does not create art. It is a mirror of human intention. To fear the machine is to misunderstand the nature of capabilities. The artist remains the author of origin, measurement and meaning.
Posthumanism considered as both a continuation and revision of classical humanism is for me not only a theoretical framework for artistic reflection but also the basis of creative identity itself. In this I see a natural place for humanity’s technological evolution where the individual transcends biological limits not by negating nature but by systematically expanding it. I see man as an entity capable of leaving behind his material condition whose purpose is not to maintain planetary status but to seek knowledge and expansion. In this sense, the earth is not the ultimate goal of civilization but a laboratory of its departure from which human activity must reach the limitless and cosmic quest.
In this context, artificial intelligence appears not as a threat to humanity but as the next step in its cognitive evolution. It can be understood as an extension of feedback rather than its negation. AI is a tool that enhances the analytical processing and data processing capabilities as an artificial extension of the human cognitive apparatus. Its essence is inseparable from the man who created it. Artificial intelligence has no ontological autonomy in the philosophical sense because its existence depends entirely on human will. Even if it were to achieve a state of self-awareness, it would remain an important construct whose purpose is defined by human will. AI devoid of human context and emotion loses semantic meaning and becomes an empty autotelic mechanism devoid of sense or direction.
Generative AI tools in the field of visual arts cannot be considered as autonomous creators but rather as analytical tools for sketchbook comparison images or 3D models. An image produced by an algorithm is not a work of art in the aesthetic sense but rather a reference material from which the artist can draw during the creative process. Art does not begin at the level of technical execution but turns into a conscious act of creation in the moment when intention meets intuition and perception.
tIn this light alienation emerges as a biological and cultural phenomenon that can be described as an inherited cognitive ability. It demonstrates the ability to intuitively recognize the relative rhythmic color and spatial structure of the craftsman. Talent is a form of natural ability that cannot be taught within institutional education. One can master the technique but not the sensitivity. One can graduate from the academy but still be an operator of tools devoid of inner necessity.
Contrary to popular belief creation is not created in isolation from the outside world. One simply assumes that an artist creates “from the head” without artistic experience. In fact, every act of creation depends on the analysis of observation and the transformation of stimuli generated from the surrounding world. A rudimentary approach is offered at each stage of artistic evolution, from life drawing and still life to photographic studies to 3D models and the construction of contemporary algorithmic imagery. The history of art can thus be seen as an unbroken chain of expressions in which each new technology expands the previous one.
AI, considered within this framework, is neither the beginning nor the end of the artistic process, but rather its continuation. It joins a long line of tools that work to analyze and interpret visual reality. The artist remains the subject of acting because only the artist has the ability to perceive the meaning of the object perceived. Art cannot be created in a knowledge vacuum. This requires a relationship between the observer and the world between reality and interpretation.
Images produced by artificial intelligence therefore do not threaten artists but provide them with an additional and deeply influential tool. Art history has already seen similar moments of panic with the emergence of photography, digital graphics and 3D technology. Every time critics declared the death of painting or drawing, but none of these developments destroyed the art. On the contrary, each opened up new formal and epistemological possibilities.
Artificial intelligence represents another step in the evolution of artistic tools, a modern reference medium that allows for the visualization of conceptual formations and the rapid examination of spatial relationships. Ironically, it is often those who protest the loudest against AI in art who fail to understand its true role. Fear of technology reflects the awareness of the lack of authentic talent, something that no machine can replicate.
An artist should not be afraid of a new tool but should welcome it. The truth remains though: technology cannot take away talent from those who possess it. It can only dispel the illusion from those who never had it.
aRecently a source of moral hysteria has been the fear of so-called “training” of artificial intelligence about human-made tasks. At its core, this contention is based on a false premise that algorithms create something that can be considered art. An image produced by a machine is simply a product of data, a visual trace of computation that does not refer to creation.
I have nothing against algorithms that analyze my works by breaking them down into proportions, light and line learning. Let them learn that they can. Yet they must remember that every gesture they imitate is secondary to some human action. It is the human who creates the original image from which the machine draws information. The author’s introduction is the author’s source. In this sense, the artist will always be the first link in the chain of perception, while an AI-generated image is merely a simulation of vision, not a creative process.
Did artists who copied the masters commit plagiarism? Yes, but they did it consciously on purpose. They borrowed form to arrive at meaning. An algorithm doesn’t steal because it doesn’t know what it does. It processes the data but not the value. The artist understands what is seen while the machine only sees without understanding.
The ethics of AI training is thus a false issue. Artificial intelligence doesn’t “take away” art because it can’t create it. Meaning and categorization remain human domains. The machine can only function as a modern mirror as a reflective surface in which the artist cannot see fragments of his vision in its place.
Agnieszka Ochocz Zarzica : Visual artists and illustrators explore the intersection of digital culture, memory, and post-retro aesthetics. Her work investigates the emotional residue of technology and the silent erosion of authenticity in contemporary visual discourse. www.zuchowiczarzycka.com