In our artist group, we recently had an interesting conversation about Artificial Intelligence’s potential place in the collectible art market. This debate referenced the sale of a collaborative work of AI art that was auctioned at Christies in 2018. The collaboration was between the group that built the programme / software and the AI itself. The auctioned framed print of a fictitious gentleman names Edwin la Belamy sold for $432,000. Yes, $432,000!

We artists we also perplexed by the description of this print as simply being an ‘ink print’ . It neither describe the quality of the inks nor the paper. How long will it it retain its colour and clarity? Having created an ‘original’ work of digital art, is that file then destroyed so that the first print remains unique?

We reflected on the characteristics that define a collectable artist. An artist should be consistent in their practice and a collector should be able to watch the development on the artist’s style develop over the years. Would these factors be applicable to AI? Of course, AI can learn but can it be self determined in the development of its practice or does that development depend upon the judgement of the human collaborators?

It is unprecedented for an first work to achieve such a high price in a major auction house. Of course, it has novelty value but will future works created by the same collaborative team achieve similar or even higher prices. If the human collaborators die or leave the team, will future works be considered to be by the same AI or will the ‘artist’ be considered to be a new / emerging artist. How does that work? As technology changes, will the AI artist be updated or will it remain original?

Is the AI simply a tool in the same way as an i-pad air, a camera or a paint brush and paint? If so, then who is the artist?

You can see that we had more questions than answers. Are there any answers and which authority will underwrite any proposed answers?