Humans, intelligence and the physical body
In the age of AI, can we still create art?
When intelligent systems redefine the boundaries between images and language, and when technology embeds itself at the frontiers of perception and imagination, how do we reinterpret the relationship between art and humanity? What might the 'embodied' experience in the age of AI look like? To what extent will the subjectivity and future forms of artistic creation be redefined?
Since the emergence of ChatGPT in 2022, 'collaboration with AI' has quietly become the creative reality for a new generation of artists in just a few short years. Whether in image, text, or form construction and conceptual art, AI is not just a tool; it has gradually evolved into a co-creator, an object of reflection, and even a medium itself. In recent years, we have witnessed more and more artists exploring artificial intelligence in graduate exhibitions and youth art practices—ranging from technological ethics to generative aesthetics, from bodily perception to algorithmic illusions, AI has become an unavoidable presence in the context of contemporary art.
This salon aims to start from how young artists observe and respond to AI's artistic practice, inviting several speakers from different fields—including educators in tech art, curators and researchers across institutions, scholars in the history of technology and media theory, as well as contemporary artists well-versed in traditional media yet continuously responding to technological evolution—to think together: as intelligent systems reconstruct the boundaries of image and language, and as technology embeds itself at the forefront of perception and imagination, how do we redefine the relationship between art and humanity? How is the 'embodied' experience in the age of AI possible? To what extent will the subjectivity and future forms of artistic creation be redefined?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
< *Panelist >
Hu Yilin
TINAYU ARTECH | Founder, Independent Scholar
Doctor of Philosophy from Peking University, formerly an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University, currently an independent scholar and co-founder of the Hong Kong art space “TINAYU ARTECH”, initiator of CNDAO. His research focuses on the intersections of philosophy of technology, media theory, and history of science. In recent years, he has actively engaged in the cultural construction practices of Web3 and decentralized organizations, exploring new possibilities for technological autonomy and digital sovereignty. He is the author of "What is Technology", "Strong Programme in Media Historiography", "Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology", and others.
Deng Biwen
Associate Professor, Graduate Supervisor
Born in 1982 in Hunan, China. Currently teaching at the School of Technology and Art of Innovation in the Guangdong Academy of Fine Arts (Associate Professor, Graduate Supervisor), she obtained a master's degree in the Comprehensive Arts Department (now the School of Intermedia Arts) of the China Academy of Art in 2008, was a visiting scholar at the Central Academy of Fine Arts in 2016, and obtained a bachelor's degree in the Printmaking Department of Xi'an Academy of Fine Arts in 2005.
Her research focuses on technology art, experimental art, and children's technology art education. Currently, her creations focus on artificial intelligence, mechanical interaction, and light art, emphasizing creative discussions on topics such as posthumanism, cybernetics, cyberpunk, mechanical life, artificial intelligence life, and bioengineering.
Huang Songhao
[Raiden INST] Principal
Graduated from the School of Intermedia Art at China Academy of Art and participated in the establishment of the non-profit art organization "Raiden INST" in 2019, focusing on the impact of contemporary technology on artistic production. He also co-founded "Intense Space" and was involved in curating projects such as "The Nightmare of Exhibitions (Part One)" and "Intercept Radio." In his personal creations, he often reveals the situation of individuals and collectives by mobilizing participants' bodily experiences and setting up game mechanisms. His works have been exhibited at the Shanghai Biennale, the Macau Biennale, the Ming Contemporary Art Museum, chi K11 Art Museum, TaiKang Space, Goethe Open Space, Long March Space, Beijing Commune, among others.
Wang Wenzhi
Artist
Born in 1993 in Liaoning, China, his ink creations blend modern and contemporary Chinese history, folklore, and popular biology. He collages literature onto his ink works, imagining a dimension composed of wild animals, shamanism, and historical stories. Using Dalian, his birthplace, as a starting point, he focuses on the complex history of Northeast China since the late Qing Dynasty, outlining the potential impacts of the past on the present. Dalian has been exploited by various colonial powers and later experienced rapid urban development, yet the economic boom brought about a collective historical amnesia. Wang Wenzhi depicts various natural beings and animal specimens, such as the deer god in shamanism, reflecting the importance of shamanism in Northeast China. In this place once ravaged by trauma and frequent changes of power, spiritual animals symbolize prosperity and vitality. In Wang Wenzhi's works, spiritual beasts and various mythological symbols are juxtaposed within a vast industrial landscape, silently witnessing the changes in this area and its complex history.
Hu Yiwei
TINAYU ARTECH | Art Director
Born in 2002 in Hunan, a young sci-tech art creator active in the intersection of life technology and intelligent technology, graduated from the School of Experimental Arts and Technology Arts of the Central Academy of Fine Arts, and serves as the art director of TINAYU ARTECH. Her creations focus on the ethics and living conditions faced by different life forms in the context of a technological society, combining technology history, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and new materials to carry out cross-media practice. She seeks a future-oriented "life aesthetics" view, using science and technology art to respond to the "global life history" and using technical language to touch the boundaries of the life entity.
< *Host >
Shen Cong
TINAYU ARTECH | Co-founder
Co-founder of the Hong Kong art space "天与ARTECH", Shen Cong completed his undergraduate studies at the Central Academy of Fine Arts and his postgraduate studies at Tsinghua University's Department of the History of Science. He is a member of the Youth Working Group of the Synthetic Biology Branch of the Chinese Society of Biotechnology, curator of the Science and Art Joint Laboratory at the Energy Research Institute of the Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center, and chief curator of the "Future Human Technology Studies" special exhibition at the China (Hefei) International Science and Art Festival. In 2022, he established CAFA_China, the first art-based team in China to participate in iGEM, and serves as an advisor.
< *Salon Review >
#01/The Creative Impulse in the Technological Wave
*The creative impulse in the technological wave*
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
At the graduation exhibitions of art colleges like the Central Academy of Fine Arts, the proportion of AI-generated works is rapidly increasing. Artists are starting to use AI as a starting point or means of creation, and against the backdrop of increasingly mature AI systems and growing civilian applications, the boundaries between artistic creation and technology are becoming blurred.
I would like to first ask Hu Yiwei to talk about his thoughts on creating this work and why he wants to discuss these topics.
【 Guest: Huang Songhao】
*Why use AI?*
Before creating this work, I also encountered relatively complex AI image generation systems like ComfyUI and Stable Diffusion. This generation of art creators has been exposed to some AI tools, but most people only "know how to use them" without understanding "why to use them".
A question arises: why do users generally accept artificial intelligence but find it difficult to engage in deeper reflection?
In the past two years, whether artists would be replaced by artificial intelligence was a hot topic, but the hype quickly faded, and art practitioners seem to have been forced to accept the fact of coexisting with AI. The context of technological art has made me gradually realize that only by deeply understanding artificial intelligence from a technological perspective can we use it for profound creation.
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
Teacher Hu Yilin, as the founder of Tianyu Studio, is also a free scholar and philosopher. Around the topic "How can we still create art in the AI era?" from a philosophical or non-artistic background, how do you view the role of artists in the AI era?
【Guest: Hu Yilin】
Let’s first look at the relationship between art and technology from a philosophical perspective.
To the public, art is often seen as the opposite of technology, but in ancient Greece, "techne" meant both "technology" and "art". This was also true in ancient China; the division between art and technology is indeed a modern concept. In modern society, after technology began to dominate production and life, art started to be viewed as a supplement or reflection of technology.
So why is this reflection necessary?—Technology can lead to the alienation of people, turning them into cogs in a system.
Of course, "how to create art" is itself a question. In today's highly specialized and industrialized technology context, art has somewhat lost its initiative. Sometimes art is regarded as a "secondary" choice, as if people who can't study science and engineering resort to art; this notion itself has problems. To truly create art, not just in the AI era, but throughout the entire technological era, we must strive to keep pace with technology and prevent art from lagging behind, turning into a discarded product of technology.
However, there is a key point: we need to move forward with technology while also maintaining a distance, not to be entirely swept up by the logic of technology itself (which often aligns with capital logic). The core of technology is often aimed at improving productivity, and productivity is for making money, with profits reinvested into technological development, forming a closed loop. The logic of technology can easily be dominated by this capital cycle.
I advocate for a "serene acceptance" of this situation. Do not resist technological development, but also do not let the commercial logic behind it completely bind you; explore what new possibilities art itself can still hold.
Technology itself certainly has its benefits: firstly as a productive force, and secondly, it can enrich human life and the spiritual world. New technologies continually expand our imagination of ourselves and the world. For instance, new media can create new stories, new self-images, and worldviews; these concepts are constantly enriched by new technologies. In any era, art should be "life-oriented"—pursuing richness, diversity, interest, and vitality. Stay vibrant, and find your own place to exert influence amidst the technological wave.
"Humans, Intellect and the Flesh: Can We Still Create Art in the Age of AI?" Salon Discussion Guest
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
Thank you, Teacher Hu, for the insights from a philosophical perspective.
Teacher Deng, you have a wealth of experience in teaching at the Fine Arts Academy. Could you please discuss from an educational standpoint how students today use AI tools in their creations? How do you guide them to engage in deep thinking?
【Guest: Deng Biwen 】
*AI has become a “core curriculum”
I am a post-80s individual, which makes me twenty years older than the current undergraduate students. They are much quicker to accept AI than we were, and they even start using it without needing guidance from teachers.
In recent years, Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts has introduced a new course called “Digital and Experience,” half of which relates to AI. Students generate images, videos, and texts with AI, and some of these works are quite mature. In my teaching, I can very intuitively feel students' interest in AI.
AI is no longer just an ordinary tool; it serves more as a cross-disciplinary “catalyst.” It simultaneously stimulates the accelerated development of both new and old disciplines, and most students in art schools actively embrace new software technologies to assist their creative processes.
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
Teacher Huang Songhao is the curator of “Thunder Institute” and has worked on many large-scale technology and art projects. The “Youth Artist Support Program,” organized by “Thunder Institute” every two years, has attracted numerous artists from the forefront of technology and art. What is your perspective on the recent changes in the styles and strategies of AI artworks?
【 Guest: Huang Songhao】
*The support program of “Thunder Institute” witnesses the transformation of AI art
In 2021, during the first support program, we began receiving many AI artworks, but in reality, until 2023, the level of acceptance of AI in the art circle was still not very high. Today, however, AI has become an unavoidable reality in artistic creation—this is a progressive process.
Last year, “Thunder Institute” focused its research on “the development of immersive media”—since the times of ancient murals, artists engaged in not only painting but also sculpture and architecture, emphasizing the capacity for “comprehensive” creation. Art and technology were intertwined back then, evolving into “digital immersive experiences” today.
I believe the key to dealing with AI is the “judgment” of the artist rather than competition. Some AI companies are also exploring the limits of AI capabilities; even if the images they produce are not perfect now, they continually push the boundaries. As producers of visual images, should artists seek another path? In recent years, the speed of technological iteration has been too fast. I rather think that artists should actively participate in new creation.
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
Teacher Zhang Wenzhi has always used traditional media (ink painting) for his creations. AI seems able to generate any image technically—what is the difference compared to artists? Facing the challenge of AI, how do you view the relationship between tradition and technology?
【Guest: Zhang Wenzhi】
*AI is not the enemy; it is a work assistant
Whether it's ink or other painting methods, at its core, it’s a “language issue.” We choose a language to express, and AI is merely another material or mode of expression. Just like I use a brush to paint, others may use an iPad. The key question is: what do I want to say?
For me, it’s not about finding a completely new language or relying on AI to express my ideas. Instead, I am thinking about how to use tools like AI to “reconnect with my audience.” Can it help me address some of the trivial parts of the creative process? For example, material accumulation, image conceptualization. If these can be automated, I can focus more on my intrinsic expressions. For example, in Yi Wei's work, she used AI, but the core is still her role as a “question-asker.” It's similar to how impressionism initially emerged because of photography—not because they could paint, but because they chose a different perspective.
Now I'm considering: can AI help in my future creations? For instance, when I am old and unable to paint, can AI continue my language? This isn’t about replacement, but assistance.
“Humans, Intelligence and the Flesh: Can We Still Create Art in the AI Era?” Salon Scene
From left to right: Hu Yiwei, Hu Yilin, Zhang Wenzhi, Huang Songhao, Deng Biwen, Shen Cong
#02/New and Old Media: Parallelism and Integration --
*New and Old Media: Parallelism and Integration*
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
We have talked about so many media issues; Yi Wei might start from AI and possibly turn to ink and wash in the future; Teacher Zhang may start from ink and wash and also use AI. Can these "ways of thinking" in media communicate? What are the differences between AI creation and traditional media creation?
【Guest: Hu Yilin】
*The "Practical Functions" of Old Media Give Way to "Artistic Possibilities"
The update of media is never linear, but parallel. Just like spoken language and writing, we both speak and write today. Writing has also changed spoken language; Tang poetry is essentially "written spoken language." New media constantly runs parallel with old media and, in turn, transforms old media, blurring the boundaries between the two. When old media loses its practical function, it instead releases more "artistic space." Just as after the invention of photography, painting no longer pursued realism, thus Impressionism and Cubism emerged.
Similarly, ink and wash works the same way. If you just want to do illustrations and make them beautiful, you can use AI; but when a clear practical purpose is replaced by new technology, what remains that cannot be replaced—the true possibility of art—will be amplified. If an artist still adheres to old media after the emergence of new media, this might also be a way of "embracing new media"—a form of confrontational embrace.
Teacher Zhang Wenzhi mentioned earlier that there are many trivial preparatory tasks when creating, such as accumulating materials and doing manual work. If these trivial tasks are resolved by AI, you can focus more on what you really want to express, which is also a way to embrace new technology.
【 Guest: Hu Yiwei】
*AI Changes the "Ways of Imagination"*
My experience is similar. AI indeed provides me with a new way to organize images. When using AI, my way of thinking has also changed: the results do not solely depend on "what is input", but more importantly on "how to ask it".
AI is a huge database, and its organizational logic differs from ours. This logic has changed the way I ask questions, and it has also changed my understanding of the "body." The work "Research on Human Morphology" explores the concept of the "body" from the perspectives of myth, reason, biology, and AI intelligence.
"Humans, Intelligence and Flesh: Can We Still Create Art in the AI Era?" Salon Scene
#03/The Artist's Responsibility and Judgment
*The artist's responsibility and judgment*
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
The point that Hu Yiwei just mentioned about "AI changing the way we ask questions" reminds me of the essential question of artistic creation. Artists are often also researchers, and the "research" of artists often lies in posing new questions. So in the age of AI, what is the difference between the questions posed by artists and those posed by AI? What are the differences between the questioning methods of artists and philosophers? How do they play different roles in the age of AI?
【Guest: Deng Biwen 】
I particularly agree with the statement that "AI acts as a catalyst." When we were writing scripts, we once asked the same question to two different large language models and found that their paths and chains of evidence were completely different. What does this indicate? In the training process of AI, it is actually also training us: it tells you how to prompt and how to construct sentences in order to get it to "understand you."
In the future, there may emerge “model artists,” such as SD artists and DeepSeek artists, because the linguistic characteristics of different models will, in turn, shape the artists' styles. For example, in Yiwei's works, those familiar with AI can readily distinguish which models were used. This is also something we need to be aware of: AI, while being a tool for creation, also represents a way of thinking.
【Guest: Hu Yilin】
*The artist's responsibility is to train AI to provide diversity; otherwise, AI will only converge.*
Regarding the "philosophical questioning", I believe the premise is “interest.” Everyone has different points of interest; interests include aesthetics and determine what kind of responses you seek and your standards for a “good” response. Without artists using AI, AI is likely to conform. We see many AI styles converging now; although there was previously a hundred schools of thought contending, it will later lead to the Matthew effect of the strong getting stronger. However, if the future world of AI only has one style, that would be very scary, as everyone’s diversity would be lost.
Why does diversity arise? It is because each person's living environment and growth experiences are different, which forms a multicultural landscape. We need to ensure that future AI remains diversified. Right now, there is still insufficient market competition, and once the market mechanism is perfected, AI will also tend towards optimization and convergence. Because if technology is only to provide productivity and increase efficiency, it will converge continuously, with the strong prevailing.
So my view is: The mission of the artist is to cultivate and coach AI with “richness,” rather than resisting the tendency of AI to converge. Through artistic expression, let different AI styles present themselves visually so that the audience can feel the unique aesthetic characteristics of each AI model.
【 Guest: Huang Songhao】
*AI liberates imagery, but it may also 'devour' styles.*
Photography liberated image expression, while AI liberates not just images but also our social work patterns and ways of thinking, freeing us from traditional considerations of the entire creation process.
To put it extreme: In the future, there will be no image that AI cannot generate, it only depends on whether your questions are precise enough; technological advancement will make this day come soon. If we see AI as a medium, its influence may be greater than when photography first emerged.
AI will also be popularized to the point that everyone uses it, and its status may be closer to “calligraphy”—where anyone can write, but skills differ. Elementary school students write, intellectuals write as well, but the quality is apparent.
Currently, we can roughly categorize AI creation into several types: one is the “ready-made model faction,” and the other is the “deployment tuning faction.” The former emphasizes the style of the AI model itself, with artists striving to create models; the latter combines tools and interaction, emphasizing AI’s real-time generation capabilities and boundless possibilities. There's also the “prompt-oriented faction,” skilled in language to precisely control AI output. I believe these can all be components of a creative process.
I have personally engaged in traditional painting for many years. Now, after using AI, I realize it is actually a more “tech-intensive” medium. When AI first came in, it was like when film first appeared; there were many pioneering methods; now it feels like a phase of resisting unification, while traditional mediums (like painting) can still be integrated into current work in various ways. This does not mean that painting is no longer important.
The most important thing is that you will encounter many problems, and AI will provide you with a bunch of answers. Its creativity often surpasses our imagination; everything seems good, but at this time, you need to know what you want. In the past, we relied on personal expression with limited resources; but now AI gives you a hundred options, determining which one you truly want is not easy.
For example, with Yiwei's AI images, my feeling is that when interacting with AI, you need to “suppress AI,” rather than be driven by AI. The answers that AI provides are wonderful, but you need to clearly know which one among a hundred options you want; otherwise, it's easy to be consumed by the feel of AI and lose your personal style.
【Guest: Zhang Wenzhi】
*The more images are flooded, the more artists need to “keep asking questions” to find the inner logic.*
This is an interesting point: Artists need to filter through questioning to reflect their judgment. A truly outstanding artist's curiosity will continuously drive them to ask questions. Faced with vast possibilities, they will keep questioning and further narrow their creative direction. If one cannot achieve this, lacking the keen ability for “sustained questioning,” in front of AI, that artist will find it very difficult to move forward. AI-generated works are plentiful, but few can filter out “unique perspectives.” Creation is no longer just expression, but rather the ability to “keep asking questions.”
"Humans, Intelligence and Flesh: Can We Still Create Art in the AI Era?" Salon Scene
#04/Physical Body and Senses：
“Physical Experience” That AI Cannot Replace
*Physical Body and Senses:
The "Physical Experience" That AI Cannot Replace*
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
*Creativity is like cooking; only hands-on practice can truly digest the "spiritual nutrition"
I particularly like a metaphor: AI images are visual fast food; without screening, they can cause spiritual indigestion. Just like a time when I ate takeout every day, and later started cooking for myself, only then did I rediscover the joy of eating. In this age of image surplus, artists also need to “get hands-on again,” otherwise, they will lose their sensitivity.
With the emergence of AI today, the threshold for creativity is lowered, and the monopoly of technology and knowledge is broken, making “creativity” purer and more reliant on the judgment of “talent” or “taste.”
【Guest: Deng Biwen 】
*Behind judgment and choice are life experiences, knowledge accumulation, and spiritual sensitivity
In the course of “Digital and Experience,” some students generated particularly great works, with delicate images and accurate characters. But when asked to apply these works to poster design, they don't know how to use PS for layout or font selection. It is like giving a child something too nutritious; they cannot digest it in the end. AI images are like abundant visual delicacies, and students might overlook their basic sensory abilities and the ability to engage with subtle matters, focusing only on visual effects, which is also the dual nature brought by technology.
【Guest: Hu Yilin】
I have always emphasized education, but in the future, AI may not play the role we imagine in education. General education should no longer aim to cultivate a profession as the ultimate goal, because any specialized skill could likely be replaced by AI, while “taste” cannot be replaced.
If you want to eat radishes, AI can grow radishes; if you want to eat vegetables, AI can grow vegetables. However, whether you want to eat radishes or vegetables is something you need to decide for yourself. “Taste” is unique to the individual; for instance, a child who has only eaten pancakes may think pancakes are the best food in the world. No matter how many kinds of pancakes AI can create, it cannot allow him to experience other delicacies. He may be rich materially, but still spiritually poor.
After material satisfaction, you will seek “more tasteful” things. Just like a gourmet is not simply a glutton, but someone who understands how to appreciate flavors. In the future, it won't just be about basic needs; spiritual satisfaction is equally important. When we face a massive array of spiritual products (like short videos), it’s like seeing too many pancakes and not knowing how to choose, leading to spiritual indigestion— the stimulation from short videos can be addictive, but if you can only consume soda, you risk developing diabetes.
【Guest: Zhang Wenzhi】
*Artists must return to bodily instincts and maintain sensory sensitivity;
After the advent of photography, artists shifted their focus to the spiritual world, pursuing a new visual expression. With the arrival of AI, many artists also returned to this idea: should we pursue new visuals? Is it truly meaningful? This prompts artists to dig into their inner strength. However, if artists only focus on exploring their inner self and neglect to perceive the outside world, they may become hollow. AI provides you with a wealth of information, but takes away your perception of the external world.
Thus, the taste issue raised by Teacher Hu is actually about curiosity towards the outside world and a continuous state of exploration. This outward perception will become increasingly important.
Compared to the spiritual world, human senses can directly perceive many things. As mentioned, “cooking for oneself” is a highly bodily action, and “observing the world with one’s eyes” is also a physical activity. I believe that in the age of AI, we need to pay more attention to the possibilities brought by bodily senses since physical perception is an important dimension of rich creativity in the future.
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
We often say that the difference with AI is: we have bodies, we have desires.
【Guest: Hu Yilin】
*AI is law-obeying; whereas humans are like an arm controlling a finger
Yes, the senses themselves are diverse, and the experiences of different senses vary.
Further discussing AI creativity, it is more like “using the mouth”—the so-called “law-abiding”; while our creation in reality is more like “an arm controlling a finger”—it is interactive and involves physical engagement.
The inherent instincts of the human body determine that we need to intervene in the world. This is why, in the age of AI, we still need to engage in “embodied” creativity. Just like a gourmet must cook for themselves, they cannot simply leave it to the chef. The feeling of doing it yourself is different from having someone else do it.
"Humans, Intelligence and Flesh: Can We Still Create Art in the AI Era?" Salon Scene
#05/A New Channel for Web3 and the Art Ecosystem
*A new channel for Web3 and the art ecosystem*
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
【 Guest: Huang Songhao】
I have always wanted to ask Mr. Hu a question: Can blockchain redefine relationships between people through smart contracts? Does this seem like a kind of 'cybernetic art'?
Previous works would use smart contracts to turn a forest into a contract to manage it. These works can use technology for creation, but the threshold is very high, like a worldview constructed by engineers. However, I observed that the rise of NFTs also brought bubble problems, and many people focus more on 'how to make money' rather than 'how to create'.
People who focus on AI might have a generative art background or an engineering background; they pay more attention to model training or real-time interactive generation. At the same time, some visual artists prefer to use images or paintings to respond to AI. From your perspective, how do you view the connection between NFT and AI? Is there still space for Web3 today? What is the relationship between blockchain and art, or its continuity in the AI era?
【 Guest: Hu Yilin】
*NFT is a 'anchor point' compensating for the infiniteness of AI
Back then, I was optimistic about the development of NFT. In a sense, NFT provides a new pathway for the commercialization of technology art (including performance art). The art circle operates within the gallery system—through galleries and auctions, tangible works like paintings and sculptures are traded. Nowadays, traditional physical creation forms have become outdated in art history (not saying it is obsolete, but from an art history context, emerging forms are no longer like this), yet the gallery system retains the 'stable path' of the traditional art ecosystem.
Emerging forms such as performance art, AI art, and video art have difficulty entering the traditional gallery system. Current exhibitions are the main means of showcasing these emerging arts, but the exhibitions don't provide enough imagination space—not like you collecting a Mona Lisa, which may greatly appreciate in value decades later. Art exhibitions themselves can't offer this imagination space, and their commercialization effects are limited.
However, NFTs can record a one-time digital display on the blockchain, becoming a tradable digital art piece with long-term imagination space. For instance, you put an NFT on the blockchain, and maybe 50 years later, it becomes a Mona Lisa. This offers non-material and emerging arts a space for commercialization (not that we all reject commercialization, but curating itself costs money, and emerging technology art is particularly costly).
NFT provides a high ceiling, motivating artists to create and invest, which is why early NFT speculation was so high: people saw its imaginative space.
Of course, NFTs also have drawbacks: firstly, they are too hot and too easy to 'pump,' causing many artists to participate not for the sake of creation itself but for quick profits. In the crypto circle, people often say 'pumping is justice,' where success in pumping overshadows the importance of the creation's quality. This 'hot money' eventually falls back down, leaving behind a bubble burst aftermath. However, I still believe NFTs hold promise because they provide imagination space and commercialization possibilities for diverse art forms.
In the AI era, blockchain can serve as a 'hedge' in a sense, but it's not an alliance. Now there are some 'AI+Web3' concepts and statements—AI is productivity, Web3 is production relations, but their combination remains fundamentally within the logic of productivity. However, from my perspective, web3 offers a form of 'correction,' with blockchain acting as a hedge against the 'infiniteness' of AI. When AI becomes oversaturated, some 'anchor points' are needed—AI might generate a million high-quality images, but they lack sequential order or a cohesive core. The core of cohesion is not just commercial value but also a community's cohesion.
Artworks need curation, space, galleries, or exhibitions where people can gather and discuss.
However, in the era of social media, the opportunities for judging the same work are dwindling because everyone watches different short videos. In the past, everyone read Jin Yong novels or watched the Spring Festival Gala, having shared topics; now, everyone watches different content, and cultural focus dissipates.
NFT, blockchain can provide a 'limited space' where artists and audiences can find an 'anchor point' in the online space. Works on the blockchain are limited, and this limitation compensates for the infiniteness of AI. Within that limited space, art can serve as a point of focus for attention and as the core of community focus. Although it is just public knowledge within a small community, it allows people to gather, pay attention, and discuss together, thus generating a unique cultural and art ecosystem.
【 Guest: Huang Songhao】
Just now, Mr. Hu mentioned that the 'cohesion of online space' is very important for institutions. Multiple types of artists will appear in the future, and the open-source mechanism of the Internet will create diverse possibilities, enriching AI models, relying not just on individual artists, but on the entire open-source community.
How should institutions position themselves? How to connect artists from different circles and domains with differing perceptions? Some good and bad are hard to judge, requiring a new context and imagination space to be rebuilt. What institutions need to do is to construct such an ecosystem for diverse art forms to participate together.
【* Host: Shen Cong 】
How to rebuild another set of balanced ecology and standards. I am dissatisfied with the 'Basel wealthy lady aesthetics' representing the stable path of the traditional art ecosystem. Artists are step-by-step nurtured by galleries, pushed to the market, forming a complete career paradigm, where gallery tastes influence artists, and artists in turn shape gallery tastes—a very stable system.
We need to lower the entry threshold for artists. Galleries want a complete career path, a clear artistic concept, and a career; I am instead particularly interested in those artists who may not be able to enter galleries. What we want to do is collaborate with Web3 communities and broader local communities, accommodating artists who are not within the traditional art context. But I can't give a complete answer on how to form a genuine ecosystem. Our idea is: believe in the trend of the times, since this ecosystem has already been mixed, we should join it and go with the flow.
Today's discussion concludes here. Thank you all for participating. We will continue to launch more related discussions and practices. Welcome everyone to follow TINAYU ARTECH and join this ongoing 'AI Art Revolution'.
< *Event Replay >
Date
May 28, 2025
Location
TIANYU ARTECH Space, Fo Tan
Organizer
Raiden INST × CN DAO × TINAYU ARTECH
Edit | Hu Yiwei Wang Jiahhu
Design | Feng Yuxin
Proofreading | Shen Cong
EN