Direct perception and algorithmic data processing: a comparative study of creative processes in an artistic project at the Kłodzko Fortress
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue No. 21 (2025)
-
Museums of medicine in Europe - architecture, history, identity
Rafał Strojny7-24
-
The model as a medium for expressing the third dimension in the work of a landscape architect
Patryk Czerwiński, Justyna Kadlec25-34
-
Changes in rural farmstead layouts in the Knyszyn Forest area
Joanna Orłowska-Rogalska, Marta Baum35-41
-
Perception of diversity in urban culture: examining interior architecture students’ views on campus accessibility
Sariye Selhan Yalçın Usal, A. Nilay Evcil42-50
-
Assessment of the technical condition of a historic building using photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning: the case of the Juliusz Osterwa Theatre in Lublin
Michał Wac, Weronika Kendzierawska-Foryś51-63
-
Direct perception and algorithmic data processing: a comparative study of creative processes in an artistic project at the Kłodzko Fortress
Aleksandra Sztorc, Aleksandra Typek64-73
-
Superhospital as a form of centralised medical care – a cure for contemporary problems in the healthcare sector or a utopian dream?
Rafał Strojny74-85
-
Between integration and expression: BIPV façades in Basel – a comparative study
Magdalena Muszyńska-Łanowy86-97
-
Greenery in a modernist area
Patrycja Zawiska98-104
-
Julian Zakharevich’s bookcase: between design and implementation
Nadiia Datsko105-116
-
Ways of implementing green spaces in urban areas based on selected market revitalization projects in Greater Poland
Karol Tomczak117-127
-
Architectural solutions for contemporary aesthetic medicine clinics – a case study
Rafał Strojny, Aleskandra Murawska128-139
-
Architectural solutions for contemporary dental clinics based on scientific research – a case study
Rafał Strojny, Wiktoria Błasiak140-155
Archives
-
Vol. 20 No. 3
2024-12-27 7
-
Vol. 20 No. 2
2024-12-27 7
-
Vol. 20 No. 1
2024-12-27 8
-
Vol. 19 No. 2
2023-12-29 11
-
Vol. 19 No. 1
2023-12-19 13
-
Vol. 18 No. 4
2022-12-30 5
-
Vol. 18 No. 3
2022-12-27 5
-
Vol. 18 No. 2
2022-12-27 5
-
Vol. 18 No. 1
2022-12-27 4
-
Vol. 17 No. 4
2021-12-30 11
-
Vol. 17 No. 3
2021-12-30 9
-
Vol. 17 No. 2
2021-12-30 8
-
Vol. 17 No. 1
2021-12-30 8
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
This article presents a comparative analysis of the creative process and the final results of works produced by members of the Student Painting and Drawing Scientific Club at the Lublin University of Technology during an open-air workshop at Kłodzko Fortress. These are juxtaposed with images generated by artificial intelligence models based on photographic documentation of the site and the prompts provided. The traditional creative process is compared with the algorithmic process, taking into account differences in sources of inspiration, the creative process itself, and the nature of control over the composition. The findings suggest that human creativity relies on multisensory experience, emotional interpretation, and intentionality, whereas artificial intelligence creates images solely through the processing of input data, lacking the capacity for conscious interpretation. An analysis of the final outcomes reveals significant variations in the aesthetics, compositional coherence, and the level of emotional expression of the works. The discussion highlights the importance of creativity, the role of imperfection and expression in art, and indicates the limitations of artificial intelligence in replicating human creativity.
Keywords:
References
Zhou E, Lee D. Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art. PNAS Nexus. 2024;3:1−8. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae052.
Cheng M. The creativity of artificial intelligence in art. Proceedings. 2022;81:110. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022081110.
Mikalonyte EE, Kneer M. Can artificial intelligence make art? Folk intuitions as to whether AI-driven robots can be viewed as artists and produce art. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction. 2022;11(4):Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530875.
Gozalo-Brizuela R, Garrido-Merchan EC. ChatGPT is not all you need: a state-of-the-art review of large generative AI models. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04655.
Bianchi I, Branchini E, Uricchio T, Bongelli R. Creativity and aesthetic evaluation of AI-generated artworks: bridging problems and methods from psychology to AI. Frontiers in Psychology. 2025;16:1648480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1648480.
Liu B. Arguments for the rise of artificial intelligence art: does AI art have creativity, motivation, self-awareness and emotion? Arte, Individuo y Sociedad. 2023;35(3):811−822. https://doi.org/10.5209/aris.83808.
McCormack J, Gambardella CC, Rajcic N, Krol SJ, Llano MT, Yang M. Is writing prompts really making art? In: Artificial Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design. EvoMUSART 2023. Brno (CZ): Springer; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29956-8_13.
Chi J. The evolutionary impact of artificial intelligence on contemporary artistic practices. Communications in Humanities Research. 2024;35:6−11. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/35/20240006.
Notaro A. State of the art: A.I. through the (artificial) artist’s eye. 2020. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2020.58.
Mazzone M, Elgammal A. Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts. 2019;8:26. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010026.
Sivertsen C, Salimben G, Sundnes Løvlie A, Benford SD, Zhu J. Machine learning processes as sources of ambiguity: insights from AI art. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘24). New York: ACM; 2024. p. 1−14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642855.
Boden MA. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. ISBN: 9780199590735.
Egon K, Russell J, Julia R. AI in art and creativity: exploring the boundaries of human–machine collaboration. OSF Preprints. 2023. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/g4nd5.
Article Details
Abstract views: 3

