AI and the Myth of Creativity — episode 2/4
Alan Turing's Reply
In our first article, we witnessed the founding duel between Ada Lovelace, the guardian of human originality, and Alan Turing, the prophet of the learning machine. That debate, fascinating as it is, goes round in circles. Why? Because both camps share, without knowing it, a romantic and quasi-mystical view of creativity as a "spark of genius" fallen from the sky.
What if, to break the deadlock, we had to commit a sacrilege? What if we placed creativity itself on the dissection table? Instead of judging AI, we are going to analyze what we are really looking at when we call something "creative." Get ready to deconstruct one of our dearest myths.
The Tightrope: Creativity as "Proximal Distance from the Known"
Our first prejudice is to believe that creativity is a total break, an absolute freedom. That is false. Try to create a work that is totally original, with no connection whatsoever to what already exists. The result will not be a stroke of genius, but unintelligible noise.
For a human to call something creative, that thing must have enough structure to be recognizable, but enough novelty to be surprising.
Creativity means walking a tightrope. On one side, the abyss of banality (too familiar, too predictable). On the other, the abyss of incomprehension (too alien, too random). The creative act consists in finding the perfect balance on that wire.
A pop song that uses only three familiar chords is boring. A completely atonal piece of serial music may be perceived as unpleasant noise by the uninitiated. The song that captivates us is often the one that uses familiar harmonies but arranges them in a slightly unexpected way. Creativity is a subtle game of respecting and betraying the rules.
Did you know? The Aesthetic “Sublime Point”
Studies in the psychology of aesthetics show that our maximal pleasure before a work (musical, visual) is reached when the work sits at an optimal point of balance between predictability and surprise. Too predictable, and we get bored. Too surprising, and our brain checks out.
Creativity is a science of "controlled surprise".
Intention Does Not Make Genius: Creativity Is a Social Judgment
"Fine," one might object, "but the artist intends to create that balance! AI has no intention." This is the second myth to deconstruct.
The intention to create is utterly insufficient. The history of art is a graveyard of failed works filled with the very best intentions in the world. What makes a work be judged "creative" is not its author's mental state, it is the effect it produces on an audience.
Two terms must be distinguished here:
- New: Anything that has never existed in identical form. An industrial machine turns out thousands of "new" cars, but none of them is the original.
- Original: What is perceived by a community as introducing a significant difference with respect to what existed before.
The creator proposes, but culture disposes
Marcel Duchamp, by exhibiting a urinal in 1917, did not "manufacture" a new object. Through an act of recontextualization, he forced the art world to perceive it as "original." Creativity did not lie in the object, but in the relation between the object, the artist, and the public.
Quiz: What Is Art? In your view, what matters most for a work to be considered art?
Choose the answer that best matches your view:
- A. The intention and talent of the artist who created it.
- B. The judgment of experts and institutions (museums, critics).
- C. The emotion and meaning it produces in the person looking at it.
What your answer reveals
A — You favor creative intention. You believe that art comes from the artist's mind. This is the classic romantic view. But ask yourself: how many works of genius were born by accident? How many pure intentions produced failures? Art may lie less in the artist's head than in the encounter with the public.
B — You favor institutional judgment. You recognize that art is a social construct. This is a realistic and pragmatic view. But beware: institutions are often wrong. What was rejected yesterday (Impressionism, for instance) is celebrated today. Experts are not neutral.
C — You favor the aesthetic relation. You emphasize the effect produced, the lived experience. This is the most open and most democratic view. It opens the door to AI art, because if a machine-generated work moves you deeply, who can say it is not art?
The Myth of the Blank Page: Every Revolution Has Roots
Even the "geniuses" who broke the rules, like Picasso or Stravinsky, did not start from nothing. Their genius was not to create ex nihilo, but to engage the tradition in a conflictual dialogue.
- Picasso's cubism is a direct response to perspective and to Cézanne's art.
- Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is a deconstruction of the rules of classical harmony.
Every revolution rests on preexisting "seeds." It defines itself against an established order. Without knowledge of the tradition, there can be no creative transgression. This is an idea that the historian of science Thomas Kuhn brilliantly developed with his theory of "scientific revolutions."
Conclusion of Article 2: A New Definition for a New Age
If we put the pieces together, a new definition of creativity emerges, far more sober and far more powerful than the myth of the divine spark:
Creativity is the production of new forms that are perceived by a community as having both an originality AND elements familiar enough to be connected and compared to the known.
This definition has an immense consequence: it presupposes neither intention nor consciousness. It is purely functional and relational. It opens the door to the idea that a non-conscious entity, such as an AI, could be a legitimate player in the game of creativity.
Quiz: Can AI Be Creative? Situation: An AI generates an image that is technically new, visually structured, and that the community of digital artists hails as "original" and inspiring.
According to our new definition, has an act of creativity taken place?
Your answer:
- A. No, because the machine had no intention of doing so.
- B. Yes, because the three conditions (novelty, structure, perceived originality) are met.
What your answer reveals
A — You remain attached to intention. This is a position consistent with the classical view. But ask yourself: if the image is indistinguishable from a human creation and produces the same aesthetic effect, why should the absence of intention disqualify the creative act? Intention is invisible. Only the result counts for the person looking.
B — You accept the functional logic. Congratulations, you have followed the logic of our new definition all the way through. If creativity is a relational and non-intentional phenomenon, then an AI can be creative. This does not mean it IS creative "like us," but that it legitimately takes part in the creative process.