For several years now, the idea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been either perceived as a looming threat to society’s workforce or as a godsend solution to a limitless future. In the world of art, the latest AI development is a little bit of both. Created in 2021 by German artist Mario Klingemann and software collective, ElevenYellow, Botto is a “decentralised autonomous artist” that has made waves in the tech and art communities by generating digital artworks that have fetched millions at auctions. 

For centuries, the process of creating art has been viewed as an inherently human endeavour, driven by individual genius, emotional depth, and personal expression. Yet as AI algorithms like Botto gain prominence in the art market, the very concept of what art is — and who can create it — is evolving. Botto’s success in the art industry not only raises questions about creativity, but also about ownership, authenticity, and the future of the art industry itself.

A New Kind of “Artist“

Like most AI systems, Botto’s image generation is stimulated by prompts. Each week, Botto creates approximately 70,000 images each week, using machine learning algorithms that analyse and synthesise data from art history, including surrealism, cubism, and impressionism. Out of the thousands, 350 are presented to the DAO — Botto’s “decentralised autonomous organisation,” which comprises 5,000 community members, who vote on which image should be minted as an NFT and auctioned to the highest bidder. The sale proceeds are shared between the voters and Botto’s treasury, fueling the AI’s ongoing creative process.

This very process is what sets Botto apart from other AI systems. Its status as a decentralised artist allows the creation process to be driven by both the machine and its human community — and this mission, so far, is a commitment that the DAO does not want to stray away from. While the AI itself generates the images, the human participants of the DAO exert significant influence by selecting the pieces they deem worthy of auction. As Simon Hudson, Botto’s operator, explained to CNBC, “You have to participate to help train Botto.”

Hudson further explains that Botto’s purpose is both a bid for recognition as an artist and a pathway to success in any form. Whether commercially or culturally, Hudson views an artist’s success by impact, and Botto has already subverted expectations by stripping away barriers of entry within the art community.

READ MORE: Artificial Intelligence In The Real World

The Value of AI Art

Already, the financial success of Botto’s artworks is undeniable. According to Wired, the AI artist has generated over USD 4 million in sales, in which one had fetched upwards of USD 1 million at auction. At an October 2024 auction, CNBC reported that two Botto pieces sold for a combined total of USD 276,000 at Sotheby’s — a signal that Botto’s creative output had gained legitimacy in the eyes of art collectors and investors alike. These sales also raise a critical question: what is the true value of AI-generated art? 

Many critics argue that AI cannot create art with the emotional depth or intentionality that human artists can. Writing for The New Yorker, American science fiction writer Ted Chiang argues that AI art does not have value because AI fundamentally cannot make art. Chiang writes that “art is something that results from making choices,” a seemingly human form of processing. Machines, on the other hand, do not make choices. Instead, they make predictions, based on existing data. This aligns with a traditional view of art — that it must be a reflection of human experiences and consciousness, and that machines are incapable of producing meaningful work because they lack emotions. 

However, supporters of AI art have argued that the value of art (whether AI or not) lies in its process, not in the emotions behind it. In a response to Chiang’s New Yorker essay, Matteo Wong wrote in The Atlantic that “how a model connects words, images, and knowledge bases across space and time could be the subject of art, even a medium in itself.” Wong concludes that the artistic process is never limited to a single artist, even if it seems so on the surface. Instead, it involves “societies and industries, and yes, technologies.” Hudson and Klingemann’s view is similar to Wong’s — they hope that Botto will change the way in which art is valued. Hudson calls this a “meaning-making process,” where humans guide the machine, and the machine, in turn, mirrors human creativity. 

In many ways, Botto embodies a new vision for art, where the process of making art becomes just as important as the final piece. The rise of AI artists like Botto could signal the end of the “solitary” artist archetype, instead ushering in a future where collaboration between humans and machines shapes the very fabric of art.

READ MORE: The Metaverse Mirage: Why the Hype Is Fading

AI Art and Ownership

Botto’s success also challenges the notion of ownership in the art industry. By democratising the process of art creation, Botto and the DAO open up new avenues for participation in the art world, allowing anyone to vote on the direction of the artwork. Naturally, this raises questions on authorship: Who owns the artwork? Is it the human creators who designed the algorithms? The community members who voted on the images? Or is it the machine itself, which executed the creative process?  

The reality is that there is no definitive answer. Currently, generative AI and its works are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Author and illustrator Harry Woodgate told The Guardian “These programs rely entirely on the pirated intellectual property of countless working artists, photographers, illustrators, and other rights holders.” While this issue runs rampant, the increasing use of AI is allowing more systems to be put in place. An article by Reuters suggests that ownership claims on AI artwork should be “handled in a manner similar to materials covered by open source or creative commons license.” Elsewhere, there are efforts to accept AI as a tool for creativity, rather than demonise it. For instance, Getty Images, which sued London-based company Stability AI in 2023, has now embraced the technology. Its latest generative AI tool lets users create images that are based on Getty’s library of photos and images. Getty CEO Craig Peters told AP News that revenue from the AI images would be shared with creators and contributors whose work the AI was based on. 

This is similar to how Botto works, where members who actively participate are also given “Botto tokens,” which give them voting rights on the AI’s output. In this way, the DAO members are not just passive consumers of art; they are integral to the creation process, actively participating in collective decision-making. Botto represents a future of art that is not confined to the traditional boundaries of ownership and creativity. It is an art ecosystem that exists in a digital, decentralised space, where community-driven decisions shape the direction of the work. In fact, the DAO model reflects the way many digital communities function today, where collaboration and shared ownership are valued over individual authority. 

Art in the New Era 

While the debate around AI in art is far from settled, the success of Botto signifies a broader acceptance of technology as a legitimate medium of artistic expression. By combining machine learning algorithms with the input of a collective community, Botto is reshaping the very process of art-making and challenging the traditional system that is associated with the art market. Whether Botto’s success is a current fad or the beginning of a lasting shift toward technology remains to be seen. In the end, the rise of AI in the art world is yet another philosophical revolution, which grapples with the same questions that have plagued the industry since the beginning: What is the true nature of art, and who gets to create it? Botto is not the first disruptor in the art world and it certainly will not be the last.

For more on the latest in culture and business reads, click here.