Evolving Aesthetics: The AIgentic Series

Frederik De Wilde’s AIgentic Series emerges as a profound exploration within the intersection of generative art and artificial intelligence, delving into the speculative futures of agentic AI, post-evolution, and artificial life through a critical lens. The generative artworks (code based) aesthetics range from monochromatic digital paintings made from 99 shades of digital black,  to vibrant, abstract compositions of interconnected circles in varied colors (blues, reds, yellows, and purples) set against a textured, deep magenta background. The works visualize a dynamic ecosystem of evolutionary agents, where basic shapes and colors evolve into minimalist compositions reminiscent of modernist masters like Rothko, Herrera, Kandinsky, Agnes Martin, Mondrian, Malevich, and Albers. The interconnected lines between agents suggest a networked intelligence, evoking the emergent behaviors observed in artificial life simulations like Conway’s Game of Life (Gardner, 1970).

Beneath this seemingly serene aesthetic lies a complex simulation of artificial life, where evolutionary algorithms drive a “gruesome battle of the fittest,” with agents endowed with DNA-like characteristics (speed, size, sense radius, lifespan, and reproduction rate) that mutate, reproduce, and perish based on energy and age constraints.The sonification of these interactions, though not audible in the static image, likely adds a multisensory layer, enhancing the perception of a living, breathing system.

The  works situate within the speculative futures of agentic AI, exploring its implications for post-evolutionary aesthetics, the emergence of artificial life, and the erosion of traditional artistic authorship, drawing on theoretical frameworks from artificial life research and posthumanist discourse.

Agentic AI and Post-Evolution

The AIgentic Series offers a speculative vision of the role of agentic AI in a post-evolutionary future, where traditional notions of evolution—rooted in biological processes—are supplanted by algorithmic regimes. In this context, agentic AI refers to autonomous systems capable of independent decision-making and adaptation, a concept increasingly central to AI research (Russell & Norvig, 2021). De Wilde’s evolutionary agents embody this paradigm, as their ability to reproduce, mutate, and perish mirrors the principles of natural selection, yet their existence within a digital framework challenges anthropocentric definitions of life. This aligns with the field of artificial life (ALife), which seeks to simulate and study life-like processes in computational environments (Langton, 1989). The AIgentic Series extends this discourse into the aesthetic realm, asking: what does creativity look like when driven by artificial agents?

A New Aesthetic Ontology

The AIgentic Series’s engagement with artificial life positions it within a lineage of computational art that explores the generative potential of life-like systems. Artificial life, as defined by Christopher Langton, seeks to abstract the principles of life into computational models, often resulting in emergent behaviors that mimic biological processes (Langton, 1989). De Wilde’s agents, with their DNA-like parameters and evolutionary dynamics, embody this principle, creating a digital ecosystem where life-like forms evolve in real-time. The artwork’s visual output—its interconnected circles and vibrant colors—can be read as a metaphor for the emergent complexity of artificial life, where simple rules give rise to intricate, unpredictable patterns.

This connection to artificial life also invites a critical reflection on the implications of agentic AI in aesthetic production. The AIgentic Series challenges the modernist ideal of the artist as a singular genius, a concept epitomized by figures like Kandinsky and Malevich, whose abstract compositions were driven by human intuition and spiritual inquiry. In contrast, De Wilde’s work delegates creative agency to algorithms, raising ethical questions about control and responsibility. If AI agents can create art that rivals the emotional depth of Rothko or the structural rigor of Mondrian, what becomes of human creativity? Moreover, the competitive nature of the agents’ evolution—where survival depends on outcompeting others—mirrors the neoliberal dynamics of contemporary society, suggesting a critique of the survivalist ethos that underpins both natural and artificial systems (Haraway, 2016).

The Ethics of Agentic Creation

While the artwork celebrates the aesthetic potential of agentic AI, it also underscores the loss of human agency in the face of algorithmic autonomy. The “gruesome battle of the fittest” that drives the composition introduces a Darwinian brutality into the creative process, raising questions about the ethical implications of simulating life-like struggles for the sake of art. This dynamic echoes Donna Haraway’s call for a more collaborative, less competitive approach to multispecies coexistence in the Chthulucene, where survival is achieved through “making kin” rather than domination (Haraway, 2016). De Wilde’s agents, by contrast, operate within a framework of competition, potentially reinforcing rather than challenging the violent hierarchies of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, the speculative future envisioned by AIgentic Series must be interrogated for its broader implications. The rise of agentic AI in art production could democratize creativity, allowing for new forms of expression that transcend human limitations. However, it also risks commodifying artistic labor, as algorithms become tools for mass-producing aesthetically pleasing outputs, potentially devaluing the human artist’s role. This tension reflects broader anxieties about AI’s role in society, where autonomous systems increasingly shape cultural production, from music to literature (Boden, 2016).

Toward a Post-Evolutionary Aesthetic

 Through its generative compositions and evolutionary dynamics, the artworks bridge the minimalist aesthetics of modernist abstraction with the emergent complexity of digital ecosystems, challenging traditional notions of authorship and creativity. However, its reliance on competitive evolutionary mechanisms and the delegation of agency to AI raise critical ethical questions about control, responsibility, and the nature of life itself.  AIgentic Series serves as a timely provocation, urging us to consider the aesthetic and ethical implications of a post-evolutionary world where artificial life forms become our co-creators, reshaping the boundaries of art and life.

References

• Boden, M. A. (2016). AI: Its Nature and Future. Oxford University Press.
• Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Polity Press.
• Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical Games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “Life.” Scientific American, 223(4), 120-123.
• Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
• Langton, C. G. (1989). Artificial Life. In Artificial Life: Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (pp. 1-47). Addison-Wesley.
• Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson.