How Creativity and Technology Are Redefining Artistic Expression
A Recent Entrance to Paradise, the work of art created by Thaler’s AI system, DABUS
In an article published on October 10, Reuters reported on Stephen Thaler, a researcher in the field of artificial intelligence, who has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision denying copyright protection to a work of art generated by his AI system, DABUS. The dispute centers on a piece titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was refused copyright registration on the grounds that, under current U.S. law, only a human being can be recognized as an author.
With the rapid rise of generative AI systems, we find ourselves at a crossroads: should we reconsider the very concept of creativity and intellectual property? The intrusion of artificial intelligence into the art world raises new aesthetic and philosophical questions, pushing to the limit doubts that have existed for decades: who is the true author of a work of art? And when can a creation be considered genuinely artistic?
For centuries, art has been seen as a form of human expression, but today new algorithms are capable of composing symphonies, generating poems, and painting images as a human artist would do. The emergence of these technologies forces us to rethink not only the boundaries between human and machine but also the very definition of creativity itself. If creativity is the ability to combine elements in new ways, can AI, programmed by humans but operating autonomously, be considered creative? Or is it only a sophisticated mirror reflecting back human patterns of thought and aesthetics? Another problem with generative AI is in fact the fact that it creates using existing data, and so, if we ask AI to create a poem, a symphony or a painting, what it really does is “steal” and combine elements from already existing artworks.
Digital humanism and the culture of limit
In another article, this time from Exibart, two doubts are brought up: “Is it possible that technology could help us better understand beauty? Can artificial intelligence not only reproduce art but also reveal new meanings within it?” These questions point to a more constructive approach to the relationship between technology and art. Rather than viewing new technologies with hostility, perhaps it is time to seek a point of connection, in order to develop, as the author of the article stated, what we can call a digital humanism. This new perspective suggests that AI can be used intelligently and ethically, becoming not a rival to human creativity but a new language through which we can explore not only contemporary art, but also the art of the past.
In recent years, new algorithms and systems have already begun to transform the cultural landscape: museums are being virtualized, allowing audiences from around the world to access collections out of reach; AI is also being used to break barriers to access and permit to people with impairments to benefit from the artworks as everybody else (for example, through AI generated audio descriptions); AI based tools are helping art historians in identifying forgeries and even in restoring damaged works; machine learning techniques are assisting in the restoration and digitization of historical documents, making fragile archives available to scholars and to the public. In this sense, artificial intelligence can become a powerful instrument for preserving and rediscovering our collective cultural heritage.
However, this transformation must be accompanied by caution and ethical awareness. Alongside digital humanism, we must therefore develop what the author of the Exibart article describes as a culture of limit: an understanding that technology should not replace the human logos but rather support it, trying to maintain a balance between innovation and responsibility, so that AI serves human creativity without dominating it. Major cultural institutions, such as UNESCO, are already working on frameworks for the ethical use of AI in cultural contexts, developing guidelines based on principles of transparency, respect, accessibility, and sustainability, values that are essential to keep the human dimension at the center of technological progress.
A picture created by an AI system that transformed some photographs into works inspired by the style of Giuseppe De Nittis,
an experiment conceived on the exhibition “The Years of Impressionism. From Monet to Boldini”, hosted by the Castle of Mesagne.
AI: a threat to creativity or a new opportunity?
So, if we look at the broader picture, the debate surrounding Thaler’s DABUS case becomes more than a legal dispute: it symbolizes the tension between two visions of the future. On one side is a mechanistic view of creativity, where algorithms may one day be considered able to produce art. On the other stands a humanistic vision, which insists that art is inseparable from consciousness and cultural experience. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between: AI may never fully replicate the complexity of human creativity, but it can certainly expand its possibilities.
In the end, the question may not be whether a machine can produce art, but how we, as humans, choose to interpret and interact with what it creates. Artificial intelligence is already existing, and at this point, maybe, it should not be seen as a threat but as an opportunity: if guided by ethical principles and humanistic awareness, it can become a valuable ally in safeguarding, interpreting, and renewing our cultural heritage. The challenge is to ensure that the digital revolution does not lead to the erosion of human creativity but to its evolution. Art, in fact, has always evolved alongside technology, from the invention of photography, cinema, and digital art, and artificial intelligence is simply the latest phase in this long story.
