Introduction
Austrian art historian Alois Riegl, one of the key figures in the development of art history as a separate academic discipline with his revolutionary thoughts and studies, plays an important role in shaping the approaches of many contemporary art historians to the study of art and its historical context, even today. Alois Riegl’s ideas influenced the fields of Art History and art science, especially the fields of art theory, aesthetics, and the study of artistic periods. Riegl’s perspective on the history of art, his effort to make the discipline more scientific and systematic, his emphasis on formalism, and his theories explaining the importance of historical context to understand the evolution of art are still used today by Michael Baxandall, Erwin Panofsky, Henri Zerner, T.J. Clark has inspired many contemporary art historians and scholars, including Caroline van Eck, Richard Shiff, Joseph Koerner, to explore various aspects of art and visual culture, and his work has left a lasting mark, as evidenced by his ongoing engagement with his various writings.
Riegl’s influence is most notably associated with his pioneering concept of “Kunstwollen,” often translated as “the will to art.” What does that concept mean exactly? Kunstwollen is a concept that underscores the interconnectedness of art and culture, suggesting that artistic creations are not arbitrary but are influenced by the collective spirit and artistic aspirations of a given time and place. This concept underscored the notion that artistic styles and movements are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in their cultural and historical context. Every period in art history, according to Riegl, possesses a unique artistic will or attitude that shapes the creation of artworks. His emphasis on the historical and cultural context of art has significantly impacted the way we analyze and interpret art. The idea of Kunstwollen suggests that each historical period or culture has its own unique artistic will, which influences the creation of art during that time.
So, in this case, when today’s unique artistic will is discussed, can we call the advanced technology and the artificial intelligence that emerged because of this the will of modern art? Because artistic will is an expression of the artistic understanding, values, and aesthetic preferences of a community or period. In this case, the aesthetic tendencies of today’s society, which we live in the computer age, have turned towards artificial intelligence. Midjourney is an example of the changing aesthetic preferences of the field of architecture in terms of the use of artificial intelligence. Thus situated, does Midjourney, which we used to shape the work of art, clearly convey the intention of the artists to us? Or does the robotic perception brought by mechanization restrict the intention of the artists transferred to the art? In this context, how should we examine artificial intelligence while considering the intellectual atmosphere, cultural values, and aesthetic tendencies of that period to understand the artistic will used to evaluate and understand works of art more deeply? The answers to all these questions will be discussed and answered in the essay.
The Will to AI Art
Riegl’s use of Kunstwollen is closely tied to his broader theories in art history, especially his emphasis on understanding the historical context of art and the evolution of artistic forms over time. According to Riegl, studying the Kunstwollen of a particular period allows art historians to better comprehend the motivations, styles, and choices made by artists within that cultural framework. In the context of AI, Kunstwollen can indirectly influence the development and application of AI in art. The algorithms and models used in AI art are often trained on datasets that contain examples of art from various historical periods and cultural contexts. The patterns and styles learned by AI systems can be considered a reflection of the Kunstwollen inherent in the training data. However, it’s important to note that AI lacks a true understanding of artistic intent or cultural context. While it can learn and mimic certain artistic styles based on historical examples, it doesn’t have a genuine “will” or understanding of the cultural and historical forces that shaped those styles. AI in art is a tool created by humans, and its output is a product of the data it was trained on and the algorithms guiding its processes. As the mention in Hertzmann work of “Computers Do Not Make Art, People Do” [1], when the evolution of art is discussed and it is argued that the creation of art is inherently linked to the social relationships of humans, art lacks personality as it can only be created by beings capable of establishing such social relationships and as of now limited machine learning algorithms of artificial intelligence, deep neural networks, and other computational tools have been created and we cannot be considered artists. The idea of human-level AI with thoughts and emotions comparable to humans is considered science fiction, and current AI systems are viewed as products of human engineering rather than true artists, even if they create art-like outputs. The text concludes that although AI can autonomously produce original and impressive works of art, as long as it is perceived to carry out instructions without real intent or consciousness, it will remain a machine, not an artist.
In order to understand the theory of Kunstwollen, it is necessary to understand the concept of artistic will in design. Art will is a concept aimed at understanding the thought process behind the work of art and the aesthetic purposes of the artist. As a matter of fact, technological applications designed with artificial intelligence, such as Midjourney, are not sufficient to express the decisions of the artist or the art community in the creative process, their aesthetic preferences and the intention they display when creating the work of art. Because, contrary to conscious choices in the process of creating art and the artist’s effort to express his own aesthetic vision, many artificial intelligence artists are considered “lazy” or “non-creative” programs when sharing the works they produce. Art will includes the process of reflecting the artist’s emotional, cultural and intellectual expressions into his work, which artificial intelligence These processes are not included in its design. The best example of this is the test design that aims to evaluate whether artificial intelligence can exhibit creativity, says Mark Riedl, an associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Interactive Computing. Mark Riedl, an Associate Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Interactive Computing [2], devised a test aimed at assessing whether AI can exhibit creativity. The foundation of this test lies in the notion that AI can only be considered creative if it can generate genuinely original ideas. The initial version of the test, known as the Lovelace test, faced challenges that rendered it difficult for AI to pass. Riedl introduced the Lovelace 2.0 test, addressing criticisms of the original by redefining computational creativity as AI behavior that “unbiased observers would deem to be creative” (2014). Presently, based on the criteria of both the Lovelace and Lovelace 2.0 tests, no AI has successfully passed these benchmarks. According to Riedl, programmers can typically understand how their Artificial Intelligence created something, making it unlikely for AI-generated art tools to be inherently deemed as creative. Consequently, the burden of creativity is placed on the prompter and developers. Therefore, by logical deduction, AI itself cannot serve as a catalyst for creativity, as it lacks inherent creativity.
[1] Hertzmann Aaron. 2020. Computers do not make art, people do. Communications of the ACM 63, 5 (2020), 45–48.
[2] Riedl, Mark O. (2014). The Lovelace 2.0 test of artificial creativity and intelligence. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1410.6142.
A{AI} 