Technology News

The emergence of new technological tools, such as various forms of artificial intelligence, has revived the old debate about the concept of art and what belongs to it and what does not.

ZENIT – Caffe Storia / Rome, February 20, 2024

Imagine a woman's face. Gray eyes, color and flowers in the hair, a beauty that even the shadows under the eyes cannot spoil. Can such a face convey the idea of ​​”art”? Apparently this is the case, according to Stable Diffusion, an artificial intelligence, more precisely a deep learning model, released in 2022, capable of generating images in response to text input (in this case, “art”).

Artificial intelligence

This is an image created specifically for this article and, as we repeat, was not created without human intervention. In fact, today we are talking about graphic products created by people using technologically advanced tools: algorithms and information coded by people, used with a certain degree of autonomy by people to generate images (or texts), but also, to To help artists with composition suggestions, color palettes, reworking existing images or even creating new images.

In this case, the drawing is very often generated from an input, either a text description or another image (this system has already been used on these pages, for example). In short, the anthropomorphic robot that can paint independently belongs to science fiction at the moment.

Artist?

But can we compare these algorithms to real artists? This is not about “beauty” in the sense of adhering to aesthetic canons of its production, which are valued by a more or less important part of a user audience; nor the economic value, or at least that which some are willing to attribute to them: in 2018, Edmond de Belamy's canvas engraving, obtained using a generative adversarial network (GAN), was sold during an auction at Christie's for more than 432,000 US dollars. dollars sold.

An artificial intelligence is not an “artist” – unlike those who program or use it, no doubt – because it is an instrument. It has no consciousness or history to pass on more or less consciously to its creation.

Ultimately, the very idea of ​​humanity is called into question: are we just complex machines made of flesh and blood, over-programmed to respond to a variety of stimuli, or are we beings created to transcend matter, unique and uniquely irreplaceable in our individuality and our ability to communicate?

In the first case, any artificial intelligence could replace us sooner or later. In the second case, the artist – whether painter, sculptor, musician, writer or something else – invests his whole being in his works, necessarily leaving a part of himself behind. Nothing overly romantic or naive: it's called creation and has nothing to do with God's style.

The high technical progress achieved in the field of artificial intelligence and the advances expected in the future testify to nothing other than the progressive expulsion of the creative and creative soul. Artificial intelligence is and remains a tool for the time being. Unless we want to attribute Cupid and Psyche to Canova's carving talent or the vault of the Sistine Chapel to the ingenuity of Michelangelo and his workshop.

Art and people: the Rupnik case

Certainly, by analyzing the past – and very often the present – of certain artists, what is seen as the flaws of artificial intelligences could work in their favor compared to the art created by humans.

This is the case of Marko Ivan Rupnik, who is accused by several women of “psychological violence, abuse of conscience, sexual and emotional abuse, spiritual abuse,” based on facts that date back more than 30 years. A decision is expected in the coming weeks regarding the fate of the – expensive – works by the controversial artist and (former) Jesuit preacher that decorate the Marian shrine in Lourdes: keep them or dismantle them?

The decision will be made by a commission appointed by the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, Mgr. Jean-Marc Micas, after collecting the opinions of specialists in sacred art and experts from all over France. It goes without saying that there is no lack of controversy, both to defend the sensitivity of those abused and to ensure the protection of works of art. Similar questions arise for many other places of worship designed by Rupnik and his colleagues, from Fatima to Aparecida to San Giovanni Rotondo. Especially since Rupnik's mosaics continue to be used in other contexts, in publications and media productions.

Art but holy?

The gravity of the facts brought against Rupnik, which have already been at the center of previous disputes, makes the classification of his works of a religious nature as “sacred art” even more complex. A question that would not arise with an artificial “artist” with a necessarily less nebulous past. But can artificial intelligence really create sacred art?

Another quick experiment by Stable Diffusion shows that artificial intelligence is already apparently capable of treating art with pseudo-religious references. Interestingly, she focuses primarily on Christianity, at least judging by the symbols she refers to (in this case, the entry given was “sacred art,” with no further explanation). The theme of fear, disturbing by its recurrence in the images produced, is not alien to the style of sometimes famous artists.

Participate in the beauty of creation

Without venturing into the tricky territory of definitions, there is no doubt that sacred art is a deeply spiritual form of expression. It is not just a matter of reproducing a saint or the style of a historical period: the original theological reading, not to mention the inclusion of the artist's soul, cannot be imitated. Even if artificial intelligences managed to imitate humans perfectly, they would not be able to create sacred art, simply because it is not a purely human activity. Therefore, it is difficult to assess its value.

Sacred art is the work of a skilled artist who, with the grace of divine inspiration, creates a sensitive depiction of a supernatural reality. Machines are expressions of a purely material reality and can therefore never fully meet the challenge of expressing a supernatural reality, no matter how technologically advanced they may be.

Sacred art is, in its deepest sense, a human endeavor that highlights the role of artists as participants in the beauty and order of creation, in the visual arts as well as in architecture, literature and music.

Sacred art must be an instrument of both the divine and human, inspiring the faithful to prayer, contemplation, awe and admiration. So let's ask ourselves the question: Does this specific application of artificial intelligence contribute to human and spiritual progress? This is a question we could and should ask ourselves when confronted with certain artistic productions created by humans.