Authors : Mohamed EL Hamdaoui

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 11 - November

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/33ckmsfa

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26nov008

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The emergence of Generative AI has established a state of "functional parity"1 between algorithmic output and human creativity, triggering a fundamental crisis in the valuation of culture. Historically, the significance of an artifact was anchored in its "aura"—the Walter Benjamin-defined presence of a work rooted in its physical and temporal uniqueness.2 In the current era of algorithmic abundance, where the marginal cost of production is negligible, this paper examines how the locus of meaning is migrating from the act of creation to the labor of curation. By applying a neo-Benjaminian lens to synthetic media, we investigate whether the cultural "soul" is being extinguished by mechanical mimicry or reimagined through a new digital folklore. Central to this inquiry is the rise of the "Human-Premium" market—a sociological shift that reclaims biological imperfection and manual labor as the ultimate markers of authenticity. We ultimately conclude that while AI can replicate the aesthetic forms of the past, the generation of meaning remains an exclusively human transaction, necessitating a radical reappraisal of artistic merit for a post-scarcity world.

Keywords : Generative AI, Walter Benjamin, the Aura, Human-Premium, Algorithmic Abundance, Digital Folklore, Aesthetic Theory, Post-Scarcity.

References :

1. Abbing, H. (2002). Why artists are poor: The exceptional economy of the arts. Amsterdam University Press.
2. Alemohammad, S., Casco-Rodriguez, J., Luzi, L., Humayun, A. I., Babaei, H., LeJeune, D., Siahkoohi, A., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2023). Self-consuming generative models go MAD. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.01850
3. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)
4. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
5. Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media (M. W. Jennings, B. Doherty, & T. Y. Levin, Eds.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1935)
6. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
7. Bridle, J. (2018). New dark age: Technology and the end of the future. Verso.
8. Cramer, R. (2020). The algorithmic image: Graphic visions in the digital age. University of Chicago Press.
9. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
10. Duchamp, M. (1957). The creative act [Lecture]. Convention of the American Federation of Arts, Houston, TX, United States.
11. Groys, B. (2016). In the flow. Verso.
12. Gunkel, D. J. (2023). Art after artificial intelligence: From aesthetics to artificial creativity. Polity Press.
13. Han, B.-C. (2018). The expulsion of the other: Society, perception and communication today (W. Hoban, Trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published 2016)
14. Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget: A manifesto. Alfred A. Knopf.
15. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. Bloomsbury Academic.
16. Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., & Gal, Y. (2024). AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature, 631(8022), 755–759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07566-y
17. Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
18. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. Pluto Press.