The Aesthetic Value of Human Imperfection in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’s Flawless Algorithms

Abstract

This study examines the tension between the notion of technical perfection in AI-based artistic production and the concept of imperfection in human art. While artificial intelligence frames imperfection as a deficiency to be eliminated, contemporary aesthetic approaches consider it a constitutive element that fosters meaning-making, originality, and aesthetic depth. Drawing on aesthetic philosophy, theories of creativity, critiques of digital culture, studies of artificial intelligence, and theories of embodied experience, the study offers a comparative and critical analysis of the paradigm of perfection in AI-generated outputs and the phenomenon of imperfection in human artistic production. Human and AI productions are compared along the axes of temporality, intentionality, and subjectivity, while findings from neuroaesthetic and perceptual studies are also synthesized. The study argues that aesthetic value cannot be reduced to the formal quality of the output alone but must be evaluated in relation to temporality, risk, and subjective experience inherent in the production process. In this context, the concept of the “ontological weight of imperfection” is proposed, and the emotional and semantic deficiencies often observed in AI-generated works is discussed theoretically. Consequently, the study suggests that aesthetic value is grounded not only in the final product but also in the fragility and subjective experience embedded in the process of creation.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• Imperfection
• Aesthetic
• Ontology
• Art

Yapay Zekânın Kusursuz Algoritmaları Karşısında İnsan Kusurunun Estetik Değeri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ temelli sanatsal üretimlerde öne çıkan teknik kusursuzluk anlayışı ile insan sanatındaki kusur kavramı arasındaki gerilimi incelemektedir. Yapay zekânın sunduğu kusursuzluk algısı, kusuru ortadan kaldırılması gereken bir eksiklik olarak konumlandırırken, çağdaş estetik yaklaşımlar kusuru anlam üretimini, özgünlüğü ve estetik derinliği besleyen kurucu bir unsur olarak ele almaktadır. Çalışma; estetik felsefesi, yaratıcılık kuramları, dijital kültür eleştirisi, yapay zekâ çalışmaları ve bedenlenmiş deneyim kuramları temelinde, yapay zekâ üretimlerindeki kusursuzluk paradigması ile insan sanatsal üretimindeki kusur olgusunu karşılaştırmalı ve eleştirel bir çerçevede analiz etmektedir. İnsan ve yapay zekâ üretimleri, zamansallık, niyet ve öznellik ekseninde karşılaştırılmış, ayrıca nöroestetik ve algı çalışmalarına ilişkin bulgular sentezlenmiştir. Çalışma, estetik değerin yalnızca biçimsel çıktı kalitesine indirgenemeyeceğini, üretim sürecine içkin zamansallık, risk ve öznel deneyimle birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda “kusurun ontolojik ağırlığı” kavramı önerilmekte ve yapay zekâ üretimlerinde gözlenen duygusal ve anlamsal eksiklik kuramsal olarak tartışılmaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, estetik değerin yalnızca üründe değil, üretim sürecine içkin kırılganlık ve öznel deneyimde temellendiğini ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Yapay Zekâ
• Kusur
• Estetik
• Ontoloji
• Sanat

References

1. Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (H. Zohn, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published 1936).
2. Bergson, H. (2001). Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published 1911).
3. Boden, M. A. (2016). AI: Its nature and future. Oxford University Press.
4. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
5. Chamberlain, R., & Wagemans, J. (2016). The genesis of errors in art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000136
6. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press.
7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
8. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033

9. du Sautoy, M. (2019). The creativity code: Art and innovation in the age of AI. Harvard University Press.
10. Eco, U. (1989). The open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962)
11. Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative adversarial networks generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Creativity (pp. 96–103). Association for Computational Creativity.
12. Fischer-Lichte, E. (2008). The transformative power of performance: A new aesthetics. Routledge.
13. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.
14. Gajewska, E. (2020). Can humans recognize and evaluate AI-generated art? arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07255
15. Hamilton, A. (2020). The aesthetics of imperfection reconceived: Improvisations, compositions, and mistakes. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 78(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12749
16. Hansen, M. B. N. (2006). Bodies in code: Interfaces with digital media. Routledge.
17. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press.
18. Heidegger, M. (1971). The origin of the work of art (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1935–1936)
19. Hong, J.-W., Peng, Q., & Williams, D. (2020). Are you ready for artificial Mozart and Skrillex? New Media & Society, 23(7), 1920–1935. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820925798
20. Kittler, F. A. (1999). Gramophone, film, typewriter (G. Winthrop-Young & M. Wutz, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
21. Kneer, M., & Mikalonytė, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the arts: Can AI make art? SSRN preprint. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827314
22. Lehmann, H.-T. (2006). Postdramatic theatre. Routledge.
23. Manovich, L. (2019). AI aesthetics. Strelka Press.
24. McCormack, J., et al. (2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. Leonardo, 52(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01439
25. Mengi, V. D. (2025). Evaluating AI art through Kantian aesthetics. ARTS – Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.1714896
26. Phelan, P. (1993). Unmarked: The politics of performance. Routledge.
27. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
28. Skov, M., & Nadal, M. (2020). The nature of perception and emotion in aesthetic experience. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39.
29. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1: The fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press.
30. Zylinska, J. (2020). AI art: Machine visions and warped dreams. Open Humanities Press.