Readymades vs. Generative AI
Artists have been exploring the relationship between machine-made things and algorithms (code) for a very long time. French artist Marcel Duchamp coined the term ‘readymade’ to describe works of art he made from manufactured objects. Since then the term has been applied more generally to contemporary artworks. By the end of the 19th century this term was used to describe manufactured as opposed to handmade objects. Traditional artificial intelligence or AI, often seen in manufacturing, uses tools and machines to do or make things. Twenty years after Duchamp left the art world to play chess computer scientist Alan Turing explored machine intelligence that was theoretically capable of playing chess.
There are three important points here: first, that the choice of object is itself a creative act. Secondly, that by cancelling the ‘useful’ function of an object it becomes art. Thirdly, that the presentation and addition of a title to the object have given it ‘a new thought’, a new meaning. — Tate Museum
The connection between Marcel Duchamp and Alan Turing is a loose one, with the key link being the use of rules or instructions to carry out tasks. It was machines vs. humans. The notion of authorship (i.e., in machine-created artwork) lies in who creates or establishes the rules. The short film titled Marcel features a couple of con men who try to sell a fake Duchamp sculpture to a gallery curator. The filmmakers pose provocative questions about what is art. Is it about the maker/author or the work itself? Before Duchamp signed it “R. Mutt” it was simply a urinal. So what happens when someone prompts a generative AI tool to create a urinal with a signature?
I remembered Duchamp’s “Fountain” when reading comments about adding artist signatures to generative AI art. Of course Duchamp had little to nothing to do with the creation of a urinal. It was an everyday, factory-made object that he appropriated for his own purposes. Duchamp’s readymades now sit in art galleries and museums, not in the factory where it was made. At auction “Fountain” would more than likely sell for millions of dollars. The original makers (and the factory) wouldn’t get a penny from that sale. Also, at the time, there was much debate about whether or not readymades such as “Fountain” could be considered art.
Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view — created a new thought for that object. — Louise Norton via The Blind Man journal
Many other artists have explored this practice. David Hammons produced several sculptural pieces from found objects with histories and powers derived from their previous incarnations. Using common, easily accessible materials underscored the artist’s interest in prioritizing a work of art’s meaning and intention over its monetary value. However, today, his works are often auctioned off for $1,500 — $2,000,000. Artists like Andy Warhol sought to give autonomy to machines, especially to reproduce multiple versions of appropriated images (Marilyn Monroe, Campbell’s soup can). These artist set the stage for where we are with digital, generative AI art.
What’s common among these significant contributions to the canon of art is that they’re from the human imagination. AI generators, such as Dall-E and Midjourney, are the tools that form them. We prompt; AI makes. — Ali Munro
Everydays (digital, AI-generated artworks) are the new readymades. In 2018 Christie’s auctioned, for the first time, a generative AI image. Sotheby’s sold its first-ever work created by generative AI in 2019. Even though the technology is different, the ‘establishment’ or market still makes the rules for what counts as art. Everydays: the First 5000 Days by Mike Winkelmann AKA Beeple that consists of 5000 digital images. Its associated non-fungible token (NFT) was sold for $69.3 million at Christie’s in 2021, making it the most expensive non-fungible token to date. In every example the artist is credited, not the machine(s).
We are no longer enchanted by machines playing humans in chess. Some GenAI artists want to be like Duchamp and appropriate found images (objects). Others are like Warhol and use found images to prompt AI tools. I use generative AI tools to augment my decades-old digital art making process and quickly create new concepts. I expanded my understanding of collage to include variations within the output images and the compositing of those image, often produced using multiple tools. Since 2019 there has been an increasing demand for my GenAI images. Like with readymades and everydays there is a direct correlation between art and capital(ism), especially when the artist’s signature is on the work.
But is it art?