Human Creativity and AI

Go to theme table of contents
Go to VJIC table of contents

This second of several essays on artificial intelligence (AI) explores its potential relationship to creativity. The authors see writing these essays as a creative exchange that recognizes the future of AI to be unpredictable.

Theme editors: Edward Bateman and Robert Hirsch

 

True creativity is caring enough about what
you do that you are willing to take risks.

—Edward Bateman

Have you ever asked yourself the question: Do I consider myself to be creative? Curiosity is a primary force that drives much creativity. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a human creation and, like Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus (1818 and 1831), its examination is likely to tell us more about ourselves than its professed subject. This will be reflected by the authors who see writing these essays as a creative exchange with a few contributions from AI. As the future of AI is not predictable, we do not know where these essays will take us or even what the structural form they may take down the road. We find this uncertainty exciting as this is often how discoveries are made.

Creativity may be simply defined as any act of creation and/or as an act of self-expression. We say that we value creativity; but do we really? Would you want your child to grow up to be an artist? Or marry one? Singing in the shower, playing the piano, cooking, taking selfies, painting along with Bob Ross (1) or a child playing with crayons might all be viewed as being creative. Yet, these can seem troublingly close to a trivializing the act of play. Nevertheless, there does appear to be a difference in what we experience in a museum or concert hall. Perhaps, creativity is one of those words like love that has an overly broad definition? Are we talking about differences in kind or in degree?

While all of those personal acts of creation certainly enrich our lives and make the world a more fascinating place, they seem just as often labeled as hobbies or recreation. (Interestingly, “recreation” is metaphorically about renewal, just as creation is about bringing new things into existence.) Nonetheless, the creativity that truly impresses us is when it shows us something new, something that has never been seen before – something that transforms our understanding of a situation. It is an act of surprise – one that can amaze the creator as much as anyone else. It is a discovery, which often expands the territory of its exploration in new dimensions.

Creativity should not be seen as valuable to only the arts. In many ways, the thinking processes of the best artists and scientists are quite similar. They both involve imagination, research, experimentation, and testing. Whether in art or science, the effort of creativity can sometimes be discounted by labeling the creator as a “genius” – thus bypassing the ordinary human processes of creativity. At its best, creativity is seen as a leap of insight, in whatever field it occurs. Even constructing artificial intelligences can be seen as a creative act as it was made by people. So how does AI fit in – can it replace human creativity? How does an AI define creativity?

Creativity can be defined as the ability to generate new and original ideas, solutions, or products that are both valuable and relevant. It involves the capacity to think beyond conventional patterns, connect seemingly unrelated concepts, and explore possibilities in ways that are imaginative and innovative. At its core, creativity is about transformation—turning abstract thoughts into tangible outcomes, whether in the form of art, invention, problem-solving, or storytelling. It’s a dynamic process that blends intuition, curiosity, knowledge, and a willingness to take risks or embrace uncertainty.

—ChatGPT 40

Risk taking emerges as a regular companion to creativity. It appears in both the quote at the beginning of this text and in ChatGPT’s definition. Artists often speak about risk. What really is that risk? Might that define differences in what we call creativity?

A child playing with crayons does not experience or pose a sense of risk to itself or others, except possibly to the kitchen table or walls. Is it because the stakes are so low, or because play is seen as a simple engaging distraction? Is it because nothing of consequences is seemingly accomplished? A child’s drawing is rarely critically evaluated. An adult painting along with Bob Ross likely does experience a sense of risk. This might be why Ross constantly reassured and encouraged his viewers. Risk in art really seems quite minimal – especially when compared to skydiving or even driving to the market.

Frequently the concept of risk can include not merely a failure but actual harm. While art rarely poses physical risk, some would argue it might risk potential emotional or intellectual disturbances, which can lead to censorship. But if one is not concerned or wary of the mental turmoil, then art poses little risk. Science can often be seen as dealing with potential dangers or rewards on a massive societal scale, which could possibly materially affect a multitude of people. What then, is that risk that artists link to creativity?

In art making, the sense of risk is always personally defined. While it can go beyond ego and self-image, its consequences can be public and professional – especially for those who are invested financially in art-making or other creative fields. Are you seen as something of a genius or a derivative hack? It really depends on one’s personal ambitions, what one’s ego can support, and the identity one wishes to create. In the words of filmmaker Bradley Corbet, director of The Brutalist (2024): “You really have to dare to suck. I really think it’s so important. If you’re always trying to color inside the lines, you are not advancing the conversation.”(2)

 It’s our expectations that new technologies, such as AI, will repeatedly “color inside the lines.” At present a machine, even one that mimics human emotions, does not have an imagination, feel passion, or experience risk. Does this make creativity the sole domain of humankind? Can creativity arise from other processes – even ones that are not intentional?

There are other systems that seem to generate variety and new outcomes. Evolution is one example. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to look around us and see the wide diversity of flora and fauna, interacting as a complex system, to think of this as a type of creativity. Aside from the mechanisms of adaptation and fitness, evolution has no specific intentions or goals, yet it seems to be innovative and dynamic.

When asked, “Can evolution be said to be creative,” Chat GPT 4o responded with this:

Yes, evolution can be considered creative in a metaphorical sense. While it doesn’t involve intention or consciousness like human creativity, evolution produces new and diverse forms of life through natural processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic recombination. Some of the ways how evolution aligns with the concept of creativity include: Generation of Novelty; Adaptation and Problem-Solving; Exploration of Possibilities; Iteration and Refinement.

Just as creative processes often involve trial and error, evolution operates through a continuous process of experimentation and refinement. Organisms that survive pass on their genetic “solutions,” while less successful variations are naturally filtered out. However, unlike human creativity, which is intentional and directed toward a specific goal, evolution is an undirected, non-conscious process driven by chance and necessity. It doesn’t aim for novelty or solutions; it merely follows the rules of natural selection. In this sense, evolution is “creative” in a functional, rather than an intentional, way.

Since evolution does not involve directed intention and results in new forms that are wondrous, many people consider this to be creative. They ascribe that creativity to something that possesses awareness. And thus, religion is born….

This sounds like it might allow an opening for AI to possess or develop modes of creativity. But might we discount those as being more like a child coloring with crayons? What is lacking? Passion? Or does the problem really need to be reframed? Often, we judge AI simply by its results. For many, the use of AI will be an issue of expediency, rather than art. So is AI as a tool really the issue?

 This is where the question of degree enters. Simple uses such as asking for a definition or help with a first draft of a paragraph is not particularly problematic. Responsible use is an inherent expectation in the nature of all tools. Their capacity to create transformative change is when ethical questions arise. Ideas are cheap. (3) Especially in our current art climate, where ideas are often more valued than physical forms. This could make for provocative times, including the secret use of AI by artists. But for many, “easy” is not what they are seeking. It seems that creativity may arise from inquisitiveness along with surprise and uncertainty. When thought of as a tool used in those ways, AI might have a fascinating role to play. Where will the risk be then?

Perhaps risk and the aesthetic experience are motivations in themselves. (4) With risk, there is also a sense of accomplishment – of going beyond what you believed were your own capabilities. In an interview, Academy Award nominated director, screenwriter, and photography professor RaMell Ross said:

There’s something about photography that is like that in which you, like, need to prove that you can do it again to yourself. You’re, like, trying – you’re chasing something. You’re in pursuit, you’re on some treadmill, like, it’s – and it’s ineffable, and you want to do it forever, and you’re never satisfied, and it’s essentially not about the thing itself. It’s doing something else for you. And yeah, I just needed that. (5)

Ross’s statement, echoed by many artists, is something to celebrate and share as it denotes why artists seek to exhibit their work.

 

 

 

In his classroom at the University of Utah, Professor Bateman gives his students an assignment to use AI to make work that would easily be recognized as their own – work that would reflect their ongoing themes and visual styles. During critique each was asked two questions: Do you claim this work as your own? And do you feel the need to present the work as having used AI? Their answers varied, but themes did emerge. It seemed to depend on the amount of effort – going beyond a simple AI prompt – that determined if the student claimed the work as their own. Even for one student whose work was remarkably identical to their typical imagery, the ease with how it was made was their reason for rejecting authorship. The need to credit AI followed a similar principle of involvement and degree of the contribution to the work made by AI. As a group, they also observed that if the use of AI was not important to the meaning of the work, then it was less likely to be stated as AI derived. It appeared they distinguished between the tool and the maker as separate roles. The expression did not rest in the tool, but in the creator.

This discussion seems abstractedly reminiscent of the debate surrounding Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that The Origin of Species (1859) ignited. For most artists, in making their work, they are metaphorically “Creationists”. This should not be taken in a strictly religious sense, rather as a way to take back this term and give creativity greater import, in contrast to the advertising agency use of “creative” to designate a narrower skill set. While mechanistic processes, such as evolution or tools and “craft,” may play a role in how they work, that is not the objective for many artists. Indeed, the tropes of religion seem to better fit the thinking of many. A sense of the profound, inspiration, meditation, and sometimes even the divine or profane seems strangely apt. In the academy this aspect of being an artist is more whispered than discussed, which maintains an active mistrust of that which is not a product of rational, intellectual processes, including the non-conscious, but very real functioning of the brain. The deeper realms of the human mind remain mostly inaccessible for direct examination. Does this make art a narcissistic act? A misguided quest to be a modern Prometheus? Or could it be a fervent desire to repair the world? To bring into existence something new and valuable? All of these aims are evident. Intentions and motivations have consequences – as do the random events that fill our everyday world. We tend to see intentionality in both, even when it does not directly exist.

Finally, creativity is about leaving a mark that you were here in this world. Having a vision is risky as it means deciding to blend in or to stand out, but without this risk nothing changes. Thus, creativity is a form of dreaming – an amalgam of multiple associations of entwined relationships that provokes interpretation and concentrated action that is at the heart of culture that has integrity. It is how one articulates a focused, imaginative, inner life. No doubt, the rise of AI will offer similar challenges for many to resolve.

Our next essay will examine AI and its potential impact in how we see and understand photography.

Readers may provide feedback via the author’s websites. Edward Bateman http://www.ebateman.com Robert Hirsch https://lightresearch.net/light/

Endnotes

1 Bob Ross (1942-1995) was an American painter and art instructor, who created and hosted the instructional television program The Joy of Painting, which aired from 1983 to 1994 and continues to be seen on reruns. Ross became known for his light humor, gentle demeanor, and distinctive hairstyle.

2 Alexandra Schwartz, “Brady Corbet’s Outsider American Epic,” The New Yorker,
December 13, 2024, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/23/brady-corbet-profile

3 Like talk, ideas are cheap. This explains why this idea takes so many forms. “To me ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.” While widely attributed to Steve Jobs, there is not a single documented instance of Jobs saying this exact phrase. In his book, Measure What Matters (2018), American investor and venture capitalist John Doerr wrote: “Ideas are easy. Execution is everything.” See: Robin Bruce, “Even The Best Ideas Are Cheap, But Execution And Lessons Learned Are Priceless,” Forbes, December 18, 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/robinbruce/2017/01/18/ideas-are-cheap-execution-and-lessons-learned-are-priceless/

4 Aesthetic experiences can enhance creativity. It is easy to imagine a self-reinforcing feedback loop in the interplay of artmaking and creativity. It also appears that creativity has a positive effect on keeping the mind malleable to new experiences. For more information see: Welke, D., Purton, I., & Vessel, E. A., “Inspired by art: Higher aesthetic appeal elicits increased felt inspiration in a creative writing task.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17 (3), 261–277, 2023, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Faca0000393 Also, Van de Cruys, S., Bervoets, J., & Moors, A., “Preferences need inferences: Learning, valuation, and curiosity in aesthetic experience,” In M. Skov & M. Nadal (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of neuroaesthetics (475–506), Oxford & New York: Routledge, 2023.

5 Tonya Mosely, “Nickel Boys’ director RaMell Ross says the American South ‘makes you question what time is’, NPR, Fresh Air, February 13, 2025, www.npr.org/2025/02/13/g-s1-48641/nickel-boys-director-ramell-ross-says-the-south-makes-you-question-what-time-is

Top