This paper presents an emerging aspect of intentionality through recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) developments in art and design. Our main thesis is that, if we focus just on the outcome of the artistic process, the intentionality of the artist does not have any relevance. Intention is measured as a result of actions regardless of whether they are human-based or not as long as there is an esthetical value intersubjectively acknowledged. In other words, what matters is the ‘intentio’ embedded in the (...) work of art (the output) rather than the ‘intendere’ (the process). By considering the former aspect, intentionality becomes free of human intervention, therefore 'unintentional'. This thesis is supported through a range of examples related to AI in general and AI art in particular. However, in the case of a self-driving vehicle, the macro-goal of the system is fixed by humans, even though the AI system itself will take care of decomposing the macro-goal into a set of micro-goals and take the corresponding decisions. In the case of art, the system does not need to have any exterior goal to the extent that art is pure freedom of expression, as many philosophers have acknowledged. In this sense, the decisions of any AI system generating art or design are independent of humans and must be judged only on the ground of the final outcome. A work of art will be judged ‘artistic’ to the extent that humans will recognize an artistic intent in the work itself. In particular, the introduction of random processes makes an AI-generated artwork fully independent of human creativity. (shrink)

In the famous ‘Fragment on Machines’ of the ‘Grundrisse’, Marx points out how social or collective knowledge (the ‘general intellect’) has become a ‘direct force of production’ through its embodiment into technical devices. The rhetorical wording ‘artificial intelligence’, with its own misleading anthropomorphic connotations, looks, from a Marxist perspective, the apex of this process in which knowledge becomes the core of the fixed capital that ideally must be re-appropriated by the workers. In this context, AI Art appears as one of (...) the many expressions of the commodification of the collective knowledge in which, for using the expression of Guy Debord, ‘all that was once lived has moved into representation for being commodified’. However, the progressive availability of AI tools for generating art also opens the doors to a ‘detournement’ strategy by allowing a decolonization of the artistic scenario in which each of us becomes the ‘author’ without being the author. Maybe in future, rather than asking ‘who is the author?’ we will find ourselves asking ‘what is the author?’. A move of this kind achieves automatically the ‘death of the author’, with the corresponding subversion of the notions of artistic intention, authorship, and genius, while disrupting the present commodification process behind the artistic ecosystem, in a fashion beyond the best intentions of Walter Benjamin’s ‘Art in the age of mechanical reproduction’. This move is ultimately disruptive from a metaphysical point of view as well to the extent that the human centrality is dispossessed by the recognition of forms of creativity different from our own creativity. (shrink)