It’s an interesting thing to consider.
Art is, by and large, iterative. Regardless of how much your style is your own, it is nevertheless based on previous foundations.
Taking specific skill out of the equation for a moment, each peice of art, visual or otherwise, is erstwhile based on previous works. Every artist learns from previous ones, ranging from basic techniques to full style guides, to outright mentoring.
Now, an AI is an automatic process, and it’s “skill” is preprogrammed. It is not an “artist” per se.
But the art it generates follows the same pattern of iteration that normal art does.
Thus, we reach an interesting philosophical impasse.
Art is skill based…but is that the crux of it? An artist using a modern tablet with corrective features has a much easier time painting a masterwork than a 16th century painter using oils on tanned cloth.
A portion of their creation is automated. Automated touch up tools, drag and drop features, automatic color balancing, pre-applied filters, etc.
If pure skill is the delineation for art, then is a modern digital painting less art than a 16th century oil on canvas?
Or is the delineation coming from there having to be a human component? To what extent? Is there a cutoff where there is too little human and too much machine? Is there a point where a tablet becomes so effortless that the creation is no longer art? What happens when machines gain a measure of sentience? Will future AI be able to create something considered “art”?
These are some of the fascinating questions that have arisen in the wake of this AI surge.
It is forcing us to rethink how we look at art. How we look at the very act of creating something.