AI-generated art has emerged as both a revolutionary medium and a lightning rod for criticism. Rightly so - the environmental impact of AI, especially complex ouputs such as images and videos, is not to be understated. There's also the concern around intellectual property, the undermining of artist's livelihoods, and many more reasons to resist the rise of this medium. Many have argued AI art is not art. I'm not going to argue that it's good art (most of the time), or ethical art, but it is indeed art that speaks powerfully to our times - despite, or perhaps, because of its problematic nature.
What Makes Art "Art"?
Historically, definitions of art have included:
- Art as technical skill (the craftsperson's view)
- Art as beauty (the aesthetic view)
- Art as expression of emotion (the romantic view)
- Art as conceptual statement (the contemporary view)
AI-generated imagery challenges some of these definitions while fulfilling others. It lacks the hand-crafted quality traditionalists value. "Beauty" is subjective - some people seem to unironically like the aesthetic, often marvelling at photorealism in AI renderings, because that's what they value most in art. Clearly these people have no taste, but that's neither here nor there. The prevailing popular opinion is that AI art is ugly and bland - or at times disturbing or laughably bad - "slop" - but for me that's exactly the kinda shit that I find most interesting. As for the romantic definition, it doesn't express the emotions of an artist in the conventional sense, but it can express conceptual ideas guided by human prompts and interpretation.
Perhaps most importantly, art can be defined by its ability to reflect its historical moment and provoke meaningful reactions from viewers. By this measure, AI art succeeds spectacularly.
AI art reflects our increasingly surreal information landscape. Just as pop art once shocked audiences by elevating commercial imagery to the status of fine art, AI's ugly renderings elicit powerful responses precisely because they confront us with the uncanny valley between human creativity and algorithmic simulation. The disgust they provoke is a legitimate and meaningful artistic reaction that speaks directly to our moment.
The Question of Authorship and Intention
Some detractors dismiss AI as a fascination for those too lazy or untalented to create art through "legitimate" means. While there could be an element of truth here for some people, I think this misses the point, and only uses the first definition of art listed above. It's closed-minded to classify what is "art" and what is not by the medium or tools used, and carries the assumption that art should be evaluated and appreciated solely through the lens of artist intent and technical skill. I completely disagree. Marcel Duchamp's readymades challenged us to see that the artist's selection and contextualization could be as important as craftsmanship. Andy Warhol's factory production methods deliberately undermined romantic notions of artistic genius. Conceptual artists like Sol LeWitt created detailed instructions for others to execute. All of these approaches separated the physical creation of art from its conceptual authorship.
Even with AI, where some would argue there is no intent at all, I think the human interaction with AI (prompting, curating, interpreting) contributes to meaning-making in compelling and culturally potent ways.
I am also of the view that art can have meaning outside of the artist's intention. "Accidental" artefacts and representations can be produced that elicit emotional and intellectual reactions in the viewer, and I believe what is happening here is still art.
Women Laughing with Ultra-Processed Salad
I love the AI-generated series of Midjourney images riffing on "women laughing alone with salad" stock photos, which have been a meme in the past because they epitomized the artificiality of stock photography and gender stereotypes in advertising. These images showed inexplicably ecstatic women enjoying plain salads, reinforcing bizarre gender expectations while attempting to appear natural.
This is turned up to 11 in the AI remake. The distortions introduced by AI aren't bugs but features that enhance the commentary. The exaggerated facial expressions, the unnatural positions, the horror-themed color palette that is the opposite of appetizing, all come together to expose the absurdity that was always present. These "nightmare fuel" images expose a genuine soullessness achieved by AI that serves as a perfect mirror for the hollow commercialism of the stock images that inspired them. They're a fantastic example of appropriation art.
Shrimp Jesus and Digital Folk Art
Perhaps nothing better exemplifies AI's unique artistic contribution than the bizarre religious imagery flooding social media platforms. Consider the "Shrimp Jesus" phenomenon of 2024 - AI-generated images showing Jesus Christ with his body partly transformed into a shrimp, accompanied by pseudo-biblical text and garnering thousands of "Amen" comments from accounts of uncertain authenticity. Similarly popular are images of "Bottle Jesus," depicting a small African boy standing next to his "creation" of an impossible statue of Jesus out of plastic bottles or other found items, while apparently gullible users praise the boy's skills and offer their prayers.
These images occupy a unique position in art history. Unlike traditional religious art created by devoted craftspeople, or even outsider religious art made by untrained but sincere believers, these images emerge from a complex interplay between algorithms, automated content farms, engagement metrics, and human interaction. They represent a genuinely new form of cultural production.
Their warped aesthetics and earnest reception perfectly capture the "post-human unreality" of our digital landscape—a world where meaning is flattened, sincerity is indistinguishable from irony, and the sacred is processed through the same algorithmic filters as the profane. These images aren't beautiful by any conventional standard, but they are profoundly revealing cultural artifacts.
Weaponized Ugliness: AI Protest Art
In February 2025, an AI-generated video depicting President Trump kissing Elon Musk's feet was broadcast on television screens in the cafeteria of the Department Of Housing And Urban Development—complete with the banner "LONG LIVE THE REAL KING."
What makes this example particularly interesting is its contextual irony. Musk, whose AI service Grok has become widely known as a deepfake factory, has been dismantling public institutions through his DOGE regime. Meanwhile, the MAGA movement has enthusiastically embraced AI-generated imagery for its own messaging. The protest video turned the movement's own aesthetic weapons against it.
The general vibe of the video borders on deepfake fetish porn, but just enough to plausibly deny being placed in that category, in favor of "cannot be unseen" internet humor. Deepfakes are one of the serious dangers of AI—and the ability to create realistic footage of real people in fictional scenarios is a real violation to most people. This is AI at it's most confrontational and unethical. But when used on public figures and clearly satirical with no intent to decieve, deepfakes have potential as a valid artistic weapon. I must admit this example leaves me uneasy, possibly because of the sexual overtones and the prescendent it could set. But with Trump and Musk, the falseness of the exact footage contrasts with the deeper truth being communicated, and it's deliberately shocking, in a powerful play of protest art.
A tamer example that hits the same notes, just not as loudly, is from The Democrat's Bluesky page a few months earlier. The Grok-generated image depicts Elon Musk wearing a suit and walking Donald Trump, who is leashed and wearing a brown furry costume.
— The Democrats (@democrats.org) December 21, 2024 at 6:48 AM
Conclusion: Art for the Post-Human Age
There's a perfect synchronicity between AI's aesthetic tendencies and our current political moment. Both are characterized by a blurring of reality, a flattening of meaning, and a certain grotesque exaggeration. When truth itself is contested territory, art that embraces artifice and distortion becomes not just relevant but profound.
AI art's power lies precisely in its ability to confront us with the uncomfortable realities of our digital existence: the distortion, the uncanny simulations, the algorithmic processing of human culture and politics.
Just as pop art recontextualized mass-produced imagery to reflect and critique consumer culture, AI-generated art distorts and re-frames digital detritus, forcing us to reconsider authorship, creativity, and meaning in an era of algorithmic production. Whether by accident or design, AI art is making us confront the surreal logic that increasingly governs our world. If that's not art, what is?