The conversation around Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been bubbling away for years now, and it often swings between two extremes: some see it as a threatening force poised to upend the workforce, while others view it as a brilliant solution leading us toward a limitless future. In the realm of art, the emergence of AI brings us a bit of both perspectives. Enter Botto—an innovative creation birthed in 2021 by German artist Mario Klingemann, along with the collaborative minds at ElevenYellow. This “decentralised autonomous artist” has stirred excitement in both tech and art circles by producing digital artworks that have captured the attention of collectors, some even selling for millions at auction.
Historically, creating art has been regarded as a deeply human activity, marked by individual creativity, emotional resonance, and personal narrative. However, as AI algorithms like Botto rise in prominence within the art market, the definitions of art itself—and who gets to claim the title of artist—are shifting. Botto’s ascent questioning not just the essence of creativity, but also the concepts of ownership, authenticity, and the trajectory of the art industry moving forward.
A New Kind of “Artist”
This collaborative process is what gives Botto a distinct edge among other AI systems. By functioning as a decentralised artist, Botto allows the creation of art to be influenced by both machine intelligence and its human community. This balance is one the DAO intends to maintain, as they recognize their vital role in guiding the AI’s direction. As Simon Hudson, Botto’s operator, puts it, “You have to participate to help train Botto.”
Hudson also sees Botto’s existence as a bid for recognition and a route toward success in the art world, whether that’s through commercial ventures or cultural impact. To him, an artist’s success is measured by their influence, and Botto has already begun to challenge long-held barriers within the art community.
READ MORE: Artificial Intelligence In The Real World
The Value of AI Art
The financial success of Botto’s creations has become irrefutable, with Wired reporting that the AI artist has raked in over USD 4 million from sales, including a remarkable piece that fetched upwards of USD 1 million at auction. At an October 2024 auction, CNBC revealed that two of Botto’s works sold for a total of USD 276,000 at Sotheby’s, marking a significant milestone that legitimizes Botto’s artistic output among collectors and investors. However, this success prompts a pressing inquiry: what truly defines the value of AI-generated art?
Critics often argue that AI lacks the emotional depth and intentionality that human artists bring to their craft. American science fiction writer Ted Chiang, writing for The New Yorker, contends that AI art lacks true value due to the absence of human choice in its creation process. Machines, he argues, do not make choices but instead generate predictions based on existing data. This traditional perspective insists that art must arise from human experiences and consciousness, dismissing the notion that machines can produce meaningful work because they don’t possess emotions.
On the other side of the argument, supporters of AI art posit that the essence of art lies in the process, irrespective of the emotional layer. Matteo Wong, responding to Chiang’s essay in The Atlantic, argues that the way a model connects words, images, and knowledge across time and space itself can be a form of art, or even a unique medium. Wong asserts that the artistic journey is not confined to a single creator but rather encompasses the contributions of societies, industries, and technologies alike. Hudson and Klingemann share a similar vision; they aim for Botto to revolutionize the valuation of art. Hudson describes this as a “meaning-making process” in which humans guide the AI, and in turn, the AI reflects human creativity.
Botto represents a fresh paradigm in art, where the process of creation holds equal weight with the final product. The rise of AI-driven artists like Botto could very well signal the decline of the traditional “solitary” artist archetype, giving way to an era where collaboration between humans and machines becomes the cornerstone of artistic expression.
READ MORE: The Metaverse Mirage: Why the Hype Is Fading
AI Art and Ownership
Botto’s success raises intriguing questions about ownership in the art world. By democratizing the art creation process, both Botto and the DAO pave new pathways for engagement within the art community, enabling anyone to influence the artwork’s direction. But this invites a significant inquiry: Who holds the rights to these pieces? Is it the innovative human creators behind the algorithms, the community members casting their votes, or perhaps even the machine that executed the creative work?
At this moment, the answers are far from clear-cut. The evaluation of generative AI and its creations typically occurs on a case-by-case basis. Author and illustrator Harry Woodgate conveyed in The Guardian that many of these programs rely heavily on the appropriated intellectual property of countless artists, photographers, illustrators, and other rights holders from whom permission was absent. While this issue remains relevant, the increasing adoption of AI necessitates more structured systems for claiming ownership. Reuters suggests that ownership rights concerning AI artwork could be managed similarly to those covered by open-source or Creative Commons licenses. Meanwhile, several initiatives are emerging to recognize AI as a creative tool rather than a pariah. For instance, Getty Images, which previously pursued legal action against the London-based company Stability AI in 2023, has now embraced the technology. Their latest generative AI tool allows users to create images inspired by Getty’s vast library, with plans to share revenue derived from the AI-generated images with the creators and contributors whose works informed the AI.
In a manner similar to Botto’s approach, community members who engage actively receive “Botto tokens,” which grant them voting rights regarding the AI’s output. This means that the DAO members aren’t merely spectators in the art-making process; they play a crucial role in collective decision-making. Botto signifies a new frontier in the art world, challenging conventional notions of ownership and creativity. It creates an art environment rooted in a decentralized digital space, where community-driven choices dictate the course of creative work. The DAO model echoes the functions of many digital communities today, where collaboration and shared ownership take precedence over individual authority.
Art in the New Era
While the discourse surrounding AI’s role in the art world is far from concluded, Botto’s remarkable achievements indicate a growing acceptance of technology as a credible medium for artistic expression. By intertwining machine learning algorithms with the collective efforts of a participatory community, Botto is fundamentally transforming the art-making process and questioning the traditional frameworks that have long governed the art market. Whether Botto’s rise marks a fleeting trend or the dawn of a more persistent integration of technology into art is still to be determined. Ultimately, the emergence of AI in the art world represents another philosophical upheaval, prompting us to grapple with timeless queries that have long occupied the industry: What really defines art, and who is entitled to create it? Botto is merely one of the many disruptors in the art ecosystem, and certainly not the last.