Is There Such a Thing as AI Art Criticism?

Despite these promising numbers, some experts, like Steven Sacks, founder of bitforms gallery, feel the selection didn’t fully capture the diversity and depth of AI’s potential. “There could have been a better selection of works that are more representative of new media and AI,” he said. As an AI art practitioner myself, I can’t help but agree. For AI art to truly thrive, we need more than just dynamic visuals—we need space for critical dialogue. That’s why I launched Aithena Art, an online magazine dedicated to highlighting AI art and fostering genuine AI art criticism. I’m passionate about creating a space for deeper engagement with the work. This is about more than just showcasing; it’s about exploring AI art as a distinct movement, separate for now from the world of blockchain and NFTs.

In 2012, art critic Martha Schwendener asked, “What should art criticism be doing?” Thirteen years later, we need to ask: What should generative AI art criticism be doing? Since OpenAI unleashed DALL-E in 2021—a text-to-image model that used deep learning to turn prompts into images—the AI art scene has exploded. Platforms like Midjourney, Krea.ai, and tools like Flux.ai, Runway, Pika and Kling, to name a few, are growing rapidly, enabling millions of people to become creators. As of September 2024, MidJourney alone boasted 20 million users. This democratization of art production is changing the game—but how should we critique it?  Can the basic rules of art criticism apply to this new context? AI art is not just a new medium; it’s a new way of creating, thinking, and seeing.

1. Observation: Describing What We See

The first step in any art criticism is simply looking—and with AI art, we’re often looking at something entirely new. The algorithms behind AI art reinterpret and remix data, distorting, amplifying, or revealing new perspectives that we might not have considered before. This process echoes John Berger’s ideas in Ways of Seeing, where he discusses how the act of seeing is shaped by context, perspective, and interpretation. Similarly, AI art challenges our traditional notions of perception, offering fresh ways to understand and experience images.

Take Brooklyn-based photographer and AI artist Charlie Engman, for example. His critiques are the closest I’ve encountered to someone who truly understands AI art. In his 2024 photobook Cursed, Engman uses generative AI to create eerie, surreal images that tap into the internet’s love for “cursed images”—those odd, unsettling visuals that defy easy explanation. Through these images, Engman invites us to question our understanding of both the digital world and our own desires. He’s not just creating art; he’s reflecting on how technology shapes our perception of reality.

2. Interpretation: Understanding the Meaning Behind the Work

After observing the work, we move to interpretation: What’s the story behind the art? What themes or ideas is it grappling with? With AI art, this process often involves peeling back the layers of technology to understand the artist’s intent and how the machine shapes the final product. AI-generated art isn’t just about the visuals; it’s about the conversation between human creativity and machine intelligence.

Engman’s reflections on AI art provide another example. He challenges critics who dismiss AI as merely a tool, suggesting that AI is less a master than a mirror—reflecting back our biases, dreams, and fears. His work pushes us to reconsider how we evaluate originality and authorship in art. Engman explores how AI-generated images, created from vast datasets of human creativity, challenge traditional notions of authorship and taste. He suggests that AI’s blending of diverse visual elements can lead to unexpected and novel expressions, prompting a reevaluation of what constitutes creativity.

3. Judgment: Offering a Reasoned Opinion

Once we’ve observed and interpreted AI art, we must then make a reasoned judgment about its value and effectiveness. In the case of AI art, this isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about evaluating how the technology enhances—or limits—the artist’s message. We need to judge not only the results but also the process. How does the algorithm influence the artist’s choices? Is the relationship between human and machine transparent? Is there a balance, or is one dominating the other?

AI art criticism should be evaluative but flexible, acknowledging the fluid, evolving nature of the technology behind it. A good critic will focus not just on the artwork itself, but on how it reflects broader cultural shifts. The very existence of AI art calls into question everything from authorship to value. It’s a microcosm of the larger technological and cultural transformation we’re all undergoing.

We are, undoubtedly, in a moment of crisis—at least, that’s how some critics might describe the intersection of AI and creativity. AI art is shaking the foundations of how we view art itself. Just as photography challenged painting’s supremacy in the 19th century, AI is forcing us to reconsider what makes art valuable, meaningful, and authentic.

But is this crisis necessarily a bad thing? It’s forcing us to rethink everything, and in doing so, it’s opening up new possibilities for expression. Critics of AI art must approach it with an open mind, understanding both the technological and artistic implications of machine-generated work.

The scope of AI art requires a multi-disciplinary approach, blending art history with knowledge of the tech world. AI art is not just about algorithms—it’s about pushing the boundaries of what we can imagine and create. The role of the critic in this space goes beyond traditional evaluation of art; it involves understanding the collaboration between artists and machines, and how this synergy shapes and transforms the creative process.

What’s exciting about AI art is its potential for cross-cultural collaboration. Artists from around the world, regardless of their backgrounds, can now create and share their work globally. But this also means there’s a risk of homogenization. As tools and techniques become more accessible, it’s easy for styles to converge, making it harder to identify unique voices. As more people engage with AI tools to make art, the need for specialized, thoughtful criticism will only grow.

As Zadie Smith said about the art of writing, “If you’ve ever been completely engrossed in a creative experience, you’ll know that feeling of being taken over by the work.” Making AI art is a deeply immersive experience, where the artist interacts closely with the machine, guiding its output while responding to its evolving suggestions. This collaboration creates a dynamic flow that blurs the lines between human creativity and machine-generated results.

AI art is a rapidly evolving field that challenges traditional notions of creativity, authorship, and value. While the intersection of technology and art raises important questions, it also opens new possibilities for expression and collaboration between humans and machines. As the market for AI-generated works grows, so too does the need for thoughtful criticism that goes beyond aesthetics to explore the deeper implications of this art form. Just as AI artists like Engman use generative tools to create immersive, boundary-pushing works, AI art criticism must evolve to address the complexities of this emerging medium. The future of AI art and its critique hinges on embracing the dynamic relationship between human and machine, fostering both understanding and innovation in the process.