In the West art has always been practiced principally byprofessionals, who constituted a small part of society. In primitive societies, by contrast, image-making is often practiced by anyone. This is what happens to humans all over the world in the early years of development: all children draw, in primitive form. There have, moreover, been periods in human history when image-making was often practiced by non-professionals, in forms that were similarly childlike and primitivist, such as urban graffiti in ancient Rome. The advent of photography, and then smartphones, has already expanded the possibility of image generation to everyone. Image-generative AI is moving in this same direction, and while there is a risk that the outputs are trivial, homogenized and superficial, schools have the opportunity to stimulate students to produce more challenging and stimulating results by providing the conceptual tools for mass artistic creation. It is crucial that these technological tools start being introduced into schools, encouraging students to make their own personal and distinctive paths that go beyond the current homologated production, developing original and authorial research. Generative artificial intelligence is now configured as a mass media, perhaps even more so as a “personal media,” given the highly personal nature of the relationship with this technology, but still a global media. Not all media have generated an art: radio has not done so, nor has television in the proper sense, while cinema has certainly achieved an authorship, an aesthetic and language, an analytical and critical depth, and a capacity for profound innovation that have elevated it and placed it among the great art forms of history. In addition to its role as a tool for mass visual production, will AI image generation also become a tool for real artists, capable of elevating its depth, critical vision, aesthetic originality and authorship?
Italiano