Page 182 - AC-3-2

Arts & Communication Artificial intelligence and art

there is no tangible version; instead, the brand occupies Instead, it tends to return the attributes to the viewers
a distinct economic domain denoted by copyright and via cultural exchange or branding in a “deified” version,
trademark. Gielen points out that the contextualization resembling a presentation or a spectacle. According to
26
27
of a brand can lead to its idolization. Works of art in the Donald Kuspit, the spectacle has supplanted the aura of
21 century behave similarly, existing as both works of art artistic creation as a form of secular holiness in post-arts
st
32
and goods. Consequently, artworks can manifest an aura society (holiness without the divine). There is a clear
not only in the artistic sense but also in terms of brand difference between aura and spectacle; while a spectacle
identity. Brand identity is analogous to artist identity, works by projecting certain attributes onto a product, an
27
serving as a code or style and an indicator of a role within aura is characterized by a flickering between presence and
a particular (sub)culture. Gielen considers subcultural otherness, an “excess” that is evident yet inexplicable in the
28
influence crucial for understanding the concept of auratic work of art. This distinction leads to the conclusion that if
activity in this context. In other words, when art became the aura cannot be reduced to information and its activity,
accessible to the working class, the roles within the cultural then the information itself cannot have auratic properties.
framework were no longer characterized by hierarchies. As Martin Dixon refers to an uncontrollable coincidence
a result, the ritual function of art became dependent on during the screen-printing process as a “failure” in
how the working class understood the subcultural context reproduction, characterizing it as an auratic excess. Dixon
and meanings of the art. 29 reminds us that technology is often believed to destroy the
Badry and Lubis assert that “digital art is not merely cultic and auratic aspects of art. However, this holds true
33
a reproduction”. They align with John Andrew Fisher’s only if technology functions and behaves as intended.
30
view that modern technologies have not only expanded Technological malfunctions can occur, allowing art
established art forms and generated new art ones but also to emerge through reproduction. The concept of aura
altered the way traditional art forms are experienced. This persists in cultural and esthetic philosophy due to its
34
has potentially diluted the status of the fine arts. When dialectical interaction with technology. Benjamin claims
examining this remark within the context of creating that technological reproduction eliminates the aura, but
art, digital art exhibits distinctiveness and originality, Dixon aims to demonstrate that the aura remains attached
to artworks through malfunctions, noise, and distortion
in contrast to Benjamin’s statement regarding machine inherent in any medium. Dixon contends that even if the
34
reproduction. Badry and Lubis claim that the process aura were to be eliminated by technological replication,
used to create digital art differs from that of traditional it would reappear due to technological malfunctions.
art production or machine reproduction, as it is based on He illustrates this with Warhol’s work of art; a series of
35
immaterial production. The primary legitimate material monochromatic silkscreens from the mid-60s called Death
required for digital art is a computer with a display to and Destruction (Figure 1), where the main principle of
process the content, allowing artwork to exist without Warhol’s work lies in numbing the viewer to contemporary
physical form. However, as will be demonstrated by horrors through repetitive representations. However,
30
examples of AI-generated works, these immaterial works as Dixon notes, the repetition in Warhol’s work is never
often mimic physical forms. According to Badry and identical due to the technical process of reproduction
Lubis, every new technique or technological advancement malfunctions and presentational errors. This creates
used to convey art can have its own uniqueness, provided
that originality is not based on aura but rather on the
method of production. This perspective is problematic
31
because it suggests that artistic work is defined by its
methodology, yet in art, a method does not guarantee
artistic achievement. Badry and Lubis claim that digital art
maintains its uniqueness even in the absence of aura due to
its immaterial character. To understand this uniqueness,
31
it is essential to clarify what it entails. Uniqueness in
art is not about the quantity of innovative and creative
methods used but rather the quality of the artwork, which
is recognized as a novum in art theory.
The “aura” that arises from cultural exchange
and branding, or artworks without physicality, is not Figure 1. Andy Warhol’s Death and Destruction. Image used with
characterized by oscillating between form and content. permission from Gwen Fran via Flickr.

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 4 doi: 10.36922/ac.3311