REINVENTING ART CRITICISM IN THE AI ERA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v6.i2s.2025.6743Keywords:
AI Art Criticism, Generative AI, Authorship, Algorithmic Agency, Dataset Ethics, Copyright and AI, Platform Governance, Human–AI Collaboration, Digital Aesthetics, Institutional CurationAbstract [English]
The fast-growing generative artificial intelligence has redefined the modern-day artistic production, casting searching questions on creativity, authorship and the place of criticism. In this paper, the author suggests a general framework of an algorithmically literate art critique and explains why the traditional interpretive models based on the material analysis, biographical intention, and specific media are not adequate to analyze AI-generated art. The study reveals how aesthetics in AI art is not only produced by human will but by the composition of the dataset, algorithmic constraints, and model parameters alongside structures of visibility that are imposed by the platform (via historical contextualization, theoretical analysis, and a case study in detail) in the article titled Echoes of the Archive. Results from model training experiments such as loss curves, coherence analysis and stylistic fidelity measurements show the role of computational factors in shaping artistic results. The paper also explores the ethical, legal, and institutional implications of AI art, such as bias in data used, lack of copyright, the environmental concerns, and the problem of museums and curators. The proposed framework makes critical evaluation a bridge between complicated AI systems and the societal cultural dialogue through its combination of technical knowledge and aesthetic and socio-cultural criticism. The research arrives at a conclusion that reinventing art criticism in the AI era needs an interdisciplinary, transparent, and ethically-based methodology that takes into account human and nonhuman agency in cultural production.
References
Cheng, M. (2022). The Creativity of Artificial Intelligence in Art. Proceedings, 81, Article 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022081110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022081110
Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., and Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating “art” by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms (arXiv:1706.07068). arXiv.
Goodfellow, I. J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative Adversarial Nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (pp. 2672–2680). Curran Associates, Inc.
Guo, D. H., Chen, H. X., Wu, R. L., and Wang, Y. G. (2023). AIGC Challenges and Opportunities Related to Public Safety: A Case Study of ChatGPT. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 4, 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2023.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2023.08.001
Lou, Y. Q. (2023). Human Creativity in the AIGC Era. Journal of Design Economics and Innovation, 9, 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2024.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2024.02.002
Oksanen, A., Cvetkovic, A., Akin, N., Latikka, R., Bergdahl, J., Chen, Y., and Savela, N. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Fine Arts: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1, Article 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100004
Rani, S., Dong, J., Shah, D., Xaba, S., and Singh, P. R. (2023). Exploring the Potential of Artificial Intelligence and Computing Technologies in Art Museums. ITM Web of Conferences, 53, 01004. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20235301004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20235301004
Ridler, A. (2019). Mosaic Virus [Three-screen GAN Video Installation]. Anna Ridler.
Robertson, A. (2024, August 13). Artists’ Lawsuit Against Stability AI and Midjourney Gets More Punch. The Verge.
Roose, K. (2022, September 2). An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy. The New York Times.
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is Fun, But Not an Author. Science, 379(6630), 313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Ting, T. T., Ling, L. Y., Azam, A. I. B. A., and Palaniappan, R. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Art: Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Human Versus Artificial Intelligence Artworks. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2823(1), 020003. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0162434 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0162434
Trujillo, J. (2023). A Phenomenological Reply to Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis’s Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust: Contributing to the Creation of General Artificial Intelligence. Creativity Studies, 16(2), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.16193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.16193
Vincent, J. (2023, January 16). AI art Tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney Targeted with Copyright Lawsuit. The Verge.
Vyas, R. (2022). Ethical Implications of Generative AI in Art and the Media. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2022.v04i04.9392 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2022.v04i04.9392
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. M. Maheswari, Nimesh Raj, E Sakthivel, Venkatesh Dalei, Amritpal Sidhu, Indira Priyadarsani Pradhan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
