Ai-Da Robot | Portrait of an Artist

“I paint not the things I see but the feelings they evoke in me.” - Odilon Redon

Jan 29, 2025

This week, Sylvie finds herself in the home of a prominent Seattle art collector hoping to procure a donation for the annual St. Cecilia’s school auction.

“Anything you might be able to donate would be great, Venetia.” Sylvie took a deep breath, “Maybe a weekend at your place on Orcas Island?”

Sylvie hated begging for donations. Why had she volunteered for procurement?

Venetia, a beautiful blonde with large blue eyes, a perfect Hollywood nose and puffy lips sat back in her Eames Executive chair behind a minimalist desk, staring blankly at Sylvie. Floor-to-ceiling shelves shellacked in navy, adorned with bibelots and books only in white, completed the look of what Venetia had described as “moody elegance.”

“Darling, my OCD will not allow it. Doctor’s orders. I can’t bear the thought of someone I don’t know being there. Ask my friends, I follow them around with Clorox wipes.” She held out her arm for Sylvie to inspect. “Look, just the thought gives me hives.”

Sylvie resisted the temptation to touch her perfect unblemished skin.

Venetia’s phone buzzed. “Excuse me, I have to take this.” She swiveled her chair around to face away from Sylvie.

“Love, didn’t you get my message? I want one of those paintings from Ai-Da….that robot artist. Apparently, it’s essential for my collection… $2 mil and call when you have it.”

On November 7, 2024, Ai-Da Robot sold a painting called AI God, an abstract of Alan Turing, for $1.08 million as part of Sotheby’s Digital Art Sale. Her work sold for 10x its estimated value. By contrast, other works in the auction produced by human artists employing a variety of AI models and methods had disappointing sales.

I have no formal training in art history, but I do know that most of the awe I feel over great works comes from the fact that a human being created it. I believe the creator pours emotion into their work that can be interpreted and experienced by the observer, making the art come alive, even when the artist is long gone.

When I first heard about Ai-Da, I was aghast. Is nothing sacred? Will AI’s displace human artists? Give me the agony and the ecstasy, the tears and the triumph, the madness of a Van Gogh cutting off his ear. That’s art! I immediately dismissed Ai-Da and her creator, Aidan Meller. But I found out, there’s more to the story.

Art has always pushed boundaries. Doesn’t art exist to make us uncomfortable or lay bare the truths we don’t always want to see?

The creation of Ai-Da, the first AI humanoid artist, follows this longstanding tradition. I am no longer convinced Ai-Da is the menace I first thought her to be. Understanding her “creator,” Aidan Meller’s background and intention made her slightly more palatable.

Meller is a reputable expert with passion, expertise and an ancestral connection to art that runs deep. His parents were historians who ran a small family museum and were avid collectors of 18th-century works. He studied and worked at Sotheby's Institute in London, with a focus on modern and contemporary art. He's a gallerist, art dealer, and has worked closely with private collectors handling works by renowned artists like Picasso, Matisse, and Turner. His expertise lies in understanding the intricate art market and Western art history.

How did he conceive of Ai-Da? He began to ponder what makes great art great. He started a research project comparing the world’s most successful artists. What was the x factor? He looked at where they were born, education, socioeconomics, representation, etc. His goal was to get a blueprint of what the top 1% did. What did they have in common? He worked feverishly for months and nothing clicked. Venting his frustration to his partner, she suggested he might be asking the wrong questions.

Eureka. It wasn’t just the artists or their patrons driving the success, it was the audiences. These incredibly diverse artists spanning over five hundred years did indeed have something in common. According to Meller, the artists he studied identified and responded to the worries of their society. They pinpointed the collective angst and addressed it. Meller studied Michelangelo, Raphael, Constable, Turner, Picasso, Warhol, and Damien Hurst, among others. These artists all enjoyed a level of recognition and success while they were alive. Did he include van Gogh, Vermeer, El Greco, and Gauguin, all of whom were mostly rejected in their lifetime? Maybe there were other mitigating factors for them, but he doesn’t say. We are forced to take Meller’s theory at face value.

He decided to test his hypothesis and asked the questions: What are we uncomfortable with today? What do we fear? Many things indeed, but the vin diagram showed the most universal fear was the rise of AI and the impending disruption to every industry and beyond. As someone who believes AI is the most disruptive force in our lifetimes and perhaps in history, I do not disagree.

What he did next was surprising. Rather than use AI tools to create art, or commission works that depict AI, he decided to create an AI to produce art.

He assembled his own team of Oxford scholars and experts from the private sector and funded the enormously expensive project. Ai-Da was created not just to produce art but to provoke thought and discussion about the ethical challenges AI presents. She can create unique portraits using her machine learning algorithms, which interpret visual data to produce original works of art.

While Ai-Da’s work is controversial, stirring reactions ranging from admiration to revulsion, it underlines the importance of understanding and debating the ethical implications of rapidly advancing AI technology. Both Meller and Ai-Da liken this technological art movement to the advent of photography, which transformed the art world but did not end it. This is an old and rather worn-out argument. While both AI and photography are powerful tools that artists incorporate and are standalone genres of art, AIs like Ai-Da ARE the artist. They produce art. I have read and watched tons of interviews with Meller and Ai-Da and no one pushed on this glaring difference between photography and AI.

Do we care if art is produced by carbon-based entities or silicone-based agents?

Meller insists that Ai-Da is painting what she “sees,” and not creating derivatives by using other artist’s work, but as she exists in the world of art, can that continue to be true? Meller is very wealthy and entrenched in the highest echelons of the art world. Did he really need to create a multimillion-dollar robot just to start a dialogue on how AIs will affect human artists struggling to make it against AIs? He has spent a lifetime surrounded by the most spectacular works that represent the best of human creativity, imagination, devotion and execution. Ai-Da herself could be considered Meller’s own work of industrial art that in turn creates art. Does that make him an artist or her the ultimate protégé until she decides to kill him? Oh dear, I digress! Too many Hollywood movies…

All of this made my head spin, requiring a reality check. I asked my husband what he thought of AI producing and selling art. He said if he liked something within his limited budget, he would buy it, without regard to who or what produced it. When I showed him images of Ai-Da’s art he responded: “Human artists have nothing to worry about.”

Celeste Garcia Getting Real About AI

Discussion about this post