Are Machines Making Us Less Creative? Cultural Theorists Weigh In

     The rise of AI-generated art is starting conversations about creativity and authenticity. From eerily realistic portraits to AI-generated songs, this kind of art makes us question what’s real and what’s just another product of clever coding. Looking at this debate through two major schools of popular culture, Frankfurt and Birmingham, reveals some interesting arguments on whether AI is a cultural apocalypse or an exciting new development for creativity. 

Frankfurt School thinkers like Walter Benjamin weren’t fans of anything that could be endlessly reproduced. Benjamin (2005) argued that “that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art” (p. 99), the aura being a unique quality tied to its specific place and time. Think of the difference of seeing Van Gogh’s Starry Night (Van Gogh, 1889) in a T.J. Maxx versus at the Museum of Modern Art. AI art doesn’t even pretend to possess that type of aura. Instead, it is mass-produced by water-wasting machines (Gordon, 2024), often for profit, which perfectly fits Frankfurt’s idea that commodification sucks the authenticity out of culture (Storey, 2009). From their point of view, AI-generated art is about feeding us more of the same cookie-cutter product that keeps us passive and entertained. 

The Birmingham School has a more optimistic take on things. Scholars like Stuart Hall (2005) believe that regular people aren’t just “cultural dopes” (p. 66) brainwashed by mass-produced culture. Instead, they think we’re smart enough to understand the game being played and even possibly reshape it. AI art may be a commercial too;, but Birmingham thinkers would point out that it’s how we use it that matters. The remix culture of taking existing content and reimagining it proves that consumers can take mass-produced material and turn it into something meaningful. If art’s value isn’t just about how it’s made but how people use it, AI art can be just as creative and rebellious as the people interacting with it. 

So, is AI-art a threat to creativity or an exciting new frontier? It depends on who’s looking at it, as Frankfurt woud see it as another soulless product of capitalism, while Birmingham would remind us that consumers have the power to make even commercialized content their own.

References: 

Benjamin, W. (2005). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In R. Guins & O.     Z. Cruz (Eds.), Popular culture: A reader (p. 99). Sage Publications.

Gordon, C. (2024, July 2). AI is accelerating the loss of our scarcest natural resource: Water.

    Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2024/02/25/ai-is-accelerating-the-loss-

    of-our-scarcest-natural-resource-water/

Storey, J. (2009). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson             Education Limited.

Hall, S. (2005). Notes on deconstrucitng ‘the popular’. In R. Guins & O. Z. Cruz (Eds.),                 Popular culture: A reader (p. 66). Sage Publications.

Van Gogh, V. (1889). The starry night [Painting]. The Museum of Modern Art.