Visual art is increasingly created by generative artificial intelligence (generative AI). This study, conducted online with 470 US participants, investigated whether exposure to art attributed to AI may influence aesthetic appreciation, perceptions of AI mind, and evaluations of AI (acceptance of AI as an artist, evaluation of AI as an identity and realistic threat) and of art careers. Exposure to art introduced as generated by AI (vs a human artist) reduced appreciation. No significant impact was observed on the other dependent variables. For ostensibly AI-generated art, higher appreciation was associated with more acceptance toward AI as an artist and lower levels of AI realistic threat. This suggests that mere exposure to art attributed to AI may not be sufficient to induce a change in perceptions of AI mind, evaluations of AI and of art careers, but these effects might occur if AI-attributed art is appreciated aesthetically.
AgudoUArreseMLiberalKG, et al. (2022) Assessing emotion and sensitivity of AI artwork. Frontiers in Psychology13: 879088.
3.
AppelMIzydorczykDWeberS, et al. (2020) The uncanny of mind in a machine: humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Computers in Human Behavior102: 274–286.
4.
BartschAOliverMB (2016) Appreciation of meaningful entertainment experiences and eudaimonic well-being. In: ReineckeLOliverMB (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Media Use and Well-being: International Perspectives on Theory and Research on Positive Media Effects. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 80–92.
BellaicheLShahiRTurpinMH, et al. (2023) Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications8(1): 42.
BiddleBJ (1986) Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology12(1): 67–92.
10.
BodenMA (2016) Skills and the appreciation of computer art. Connection Science28(2): 131–138.
11.
BoryP (2019) Deep new: the shifting narratives of artificial intelligence from Deep Blue to AlphaGo. Convergence25(4): 627–642.
12.
ChamberlainRMullinCScheerlinckB, et al. (2018) Putting the art in artificial: aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts12: 177–192.
EliasDMGBerg-CrossL (2009) An exploration of motivations of fine art students in relation to mental and physical well-being. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy23(4): 228–238.
15.
FingerhutJPrinzJJ (2018) Wonder, appreciation, and the value of art. Progress in Brain Research237: 107–128.
16.
FishSE (1995) Professional Correctness: Literary Studies and Political Change. New York: Clarendon Press.
17.
GabbiadiniADimitriOBaldissarriC, et al. (2023) Does ChatGPT pose a threat to human identity? 4377900, SSRN Scholarly Paper. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4377900 (accessed 15 July 2024).
18.
GabbiadiniAOgnibeneDBaldissarriC, et al. (2024) The emotional impact of generative AI: negative emotions and perception of threat. Behaviour & Information Technology44: 1–48.
19.
GangadharbatlaH (2022) The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts40(2): 125–142.
HockingI (2019) Portrait of an artist as collaborator: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of an artist. Frontiers in Psychology10: 251.
28.
HongJ-W (2018) Bias in perception of art produced by artificial intelligence. In: KurosuM (ed.) Human-computer Interaction. Interaction in Context, HCI 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10902. Cham: Springer, pp. 290–303. Available at: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-91244-8_24 (accessed 15 March 2024).
29.
HongJ-WCurranNM (2019) Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications15(Suppl. 2): 58.
30.
HongJ-WFischerKHaY, et al. (2022) Human, I wrote a song for you: an experiment testing the influence of machines’ attributes on the AI-composed music evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior131: 107239.
31.
HutsonJHarper-NicholsM (2023) Generative AI and algorithmic art: disrupting the framing of meaning and rethinking the subject-object dilemma. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology23(D1): 55–61.
JiangHHBrownLChengJ, et al. (2023) AI art and its impact on artists. In: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, AIES ’23, New York, 29 August. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 363–374.
34.
JohnstonHThueD (2024) Understanding visual artists’ values and attitudes towards collaboration, technology, and AI. In: Graphics interface 2024 second deadline, 28May. Available at: https://openreview.net/forum?id=MjRgUB2zPn (accessed 14 July 2024).
35.
JussupowESpohrerKHeinzlA (2022) Identity threats as a reason for resistance to artificial intelligence: survey study with medical students and professionals. JMIR Formative Research6(3): e28750.
36.
KaplanAHaenleinM (2020) Rulers of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons63(1): 37–50.
37.
KelleyPGYangYHeldrethC, et al. (2021) Exciting, useful, worrying, futuristic: public perception of artificial intelligence in 8 countries. In: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, AIES ’21, New York, 30 July. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 627–637.
38.
KerschnerCEhlersM-H (2016) A framework of attitudes towards technology in theory and practice. Ecological Economics126: 139–151.
39.
KieslichKLünichMMarcinkowskiF (2021) The Threats of Artificial Intelligence Scale (TAI). International Journal of Social Robotics13(7): 1563–1577.
KraatzKXieS (2023) Why AI art is not art–a Heideggerian critique. Synthesis Philosophica38(2): 235–253.
42.
LatikkaRBergdahlJSavelaN, et al. (2023) AI as an artist? a two-wave survey study on attitudes toward using artificial intelligence in art. Poetics101: 101839.
43.
LingoELTepperSJ (2013) Looking back, looking forward: arts-based careers and creative work. Work and Occupations40(4): 337–363.
44.
LombardMXuK (2021) Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: the media are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication2: 29–55.
ManovichL (2019) Defining AI Arts: Three Proposals. AI and Dialog of Cultures [exhibition catalog]. Saint-Petersburg: Hermitage Museum.
47.
MastandreaSWagonerJAHoggMA (2021) Liking for abstract and representational art: national identity as an art appreciation heuristic. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts15: 241–249.
48.
MessingschlagerTVAppelM (2025) Mind ascribed to AI and the appreciation of AI-generated art. New Media & Society27: 14614448231200248.
MilletKBuehlerFDuG, et al. (2023) Defending humankind: anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art. Computers in Human Behavior143: 107707.
51.
MirbabaieMBrünkerFMöllmann FrickNRJ, et al. (2022) The rise of artificial intelligence–understanding the AI identity threat at the workplace. Electronic Markets32(1): 73–99.
52.
MonteiroAR (2015) Sociology of the professions. In: Reis MonteiroA (ed.) The Teaching Profession: Present and Future. SpringerBriefs in Education. Cham: Springer, pp. 47–60.
53.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56(1): 81–103.
54.
NassCSteuerJTauberER (1994) Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems celebrating interdependence, CHI ’94, Boston, MA, 24–28 April. New York: ACM Press, pp. 72–78.
55.
NataleSHenricksonL (2022) The Lovelace effect: perceptions of creativity in machines. New Media & Society26: 1909–1926.
56.
OakleyK (2009) From Bohemia to Britart–art students over 50 years. Cultural Trends18: 281–294.
57.
OppenlaenderJLinderRSilvennoinenJ (2023) Prompting AI art: an investigation into the creative skill of prompt engineering. arXiv:2303.13534. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13534 (accessed 18 June 2023).
58.
PellesG (1962) The image of the artist. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism21(2): 119–137.
59.
PelowskiMGergerGChetouaniY, et al. (2017) But is it really art? the classification of images as “art”/“not art” and correlation with appraisal and viewer interpersonal differences. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1729.
60.
RagotMMartinNCojeanS (2020) AI-generated vs. human artworks. A perception bias towards artificial intelligence? In: Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA ’20, New York, 25 April. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–10.
61.
RapaportWJ (2023) Philosophy of Computer Science: An Introduction to the Issues and the Literature. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
SauerAKarrasTLaineS, et al. (2023) StyleGAN-T: unlocking the power of GANs for fast large-scale text-to-image synthesis. arXiv:2301.09515. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09515 (accessed 18 June 2023).
64.
SchepmanARodwayP (2023) The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction39(13): 2724–2741.
SteinJ-POhlerP (2017) Venturing into the uncanny valley of mind – the influence of mind attribution on the acceptance of human-like characters in a virtual reality setting. Cognition160: 43–50.
StrowelA (2023) ChatGPT and generative AI tools: theft of intellectual labor?IIC–International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law54(4): 491–494.
69.
SundarSS (2020) Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of Human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 74–88.
70.
SundarSSKimJ (2019) Machine heuristic: when we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’19, New York, 2 May. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–9.
71.
TaoWGaoSYuanY (2023) Boundary crossing: an experimental study of individual perceptions toward AIGC. Frontiers in Psychology14: 1185880.
72.
TaylorCL (2017) Creativity and mood disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science12(6): 1040–1076.
73.
TingTTLingLYAzamAIBA, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence art: attitudes and perceptions toward human versus artificial intelligence artworks. AIP Conference Proceedings2823(1): 020003.
74.
TownsendRMAtkinson- PalomboCTerbeckF, et al. (2021) Hopes and fears about autonomous vehicles. Case Studies on Transport Policy9(4): 1933–1942.
75.
TunaliT (2017) Contemporary art and the post-1989 art world. Dandelion: Postgraduate Arts Journal and Research Network8(1): 1.
76.
TurnerCW (1997) Attributing intelligence to humans and machines: between the devil and the deep blue, see? In: Proceedings of the 4th AAAI conference on Deep Blue versus Kasparov: the significance for artificial intelligence, AAAIWS’97-04, Providence, RI, USA, 1 January. Washington, DC: AAAI Press, pp. 27–30.
van der LaanJM (2016) Narratives of Technology. Berlin: Springer.
79.
Van TilburgWAPIgouER (2014) From Van Gogh to Lady Gaga: artist eccentricity increases perceived artistic skill and art appreciation. European Journal of Social Psychology44(2): 93–103.
80.
VieiraLN (2020) Automation anxiety and translators. Translation Studies13(1): 1–21.
81.
VimpariVKultimaAHämäläinenP, et al. (2023) “An adapt-or-die type of situation”: perception, adoption, and use of text-to-image-generation AI by game industry professionals. Proceedings of the ACM on Human Computer Interaction7(CHI PLAY): 379.
82.
VoltiR (2008) An Introduction to the Sociology of Work and Occupations. Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press.
83.
WangCPengK (2023) AI experience predicts identification with humankind. Behavioral Sciences13(2): 89.
WingströmRHautalaJLundmanR (2022) Redefining creativity in the era of AI? perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal36: 177–193.
87.
WuC-LHuangS-YChenP-Z, et al. (2020) A systematic review of creativity-related studies applying the remote associates test from 2000 to 2019. Frontiers in Psychology11: 573432.
XuKLiuFMouY, et al. (2020) Using machine learning to learn machines: a cross-cultural study of users’ responses to machine-generated artworks. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64(4): 566–591.
90.
YogeeswaranKZlotowskiJLivingstoneM, et al. (2016) The interactive effects of robot anthropomorphism and robot ability on perceived threat and support for robotics research. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction5(2): 29–47.
91.
ZłotowskiJYogeeswaranKBartneckC (2017) Can we control it? autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies100: 48–54.
ZhouYShiYLuW, et al. (2022) Did artificial intelligence invade humans? the study on the mechanism of patients’ willingness to accept artificial intelligence medical care: from the perspective of intergroup threat theory. Frontiers in Psychology13: 866124.
95.
ZylinskaJ (2020) AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams. Illustrated ed. London: Open Humanities Press CIC.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
