“Computer Art,” moreover “AI Art,” are nothing short of spectacular. But is it art? Actually, everything generated so far could have been produced by skilled artisans. This being the case, asking why we need “Computer Art” or “AI art,” invites attention to how art has changed over time. Interest in the beginnings, like in the birth of a baby, is justified by the assumption that eventually it will lead to the hoped for revolution of art focused on meaning instead of succumbing to how it monetizes.

“Computer Art” exemplifies the ars/téchnē relationship, i.e., the HOW of art. Those who generate digital works rely on programming languages, software, algorithms, and hardware. They choose to get involved in new technical processes for the purpose of achieving aesthetic goals. In this sense, computer art continues the tradition of téchnē, where mastery of a medium enables the production of aesthetic artifacts. “AI art” extends this relationship even further. Instead of directly generating visual representations, initiators produce prompts, select datasets, train models, or curate outputs generated by artificial intelligence systems.

The need for translating data into images originates outside aesthetic activity: how to make military activity more effective. Transforming data into images is the premise of the wars of the civilization of illiteracy. Not unlike genetic engineering—leading to a new nature within which humans reshape themselves. We are what we do. Some make wars more effective. Others try to engineer nature. Artists, whether using the tools of the past or the tools of the present, are supposed to ask questions about the meaning of reality, including the meaning of our lives.When reality changes as fast and as radically as we experience, art becomes more important than ever.

Author of more than 30 books and over 200 peer-reviewed articles, Mihai Nadin is credited with introducing concepts that opened new fields of inquiry: “semiotic machine,” “the civilization of illiteracy,” “anticipatory computing.” In the late 1960s, Nadin was active in what became known as computer art. He is credited for images that tested the aesthetic capabilities of digital machines. His research, focused on anticipation, a research domain he initiated almost 40 years ago while studying the nature and expression of creativity—from the artistic to scientific creation—led to a Springer-issued book: Disrupt Science. The Future Matters. Currently, his focus is on consciousness and the role it plays in shaping the human condition.