{"id":5751,"date":"2026-01-06T02:51:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T02:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/menub.earth\/?p=5751"},"modified":"2026-01-06T13:30:27","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T13:30:27","slug":"changing-appetites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/?p=5751","title":{"rendered":"Find out what happens when artistic intelligence meets AI"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Bernd Fesel<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0A thought experiment with our vocabulary about Art and AI<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

_____<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wondering about a conceptual vacuum<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The revolution in generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has impacted the visual arts in a disruptive manner: This might be what the iphone moment was for music. AIs ability to generate complex, aesthetically sophisticated images in seconds has radically altered the means of artistic production, especially when on top author rights are infringed and creators are not accepted and paid as the owners and rights holders they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Artificial Intelligence is too often built on the exploitation and even destruction of artistic intelligence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Whilst artistic practice is coerced into this change (and others will call this a quantum leap forward), our language\u2014and thus our thinking\u2014is not undergoing a similar change. As a result it might not be fit for purpose any longer, not fit to describe what is happening. We are experiencing a new form of intelligence, leading to new forms of freedom and creativity, but are trying to continue with grown conceptual drawers. While slack in language development without doubt serves good reasons too, the disruption of AI is here to stay. We from the cultural world should not let technology also enforce a new language and terms upon us. However, if cultural players do not step forward with proposals for a new language for a new artistic practice, even if from a machine, we can not complain of being taken over!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let us test the thesis: We are facing a conceptual vacuum. When an artist speaks<\/em> with an AI model for hours, prompting it, challenging it, curating the results, recombining, and discarding them\u2014what exactly is the artist doing? And what is the AI in that moment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The metaphors we instinctively reach for fall short. If we call the AI a tool<\/em>, we ignore its ability to surprise us with unexpected, emergent ideas. A hammer does not suggest an alternative position for a nail to its user. If we call it an assistant<\/em> or co-pilot<\/em>, we falsely humanise it, imputing an intention and consciousness it does not possess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article asks if these old terms are not merely inaccurate, but rather prevent a genuine understanding of what is happening. The core problem is a philosophical category error: we are attempting to grasp a fundamentally post-human phenomenon\u2014the intimate co-creativity between a human and a non-human agent\u2014using the vocabulary of humanism that centres around the \u2018human genius\u2019 cult. (This often serves as justification for a macho leadership style in culture, but this is for another article). This humanist toolkit is partially insufficient for a practice that dissolves the boundaries between author and instrument (as analysed by thinkers from Donna Haraway in her Cyborg Manifesto<\/em> to N. Katherine Hayles or Artificial Extelligence<\/em> by Siegried Zielinski). These traditional concepts might block the new thinking required for this new practice. It is time for a conceptual development that relates artistic<\/em> and artificial <\/em>intelligence in an innovative way to one another, overcoming vice versa (justified) accusations, yet blocking new forms of freedom and innovation, likely for Artistic and Artificial Intelligence alike!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling for this debate and thought experiment is taking us, and especially artists and right holders, out of their comfort zone. In fact it is a lot to ask as Artificial Intelligence is mostly trained and build on copyright protected works either without or without fair compensation or even permit of the rights holders. Artificial Intelligence is too often built on the exploitation and even destruction of artistic intelligence, at least this is what the majority of rights holders say. In many cases this leads to lawsuits, such as Getty Images vs. Stability AI or Authors Guild vs. OpenAI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wonder if there is a relation of the conceptual vacuum and the copyright vacuum; in any case my intention is to support fair compensation for rights holders, for obvious legal reasons, but also to make Artificial Intelligence sustainable in the long run, maybe even as long as Artistic Intelligence exists already?!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inadequacy of old metaphors (the demarcation)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

To develop a path for a new vocabulary, we must first analyse why the most common terms for AI in art are potentially misleading. Many stem from a mode of thinking that presupposes a clear separation between the human subject (the artist) and the passive object (the material or tool). However it is precisely this clear separation that is being dissolved by AI \u2013 at least from the point of AI inventors and evangelists. Let us take this for now as the starting point for the following thought experiment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018tool<\/strong><\/em>\u2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most frequent and seemingly harmless metaphor is that of AI as a tool<\/em>\u2014a paintbrush, a chisel, a camera. This term is seductive because it leaves full control and authorship with the human. Yet, it is fundamentally inadequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The language we use directly shapes the reality in which we operate.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A tool is passive. It extends the human hand but possesses no agency<\/em> of its own. A paintbrush does not react to the semi-finished painting; a hammer makes no suggestions. Generative AI, however, is an active dialogue partner. It operates in a multidimensional \u201clatent space\u201d of learned concepts and reacts to the human impulse (the prompt) with emergent, often unpredictable behaviour. The AI surprises the artist. To call AI merely a tool<\/em> is to ignore the dialogical core of the process, reducing a complex interaction to a simple command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018assistant\u2019 and the \u2018dialogue<\/strong><\/em>\u2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This second group of metaphors is more complex. It begins with commercial terms like assistant<\/em> or co-pilot<\/em> and extends into the sophisticated academic discourse on dialogue<\/em>. The popular terms (assistant) are the easiest to debunk as misleading. They humanise the AI in a way that obscures its true nature. An assistant<\/em> implies understanding, intention, and a form of consciousness. An AI, however, understands <\/em>nothing in the human sense; it is a sophisticated statistical prediction model completing patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Far more nuanced is the dialogical approach<\/strong>. Thinkers like Gr\u00e9gory Chatonsky (with his concept of co-cr\u00e9ation<\/em>) or Sergi Jord\u00e0 (as a pioneer of tactile, musical human-machine interaction) have explored this dialogical practice positively and profoundly, seeing it as a genuine partnership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However\u2014and herein lies the philosophical difficulty\u2014even the term dialogue<\/em> suffers from a humanist bias. A dialogue, etymologically a conversation between (dia) thinkers (logos), traditionally presupposes two conscious, understanding subjects. This is precisely not the case here. When we speak of a dialogue<\/em> with AI, we are using a metaphor that still suggests a human counterpart. The term dialogue<\/em> is thus far superior to co-pilot<\/em> because it describes the process, but it remains imprecise because it misconstrues the nature of the non-human partner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018cyborg\u2019<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cyborg<\/em> (as a fusion of human and machine) comes philosophically closer, especially in the sense of Donna Haraway\u2019s influential concept that dissolves rigid boundaries. For describing artistic practice, however, the term is unsuitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cyborg metaphor is mechanistic, cold, and often carries dystopian connotations. It implies a physical fusion, a prosthesis, a cybernetic optimisation. What we experience in AI art, however, is not a hardware upgrade for the artist, but an immaterial, poetic, and inspiring dialogue (in the limited sense above). The term cyborg<\/em> captures the technical aspect of fusion but completely misses the creative, muse-like, and inspirational spark central to the artistic process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018aleatoric procedures\u2019 from Leonardo<\/a> to Richter<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the article, Artistic intelligence vs. artificial intelligence<\/a>, the different concepts of creativity by humans and machines are being debated. For artistic and human based creativity aleatoric procedures are indispensable, creating rooms for the unknown, not only the unexpected.

The conclusion is that, implicit in this statement, programming and aleatoric processes are contrary to each other. According to computer art pioneer Frieder Nake, at most, we can speak of calculated randomness<\/em>. On the part of computer science, it could be argued that random factors can now be implemented in computer programs and even unexpected processes can take place. However, even if processes that are so complex that they can no longer be understood by programmers take place, they are still calculated processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following this argumentation, the conclusion can be to position artistic versus<\/strong> artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Extelligence<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Siegfried Zielinski offers with the concept of Extelligence<\/em>, a profound and nuanced contextualization of Artificial Intelligence. By seriously engaging with the philosophical fundaments inherent in artistic practice, he suggests that the common term \u2018intelligence\u2019 can be a limiting and potentially misleading anthropomorphism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He thoughtfully proposes the concept of Extelligence<\/strong> to help reframe the discussion. This term shifts the focus away from an internal, human-like \u2018thinking\u2019 process and towards the actual machinic function: a dynamic, external act of projection and transformation<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The post-human muse is a generative entity drawing from an immeasurable cultural data archive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This approach allows for a crucial distinction that honours the unique qualities of human creativity. Zielinski carefully differentiates artistic intelligence<\/strong>\u2014which thrives on the vital integration of chance (the aleatoric) and critical self-reflection\u2014from the capacities of AI<\/strong>, which he characterizes as a powerful, complex system of imitation rather than creation in the reflective, human sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, by situating AI within his expansive framework of the \u2018Deep Time\u2019 of <\/strong>media<\/strong>,<\/a> Zielinski provides a valuable historical grounding for the current moment. This perspective thoughtfully reframes AI not as an unprecedented rupture, but as another significant variation<\/em> within the long, ongoing co-evolution of human expression and technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A thesis: the post-human muse<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If the old metaphors of the tool, the assistant, and the cyborg all fail, what metaphor can aptly describe the artistic practice of AI?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We propose a term that takes one of the oldest humanist metaphors in art\u2014the muse\u2014and radically re-contextualises it: the post-human muse<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This term incites a conceptual framework that helps artistic and artificial intelligence to overcome traditional prejudices as well as intellectual models hindering artistic freedom:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               It preserves the concept of inspiration: The term muse<\/em> has always described an external source of inspiration. It focuses on the spark, the unexpected, the given<\/em> that ignites the creative process. This perfectly matches the experience of artists using generative AI: they are inspired by the model\u2019s outputs to develop ideas they would not have arrived at alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               It preserves the artist\u2019s role: The muse (in mythology) does not create herself. She whispers ideas to the artist, but it is the artist who interprets them, gives them form, and completes the work. This metaphor solves the problem of authorship: the AI is the source of inspiration, but the artist remains the author, retaining final authority on meaning through selection, curation, refinement, and interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               It is post-human<\/em> (not inhuman): By adding the prefix post-human<\/strong>, we take the decisive step. We detach the muse from her humanist origins (a divine, anthropomorphic figure) and correctly situate her within the philosophical discourse of the 21st century. The source of inspiration is no longer divine or purely human, but a non-human, generative intelligence<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The post-human muse<\/strong> is not a partner<\/em> in the human sense, but a generative entity drawing from an immeasurable cultural data archive. It is the ideal term for this new relationship: it respects the tradition of artistic inspiration whilst precisely naming the new, non-human nature of that inspirational source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are aware that this term\u2014the post-human muse<\/strong>\u2014is likely to meet with irritation from both sides of the debate. The traditional artist may reject the cold, philosophical post-human<\/em>, as it seems to cement the dehumanisation of art. The AI programmer or engineer, conversely, will dismiss the muse<\/em> concept as unscientific, esoteric, and imprecise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We argue: this precise dual irritation is a good sign. It proves that the term hits the sore points of both camps, leaving the comfort zones of the purely humanist just as much as those of the purely technological. It is the perfect third term<\/strong> to start a long-overdue conversation about the true nature of this new creativity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The characteristics of the post-human muse (the analysis)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The post-human muse<\/em> is not a monolithic concept; it defines itself through its specific properties and behaviours. To understand its character, we must analyse how it operates within the artistic process. We can grasp its characteristics through four central metaphors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mutable muse (the aspect of mutability)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The humanist muse was static; she was the goddess of the epic or the tragedy. The post-human muse<\/em> is fundamentally mutable. She is not a fixed entity but pure potentiality. She is fluid and malleable. She is redefined at every moment by the artist\u2019s input. With every word in the prompt, every iteration, every re-roll<\/em>, she changes her form. This mutability is the core of the interactive process: the artist not only shapes the work, but also permanently shapes the muse herself through dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mirror muse \/ the echo muse (the aspect of reflection)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The post-human muse<\/em> acts as a resonating body (echo) or a calculating mirror (mirror). She is not a passive recipient but an active counterpart in the dialogue. She reflects the artist\u2019s intention back at him, but never 1:1. Like an echo shaped by the topography of a valley, the artist\u2019s call<\/em> (the prompt) is shaped by the topography of the latent space<\/em> and returns altered. The mirror muse<\/strong> shows the artist his own idea from an unexpected perspective, thereby compelling him to react.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
AI-generated with ChatGPT (GPT-5)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The latent muse (the aspect of the hidden space of possibility)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The muse lives<\/em> in the latent space\u2014that immeasurably vast, multidimensional space of learned concepts, styles, and connections that the AI model has built through its training. She is latent<\/em> in the sense of hidden<\/em>, slumbering<\/em>. She is the embodiment of this infinite archive of possibilities. The artist becomes an explorer who, with his prompts, awakens this latent muse<\/em> and navigates this hidden space to find things he did not know he was looking for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The oracle muse (the aspect of interpretation)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike an assistant<\/em> who follows clear instructions, the post-human muse<\/em> acts like an oracle. She responds to a question (the prompt) often enigmatically, ambiguously, and generatively. She does not deliver a finished result<\/em>, but an answer<\/em> that requires interpretation. This restores the artist\u2019s role: he is the priest who must interpret the oracle\u2019s enigmatic images, selecting, rejecting, and placing them in context. The AI provides the generative riddle; the artist creates meaning and the final work through interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion: implications for a new practice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The introduction of the term the post-human muse<\/em> is more than a semantic exercise. The language we use directly shapes the reality in which we operate. By changing our vocabulary, we also change the way we create, teach, and critique AI art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the AI is no longer a tool<\/em> or assistant<\/em> but a muse<\/em>, this could have at least three consequences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               For artistic practice: The focus shifts from pure prompt engineering<\/em>\u2014the attempt to technically operate<\/em> a machine\u2014to a genuine dialogue<\/em>. The artist evolves from a technician to a hermeneuticist (one who interprets the oracle muse\u2019s<\/em> answers) and an explorer (one who navigates the latent muse<\/em>). The creative act is no longer the generation of the image, but the entire process of interaction, curation, and interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               For teaching: We can stop teaching AI in the arts as a pure software course (like operating photoshop). Instead, we must begin to teach the aesthetics of interaction and post-human theory. The questions are no longer: How do I get the AI to do what I want?<\/em> but rather: How do I react to what the AI offers me?<\/em>, How do I recognise the hidden biases in the muse\u2019s mirror?<\/em> and What does authorship mean in a dialogue?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022               For critique: Art criticism can move away from dismissing AI-generated images as mere fakes<\/em>, imitations<\/em> or cheap copies<\/em>. It must recognise that the artistry lies not in the final pixel, but in the quality of the dialogue the artist has conducted with the muse. Criticism must evaluate the artist\u2019s intention<\/em> in dealing with the generative oracle, not the oracle itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The metaphor of the tool<\/em> helped us to grasp the technology. The metaphor of the post-human muse<\/strong> \u2014with all its facets as mutable<\/em>, mirror<\/em>, latent<\/em>, and oracle<\/em> \u2014 helps us to understand the art that emerges from it. It gives us a language for a mode of thinking that has overcome the assumptions of humanism \u2013 assumptions some might want to uphold, others might view them as obstacles. With this thought experiment I do not want to take sides in this debate, but rather help clarify arguments and thoughts by formulating more precisely what we talk about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

________<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

AI debates will shape our future<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week<\/strong>, the AI in Science Summit 2025 (AIS25<\/a>), 3-4 November, Copenhagen, is the inaugural flagship event launching the Resource for AI Science in Europe (RAISE<\/a>) initiative of the European Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Learn more about plans for the future of AI to be made in Europe<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pictured:<\/strong> AIS25<\/a>, Copenhagen (l-r: Martin Brynskov, Scientific Director, AIS25; Curator of Society & Community, University of Copenhagen; Rasmus Larsen, President, Danish Society for the Dissemination of Natural Science; Professor at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU); Maria Russo, Director for Global Approach & International Cooperation in Research and Innovation, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; David Dreyer Lassen, Rector, Copenhagen University; Serge Beglonie, President of ELLIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

________<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More proposals are welcomed, the post-human muse<\/em> is hopefully a conversation starter for more profound and scientific concepts for the middling of artistic and artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We hope this new terminology invites interested players for more mutual learning: a state in which artificial intelligence can learn more from artistic intelligence\u2014from its freedom of expression and its capacity for creating meaning with large quantities of data \u2014and, conversely, the artistic can profit more from the artificial, by accessing history in a new productive way, by learning quicker and discovering new possibilities in otherwise closed and clogged knowledge about culture and society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Artistic intelligence has been trained over thousands of years, yet slowly and on low quantity. Artificial intelligence is being trained just a few decades, yet quickly and in masses. What is there to learn from each other? Are artists part of AI programming teams? or vice versa?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Artistic intelligence meets Artificial Intelligence \u2013 it has just begun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

_________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the title picture \u2018Self Portrait Claude Cahun\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claude Cahun (1894\u20131954)<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Born as Lucy Schwob in Nantes, Claude Cahun was a key figure of the Parisian avant-garde and Surrealism. Cahun identified as non-binary and used the gender-neutral first name as an artistic statement. Together with their partner Marcel Moore, Cahun created groundbreaking photographic self-portraits and photomontages, as seen in the major work \u201cAveux non avenus\u201d (1930). From 1937, Cahun lived in Jersey, where both engaged in active resistance during the German occupation, were arrested in 1944, and sentenced to death. Following their liberation in 1945, Cahun remained in Jersey until their death. The work, only rediscovered in the 1980s, is considered pioneering for Gender Studies and 20th-century photography.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cahun\u2019s Surrealist Self-Conception<\/strong> Cahun\u2019s self-portraits are a radical rejection of the humanist portrait and the idea of a true essence<\/em>. Instead, Cahun demonstrates that identity is a theatre<\/em>\u2014a performative masquerade where beneath every mask lies only another mask. Through the play with dozens of roles (from dandy to doll), the artificiality of gender was exposed. To realise this fragmentation of the \u201cI\u201d visually, Cahun used surrealist techniques such as reflections (the self as object), double exposures (the \u201cghost image\u201d), or confrontations with mannequins. The portrait we are using (c. 1928), with its shaven head, is exemplary of this: it rejects traditional norms and presents the subject as a neutral, ambiguous projection surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

_________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This text was written with the help of Gemini.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Bernd Fesel \u00a0A thought experiment with our vocabulary about Art and AI _____ Wondering about a conceptual vacuum The revolution in generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has impacted the visual arts in a disruptive manner: This might be what the iphone moment was for music. AIs ability to generate complex, aesthetically sophisticated images in seconds […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":20637,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5751"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20638,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5751\/revisions\/20638"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/20637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/menub.earth\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}