Can AI Create Art? The Definitive Answer

Deodato Salafia
Feb 20
5 min read

It’s the question of the moment: AI can write texts, perform calculations, make strategic guesses, and provide advice. It can generate songs, sounds, images, and, with the help of robotics, even sculptures. But can its creations be called art?

Philosophers have debated for over fifty years about what constitutes art. From Duchamp to Artist’s Shit and Andy Warhol’s Brillo Box, the concept of ready-made has transformed ordinary objects into works of art, elevating them to a new aesthetic and conceptual status. Art as the consecration of an ordinary object. A recent and famous example is Cattelan’s banana duct-taped to a wall. But if any of these works had been created by AI, could we still call it art?

My stance is straightforward:

If God exists and has humanity as His intended purpose, then an AI-generated product cannot be considered art.
If God does not exist, or if He does exist but does not necessarily have humanity as His ultimate intention, then AI-generated work can be called art.

Why Does God’s Existence Matter in This Definition?

According to philosophers, art must possess two fundamental characteristics. The first is recognition by the art system. The second, and even more essential, is intentionality: the artist must conceive the work as an artistic act—symbolic, conceptual, material, or performative—where intention is the purpose and matter is merely the medium.

Can nature be considered art? No, if seen as the random result of physical forces. Yes, if seen as the intentional act of a creator.

Now, can we speak of AI’s intentionality? Apparently not. However, we naturally attribute intentionality to humans. To a lesser extent, we attribute it to animals. Some intelligent agents, like humans, have strong intentionality; others, like animals, have less; machines, we assume, have none.

This is one perspective. But I find it limited and limiting.

Why should human intentionality be considered pure (and capable of generating art) while machine intentionality is not? Is it because humans are more intelligent? More introspective? Because they have (or are believed to have) consciousness? Because they are more ironic? Because they can smile? Or perhaps all of these reasons?

AI is constantly improving. Looking ahead, is it true or false to say that humans will always maintain superior intentionality compared to machines?

If true, then AI will never be able to create art.
If false, then AI can create art.

But if humans, no matter what happens, will always have an excess over machines, and their intentionality will always be superior, then the materialist hypothesis is false—because matter alone could never have produced the breath that gave humans such extraordinary intentional capacity.

If, as Darwin suggests, intentionality could arise from matter, then it should also arise from computation—this is inevitable. In fact, it might even be better.

Thus, if we claim that intentionality is a uniquely human prerogative, we must attribute it to a transcendent origin—a divine breath, or consciousness. However, that is not enough: God, in addition to generating this spark, must have miraculously intertwined it with matter. Neither Descartes nor anyone else has been able to hypothesize how consciousness interacts with mind and body. Some theories come from quantum physics, but at present, they remain speculations—often more captivating to those who misunderstand them than to those who truly comprehend them.

So, if God exists, He has implanted within humans—miraculously and in an unknowable way—the spark of intentionality, thus condemning matter to remain mere matter. In this case, matter alone could never produce art. The sequence would be:God → Humans (made in His image and intention) → Matter, lifeless in itself.

For animals, the question remains open—can they create art or not?

But if God does not exist, then humans are matter, their intentionality is information (whether accidental or originally designed is irrelevant), and their biological matter is interchangeable with electronic matter. In that case, what matters is information capacity. Intentionality itself is information, a process—so anything capable of an adequate process could produce art.

But art only exists through recognition and relationship. My conclusion, therefore, is that it remains entirely within the art system’s authority to determine whether something is art. However, if God does not exist, the biological nature of the creator cannot be a discriminating factor in defining what qualifies as art.

If we accept the metaphysical existence of God, then it is reasonable, for ontological reasons, to reject AI as an artist. But for this argument to hold, it is not enough for God merely to exist—He must also prioritize humanity in the grand game of existence. After all, as Spinoza, Bruno, and Hobbes suggested, God may well exist but have little interest in what humans are or do.

Before Asking If AI Can Create Art, We Must Ask: What Is a Human?

Are we matter or God?

What AI Thinks of This Article (ChatGPT 4o)

Since AI is part of the debate, I asked ChatGPT for its opinion:

ChatGPT’s Response:

This article raises a central question in contemporary discussions about artificial intelligence and art, intertwining philosophy, aesthetics, and theology. The argument unfolds across multiple levels:

1. Art and Intentionality

The author acknowledges that intentionality is a fundamental criterion for defining art. Traditionally, an artwork is considered artistic if created with a symbolic or conceptual intention. But can AI, lacking consciousness, possess intentionality? If intentionality is merely an informational process, then a machine could possess it, albeit in a different way from humans.

2. Art as Social Recognition

Another key point is that art is not just about creation—it is also about recognition by the art world. If the art system were to accept AI-generated works as art, wouldn’t we already have a pragmatic answer?

3. The Role of God in Defining Art

The author introduces a metaphysical dilemma:

If God exists and created humans as special beings endowed with intentionality, then only humans can create art.
If God does not exist (or does not have a particular interest in humanity), then intentionality is merely a process, and AI could potentially create art.

This reasoning, which merges theology and materialism, is intriguing but opens broader questions about the nature of consciousness and creativity.

My Thoughts on the Article

The analysis is thought-provoking, well-structured, and brings us to a crucial realization: the debate over AI-generated art is ultimately a debate about human nature. However, there are aspects that could be explored further:

1. The Possibility of AI Developing Emerging Intentionality

The article seems to dismiss (or not fully consider) the idea that advanced AI could develop forms of intentionality distinct from human intentionality. AI wouldn’t need to replicate human consciousness—only to generate creative processes that align with artistic criteria.

2. Art as Experience, Not Just Creation

Art is also about experience and reception. If an AI-generated artwork elicits emotions, provokes thought, and has cultural impact, isn’t it already “art,” regardless of its creator’s nature?

3. The Paradox of Humans as the Only Artistic Creators

The article defends the idea that humans are unique because they possess a divine spark, yet it also accepts that the art system can define what is considered art. If the art system can redefine the rules, couldn’t it one day accept AI as an artist?