If a robot makes a work (sold for a million dollars): is it really art?

The moment Ai-Da Robot accomplished the feat of making a work of art, a work(Portrait of Alan Turing) that managed to sell for more than $1 million, we were immediately confronted with one of the most daring manifestations of our time. But to what extent can we consider this painting “art” or, more to the point, an artistic gesture? More importantly, what does it mean to purchase a creation that has no human author, but an artificial intelligence executing programmatic commands?

Ai-Da is a humanoid robot with sophisticated artificial intelligence, designed to interact with the world and produce visual works through a process that somewhat mimics that of a human artist. Equipped with cameras in its eyes, Ai-Da “observes” and “interprets” the world around it, creating images that go beyond mere mechanical reproduction.

Her works, while technically impressive, raise profound questions about the nature of art and the role of artificial intelligence in this field. In an age when authorship now seems fluid, what place does a machine occupy in our definition of creativity?

At first glance, we could easily answer: art has always been human expression, and therefore Ai-Da is but a tool, a medium through which humans have chosen to express themselves. But this answer, while legitimate, leaves open questions: when artificial intelligence becomes so sophisticated as to be able to produce unique works, such as Ai-Da’s, can we still speak of a process that expresses human intention? And if so, what role does the human artist play in this case?

Ai-Da, in fact, is not only a machine that replicates pre-existing models, but is also a creature that “learns” and autonomously interprets the world, often with unpredictable results. In the context of a market that increasingly rewards originality and novelty, the fact that a work of art created by a machine is sold for such a high value forces us to confront the very concept of artistic value. Is it the work that is valued for its aesthetics and content, or is it its origin that determines its price? The sale for more than $1 million raises a question about the contemporary art market: is the growing presence of technologies generating a change in valuation criteria? Artificial intelligence, which once seemed a field far removed from artistic creativity, has now become a tool for visual experimentation and, in this case, even for assertion in the art world.

But returning to the figure of Ai-Da, what kind of relationship is there between the artist who designed the robot and the artificial intelligence that animates it? If Ai-Da creates a painting, is it fair to attribute authorship to her, or is the real author the one who programmed the machine? In this scenario, the artist perhaps becomes an engineer, an architect of digital worlds, and no longer the inspired creator of emotions. Ai-Da, on the other hand, has no soul, no feelings, and possesses no consciousness. Yet, his paintings elicit reactions. What happens when the machine brings out a beauty that, after all, has a non-human origin? Are the emotions felt by the viewer then authentic, or are they a reflection of what we attribute to machines in our constant search for meaning?

These questions are essential, but perhaps more essential is the fact that Ai-Da, through his work, is forcing us to reexamine the categories that have accompanied us for centuries: the idea of authorship, originality, emotion, and even humanity. We may have been under the illusion that art was only a human domain, and today the machine, which copies but at the same time reinterprets, invites us to reconsider our conception of creativity and beauty.

Ai-Da’s art is, perhaps, a reflection on ourselves. Perhaps we are not only looking at his works, but also a representation of our ability to innovate, to adapt to a world increasingly overrun by technology. In any case, the sale of Ai-Da’s work for over $1 million is not just a news story, but a sign of the change taking place. If artificial intelligence can produce works of art that deserve such value, the question remains: are we ready to accept that art can also be, in part, a product of a machine’s ingenuity?

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.