Words by Sreya Nair

In 2020, we were bombarded with TikToks and videos of self-proclaimed “finance bros” urging everyone to invest in NFTs and cryptocurrency, saying it was the future of the stock market and economy. Internet dwellers were doubtful at first: how could these cartoon drawings have high value as digital tokens? Can currency that is unregulated and digital be legitimate? However, these new investments became popular overnight. 

Not just benefitting investors as a valuable asset, NFTs gave artists a second area of revenue, profiting from those who buy the artwork they created. Artists gained visibility that was difficult during the pandemic and were able to use the aesthetics of the digital world to make innovative and new art. But many see NFTs as commodifying art, taking away from the cultural and expressive nature art typically entails. They see the trading of NFTs as superficial, making art worth only as a money-generating object rather than having deeper value. With the recent introductions of artificial intelligence and their effects on art as well, as many artists fear that AI-generated art will take over their fields and devalue art, the financialization in digitized art raises questions of the importance of authenticity. Does the digital pose a threat to the authenticity of art?

The morality of reproducing art has been debated for decades. Walter Benjamin, a well known philosopher, questioned the effect of mechanical reproduction of art in his 1935 book The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. At the time, Benjamin believed the introduction of photography and film would change the way people understood art – he believed that taking pictures or videos of art causes the object to lose its presence, or (as he describes it) its “aura.” Reproducing a work in a mechanical way, such as capturing it in a camera, makes the art less distant. The experience of viewing a picture of an artwork is much different from observing it in a gallery – removing the momentary and distant nature of an artwork by having access to it at any given point in time, thereby losing the art’s aura. 

This definition of artistic aura only being experienced in person essentially means that art in the digital world is automatically less authentic. Now, in a more modern sense this is not necessarily true. In school we learn about art through photos on a projector, and there are countless artists on the internet who not only post their work online but make them through digital softwares. There is always fear when it comes to new technology – especially when new technology enters uniquely human entities such as art, the clash between the mechanical and natural feels unusual. Yet, as seen in the development of digital art communities and softwares, there is always some sort of adaptation of these new technologies to fit our already-existing definitions of art.

When it comes to NFTs and AI-generated art, however, there is something much more sinister and unusual. 

NFTs solely exist for monetary value – of course, the artists may initially generate meaning behind these tokens, but once they are traded, these meanings no longer matter to investors. This is how art theft often occurs in the trading of NFTs – without regulation, many artists are exploited by traders who steal and mint NFTs without the creators’ permission. This superficiality is bound to come with attaching monetary value to anything, and NFTs perpetuate a loss of humanity in art that Benjamin predicted. AI-generated art encourages a similar trend, generating work that is often taken by artists on the internet who do not permit their art to be used. 

Images created by software rather than humans are not art. 

There is no artistic expression behind AI-generated works that defines art in itself. An algorithm cannot replicate the communication of unique experiences, ideas, and emotions. The loosely-used term “AI-generated art” prolongs the misconception that these generated images are equal to artists’ works. What we risk in considering AI-generated images as “art” is the benefit of corporations and big tech companies rather than artists who make meaningful expressions through their work. 

Art for these corporations – similar to NFT traders – is nothing of human meaning, but rather a source of profit. Encouraging the entrance of these corporations encourages the dehumanization and devaluation of art. While I do think most people are able to assess that AI-generated images and NFTs are separate from artistic expression, it is important to note that it is less likely that these will become normalizations in art in the future. People look for the humanistic qualities in fields like art, trying to resonate and relate to what they are viewing. Objects generated for money or by an algorithm leave no room for human emotion; expressive art will never be replaced.

This story first ran in NYOTA’s Art is Life Issue. Read more from the issue here and purchase a print copy here