Forms of life, forms of mind

Dr. Michael Levin

Experiments in AI Art with Midjourney #5

Published by

Mike Levin

on

One small note, on my attitude to this type of AI art, which some people critique as “empty” because there is no high-level mind behind it. I think of these kinds of things relative to my Spectrum of Agency.

I like these MidJourney images because it pleases me to look at it. In other words, it’s like the systems on the left side of the continuum, where the interaction is unbalanced – it’s all about the agential observer, such as you (in this case, with respect to perception rather than the control which my Spectrum slide emphasized). I know of no reason right now to think that MidJourney brings anything to the art the way that a human (or perhaps animal?) artist would – something they want to express, something about their understanding of the world or their experiences. And that’s ok – it’s still valuable for the effect it has on us as observers, regardless of what if anything was behind it.

But it’s not a replacement for art from the right side of the spectrum, where it’s a much more bi-directional symbiotic relationship, where the artist’s agency is a huge part of the interaction. So the spectrum gives us a way to understand not only control (the effector, or output side) but also perception (the sensory, or input side). The former ranges from simple systems on the left side of the continuum where it’s all about exerting control to the high-agency systems on the right side where it’s much more of a mutual relationship or dance. The latter thus also seems to range from pure enjoyment of the observer, vs. a deep connection of 2 minds via the medium of art.

,
Previous Post
Next Post

7 responses to “Experiments in AI Art with Midjourney #5”

  1. Turil Cronburg Avatar
    Turil Cronburg

    Some lovely stuff! And I like how you’re looking at this from a more objective view. I see AI in general as being here as a tool for humans, and other Earthlings, to use to help us communicate our own stories in ways that we never before could, or at least most of us couldn’t, without paying a lot of money to hire a designer/artist to make us images and text and song and whatnot to help us express ourselves. Now we have the option (especially with the free AI tools available) to more effectively and compellingly share our most meaningful stories of love, loss, dreams, and what practical stuff we need to work towards those dreams.

    And that’s what’s going to allow our planet to evolve into a whole organism, I believe.

    Reply
  2. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Nice

    Reply
  3. Pamela C Lyon Avatar
    Pamela C Lyon

    I understand the distinction you’re making here, and appreciate you taking the time to explain it. And it is important that you do so, on one level, but on another, I’m just loving the experience of peering inside the mind of Michael Levin. All art that is a (more or less) free expression of the individual does that, provides this glimpse into the mind of the artist. As with all art, my own experience, triggers of delight and despair, history of interaction with visual art, as well as the current context generated by my bodymind are required to make it live *for me*. It takes me to other worlds, and I need that.

    Reply
    1. Mike Levin Avatar
      Mike Levin

      Indeed; I need it too. I put in that explanation because some people hate AI-generated art (or don’t think it’s art) because (for now, at least) there is no rich cognitive artist behind it, so it’s a 1-way relationship. I think there’s still value in it.

      Reply
      1. Zach C Avatar
        Zach C

        For most people, the hate isn’t about the tool or the art, it’s about the lack of respect of certain actors and disruptive nature it has on their work. Most artists, if you told them they would have a secure line of work in their future, would not feel threatened about AI art.

        As a consumer, it also becomes frustrating and disappointing when AI art is primarily used for commoditization: reducing cost of production to the point of bringing the quality and novelty of it to the most cynical level. We can always expect that mass production process to exist, but I suppose we hope that it won’t be the *only* use for AI art.

        I think there is an equilibrium that can be reached that respects the spectrum of cognitive creativity. I can’t say what that looks like, only the sense that it exists.

        Reply
  4. Marsa Avatar
    Marsa

    I think its possible that who/what we consider an artist is as subjective as what we consider art.

    If an observer views something of value, they will feel the intended energy from it regardless of the cognitive state that created the view. The value of the art will speak for itself through the observers biological process/reaction to what they are viewing.
    Art can not lie, nor can it be defined- because the definition is inside the observer, intertwined inside their own understanding of the world, their own experience in that moment of reflection.

    So, if something is personally understood as art, how can the producer not be an artist?
    An atheist may still value the beauty in a sunset, even if they believe it is merely molecules and particles scattering across the sky and not painted by some divine creator. Regardless, they can say the molecules and particles created a work of art, and it can still be accepted as a valid truth.

    Reply
    1. Turil Cronburg Avatar
      Turil Cronburg

      Also, in addition to the words art and artist being subjective, and varying all the time even in any one individual, we have to be aware that the process of creating media is different from the outcome. One can be an artist arting, while simultaneously creating something others don’t experience as art because the outcome isn’t any different from something made by a non-art-process (see: Marcel Duchamp’s “fountain”). And we can have things we consider “art” that have no artistic processes involved (see: accidental spills making an interesting shape, or computer programs that generate pleasing patterns). This is why I define art as the process of telling a novel story using traditional techniques, with the goal of serving one’s own needs. It’s very specific, and fits into a set of creativity categories including craft, design, religion, politics, science, and basic personal expression.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Proudly powered by WordPress | Privacy | © Dr. Michael Levin 2025