Contemporary Visual Culture and Art

Generative Visions: AI, Human Imagination, and the Future of Art

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63385/cvca.v1i1.23

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence (AI), Art, Computer Vision, Computational Image Processing, Deep Learning, Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI), Machine Learning, Technology

Abstract

This study critically examines the evolving relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and contemporary art, exploring how computational systems are reshaping concepts of creativity, authorship, and aesthetic production. Tracing key historical developments—from Harold Cohen’s pioneering AARON program in the 1970s to contemporary practices employing deep learning and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)—the research provides a structured and contextualized overview of AI’s integration into artistic processes. Through case studies including Google’s DeepDream, works by the collective Obvious, and artists such as Mario Klingemann and Anna Ridler, the paper analyzes AI’s role as both a tool and a co-creator. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from art theory, philosophy, and cognitive science—especially the work of Margaret Boden—the study interrogates long-standing assumptions about originality, intention, and human imagination in the context of machine-generated art. Ethical concerns such as dataset bias and algorithmic opacity are examined alongside curatorial and institutional responses to AI art. This research argues that AI-generated art emerges not from autonomous systems alone, but through complex human-machine collaborations that challenge traditional artistic paradigms.  Ultimately, the investigation contributes to a broader understanding of creativity in the digital age and offers a critical framework for navigating the cultural, philosophical, and technological implications of AI in art.

References

[1] Todorovic, M., 2024. AI and heritage: A discussion on rethinking heritage in a digital world. International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies. 10(1), 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46442/intjcss.1397403

[2] Vincent, J., 2024. All these images were generated with Google's latest text-to-image AI. The Verge. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/24/23139297/google-imagen-text-to-image-ai-system-examples-paper (cited 28 March 2025).

[3] Edwards, B., 2024. FLUX: This new AI image generator is eerily good at creating human hands. Ars Technica. Available from: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/08/flux-this-new-ai-image-generator-is-eerily-good-at-creating-human-hands/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[4] De Rooij, A., 2024. Bias against artificial intelligence in visual art: A meta-analysis. PsyArXiv Preprints, 23–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/n4jdy

[5] Sharkey, N., 2007. The programmable robot of ancient Greece. Available from: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526111-600-the-programmable-robot-of-ancient-greece/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[6] Brett, G., 1954. The automata in the Byzantine “Throne of Solomon”. Speculum. 29(3), 477–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2846790

[7] Kelinich, 2014. Maillardet's automaton. The Franklin Institute: Philadelphia, PA, USA. Available from: https://www.fi.edu/maillardets-automaton (cited 28 March 2025).

[8] Natale, S., Henrickson, L., 2022. The Lovelace effect: Perceptions of creativity in machines. White Rose Research Online. Available from: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/182906/6/NMS-20-1531.R2_Proof_hi%20%282%29.pdf (cited 28 March 2025).

[9] Lovelace, A., 1843. Notes by the translator. Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs. 3, 666–731.

[10] Turing, A., 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Available from: https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf (cited 28 March 2025).

[11] Crevier, D., 1993. AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence. BasicBooks: New York, NY, USA.

[12] Newquist, H.P., 1994. The brain makers: Genius, ego, and greed in the quest for machines that think. Macmillan/SAMS: Gordonsville, VA, USA. pp. 45–53.

[13] Elgammal, A., 2019. AI is blurring the definition of artist. American Scientist. 107(1), 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.1.18

[14] Greenfield, G., 2015. When the machine made art: The troubled history of computer art, by Grant D. Taylor. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts. 9(1–2), 44–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17513472.2015.1009865

[15] McCorduck, P., 1991. Aaron's code: Meta-art, artificial intelligence, and the work of Harold Cohen. W. H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA. p. 210.

[16] Poltronieri, F.A., Hänska, M., 2019. Technical images and visual art in the era of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts; 23–25 October, 2019; Braga, Portugal. pp. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359865

[17] Harold Cohen, 2016. Art Forum. Available from: https://www.artforum.com/news/highlights/harold-cohen-1928-2016-73975 (cited 28 March 2025).

[18] Diehl, T., 2024. A.I. art that's more than a gimmick? Meet AARON. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/arts/design/aaron-ai-whitney.html (cited 28 March 2025).

[19] ACM SIGGRAPH history archives, 2017. Karl Sims. Available from: https://history.siggraph.org/karl-sims/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[20] Karl, S., 2016. The Overlap of Science and Art with Karl Sims. Available from: https://cap.csail.mit.edu/engage/spotlights/karl-sims (cited 28 March 2025).

[21] Karl, S., 1991. Sophia Bracy Harris. Available from: https://www.macfound.org/fellows/433/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[22] Golden Nicas, n.d. Ars Electronica Center. Available from: https://www.aec.at/press/en/press-releases/golden-nicas/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[23] Karl, S., 1990. Panspermia. Available from: https://www.karlsims.com/panspermia.html (cited 28 March 2025).

[24] Karl, S., 1992. Liquid Selves. Available from: https://www.karlsims.com/liquid-selves.html (cited 28 March 2025).

[25] Karl, S., 1997. Galapagos. Available from: https://www.ntticc.or.jp/en/archive/works/galapagos/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[26] Television Academy, 2025. Nominees & Winners. Available from: https://www.televisionacademy.com/awards/nominees-winners/2025/outstanding-comedy-series (cited 28 March 2025).

[27] Draves, S., 2005. The electric sheep screen-saver: A case study in aesthetic evolution. In: Rothlauf, F., Branke, J., Cagnoni, S., et al., (Eds.), Applications of Evolutionary Computing. Springer: New York, NY, USA. 3449. pp. 458–467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32003-6_46

[28] Lieutenant, W.H., 2024. Artificial intelligence art. Available from: https://www.collegesidekick.com/study-docs/5519622 (cited 28 March 2025).

[29] Jacquelyn, G., 2017. Robots, Race, and Algorithms: Stephanie Dinkins at Recess Assembly. Available from: https://art21.org/magazine/robots-race-and-algorithms-stephanie-dinkins-at-recess-assembly/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[30] Small, Z., 2017. Future perfect: Flux Factory's intersectional approach to technology. Available from: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/future-perfect-flux-factorys-intersectional-approach-to-technology-71835/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[31] Dunn, A., 2018. Multiply, identify, her. The Brooklyn Rail. Available from: https://brooklynrail.org/2018/07/artseen/Multiply-Identify-Her (cited 28 March 2025).

[32] Sonya, C., 2018. Not the only one. Available from: https://creative-capital.org/projects/not-the-only-one/ (cited 28 March 2025).

[33] Sougwen, C., 2015. Drawing Operations. Available from: https://sougwen.com/project/drawing-operations (cited 28 March 2025).

Downloads

How to Cite

Generative Visions: AI, Human Imagination, and the Future of Art. (2025). Contemporary Visual Culture and Art, 1(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.63385/cvca.v1i1.23