1.

This article is a journalistic exploration of the intersection between artificial intelligence and the art world. It reports on the sale of Edmond de Belamy, an AI-generated artwork by the Paris-based collective Obvious, which sold at Christie’s for $432,500—far surpassing its estimated value. Alleyne contextualizes the event within ongoing debates about AI’s role in artistic creation and references expert opinions, including those of established AI artists like Mario Klingemann. he article argues that AI-generated art, while a novelty in the auction world, raises fundamental questions about authorship, creativity, and value in contemporary art. The Christie’s sale demonstrated that AI-generated pieces could achieve significant market recognition, though critics remain divided on whether such works should be classified as “true” art. Alleyne highlights both the enthusiasm and skepticism surrounding AI’s role in creative processes, noting that the algorithms used by Obvious are not unique but rather adaptations of existing machine learning mode

Alleyne, Allyssia. “A Sign of Things to Come? AI-Produced Artwork Sells for $433K, Smashing Expectations.” CNN Style, 22 Oct. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/style/article/obvious-ai-art-christies-auction-smart-creativity/index.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.

2.

This article’s discussion on trust in human-AI collaboration connects directly to the concept of sensemaking, which is crucial in understanding AI-generated art. Sensemaking refers to the human ability to interpret, assign meaning, and contextualize experiences—something AI lacks.

By using this article in my paper, I could argue that trust in AI-generated art depends on how much agency we attribute to AI versus human artists in the creative process. If sensemaking is a key component of art, then AI’s role may be limited to that of a tool rather than a true creator. The article’s insights into trust dynamics help explain why some artists and audiences struggle to accept AI as a legitimate creative force—it lacks the human-driven process of meaning-making. This could support a broader discussion on whether AI-generated works should be considered art or simply artifacts of algorithmic processes.

Sarah J. Daly, Greg Hearn, Kyriaki Papageorgiou,
Sensemaking with AI: How trust influences Human-AI collaboration in health and creative industries,Social Sciences & Humanities Open,Volume 11,2025,101346,ISSN 2590-2911,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291125000737

3.

Simona Chiodo’s article critically examines AI-generated art, questioning whether it can truly be classified as “art” in the traditional sense. The paper explores philosophical debates surrounding AI’s role in creative processes, distinguishing between AI as a tool for artists and AI as an autonomous creator. Chiodo argues that AI-generated works lack “meta-sensemaking,” a uniquely human capacity to reflect on and shape artistic meaning beyond aesthetic experience. Through thought experiments and comparisons to historical artistic traditions, the article challenges the assumption that AI can function as an artist, emphasizing the importance of intentionality, authorship, and the deeply human process of meaning-making in art. Ultimately, Chiodo concludes that while AI can produce visually compelling images, it does not engage in the reflective, existential process that defines true artistic creation.

Chiodo, Simona. “What AI ‘Art’ Can Teach Us about Art.” Journal of aesthetics & culture 16.1 (2024): n. pag. Web.

4.

This article explores the relationship between AI-generated art and historical art movements, particularly Dadaism, by examining the role of randomness, control, and artistic agency. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, the authors argue that AI art represents a new form of co-creation, where human and machine interact in an process of feedback loops. Much like Dadaist techniques, AI art introduces the idea of “calculated randomness”, challenging traditional notions of artistic authorship and creativity. However, unlike Dadaists who embraced chance as a form of artistic rebellion, AI artists intentionally integrate unpredictability to expand creative possibilities. The article situates AI art within a broader tradition of externalized artistic processes, linking it to Minimalism and Conceptual Art, which also sought to delegate creative control to external systems. Ultimately, it presents AI-generated art as a network phenomenon that redefines artistic agency in the digital age. This article could be helpful to my project as to providing key parallels between AI-generated art and Dadaism

Dzhimova, Mariya, and Francisco Tigre Moura. “Calculated Randomness, Control and Creation: Artistic Agency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Arts. Vol. 13. No. 5. MDPI, 2024.

5.

Knight, Yana, and Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari. “Artificial intelligence in an artistic practice: a journey through surrealism and generative arts.” Media Practice and Education (2025): 1-18.

6.

“AI Art: The End of Creativity or the Start of a New Movement?” BBC Future, October 18, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241018-ai-art-the-end-of-creativity-or-a-new-movement.

7.

Stork, David G. “How AI is Expanding Art History.” Nature 623, no. 7988 (2023): 685–687. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03604-3.

8.

C. Wang, “Art Innovation or Plagiarism? Chinese Students’ Attitudes Toward AI Painting Technology and Influencing Factors,” in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 85795-85805, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3412176.
keywords: {Artificial intelligence;Painting;Art;Surveys;Training;Interviews;Collaboration;Educational programs;AI art;AI painting;student attitudes;education and AI;mixed methods research},