Funding for new student projectsThe Aesthetics of Artificial Intelligence
21 March 2022, by Christina Krätzig
Photo: Moniat
Artificial intelligence is involved in the creation of artworks. It challenges our aesthetic assumptions and creates legal quandaries—say Dalia Moniat and Sarah Steffens. With funds from the Excellence Strategy of the Federal and State Governments, the students are researching the issue.
Ms. Moniat, as a future lawyer, can you explain what your research project is about?
Dalia Moniat: It’s about open questions that arise when AI is involved in the creation of an artwork, for example, questions in the field of law. For instance, what about copyright? Who owns the work? And does this kind of an artwork enjoy the same legal protections as one created entirely by human beings? Because the AI phenomenon is so new, such questions are largely unanswered. Incidentally, not just in the field of art but also in many other areas. Just think about liability questions for self-driving cars or patent law when AI was part of an invention.
Ms. Steffens, as a future art historian, can you explain what art created by AI actually is?
Sarah Steffens: That’s difficult because it is so multifaceted. On the one hand, there are several different types. It can involve film or pictures, music or writing. There are no limits. On the other hand, we need to look at the role that AI plays in the creative process. Has it just provided data, that is, processed something that humans beings would not be able to do on their own? Or was it creatively involved in the creative process? AI can make suggestions or offer solutions that humans would never have conceived of. Then the computer is partly responsible for the work and the human no longer controls the creative process.
But ultimately, it is always the human being who programs the machine. Isn’t it?
Dalia Moniat: But human beings can program a machine such that it independently creates something new. For example, there was an inventor who programmed AI to invent on its own. And it did. But the results couldn’t be patented because today one of the requirements for receiving a patent is still that a human being is the creator.
Sarah Steffens: Definitions of art can be very different but what they have all always had in common is that they are based on the assumption that human beings create them. When an ape or an elephant paints, this concept reaches its limits. And with AI, it is far too short-sighted. However, how do we want to create legal certainty for artworks when we cannot even say with certainty whether it is even an artwork or not? The involvement of AI in the artistic process demands that we expand our understanding of art and redefine it.
That sounds like a major undertaking!
Dalia Moniat: It is. But we already have a few ideas. For example, we want to see if AI can be treated like a legal entity, for example a corporation, which of course also doesn’t have to be a real person.
Sarah Steffens: And we don't have to come up with anything definitive. We will look at the extant literature on the topic, gather open questions, ask artists about their views of the matter, and suggest an exhibition on the topic to inspire further discussion. At the moment, that strikes us as the most important thing. We humans must start addressing these questions now. We cannot and do not want to provide ready answers in our research project.
Via this funding program, Universität Hamburg—University of Excellence enables student research groups to assume responsibility for their own academic project. The program calls for applications twice annually and offers a total of €10,000 per project.
The next application round is set for May 2022. Stay informed by checking our database of funding opportunities with the framework of the Excellence Strategy of the Federal and State Governments at Universität Hamburg—University of Excellence.