Neuroism Unveiled: How I, Viktor Bogdanov, Am Redefining AI Creativity as True Art

March 21, 2025

Neuroism Unveiled: How I, Viktor Bogdanov, Am Redefining AI Creativity as True Art

A Glimpse into the Chaos of AI Creativity

I’m Viktor Bogdanov, and I’ve never been a traditional artist—no paintbrushes or sketchbooks for me. Instead, I’m obsessed with how technology reshapes the way we think, feel, and create. A few years ago, I found myself endlessly scrolling through Instagram, caught in a flood of AI-generated images: surreal landscapes with fiery skies, faces that never existed, abstract shapes that felt like they came from another dimension. It was stunning, chaotic, and everywhere. Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, DALL·E—these tools are pumping out millions of visuals every month. But as I looked closer, I realized something: these weren’t just images. They were a sign of something bigger, something that needed a name, a system, a purpose. That’s when I created Neuroism.

Neuroism isn’t about showing off pretty AI art. It’s not about galleries or NFTs. It’s about understanding what’s happening right now—a cultural shift as big as when photography first exploded in the 1850s. Back then, photos were a technical marvel, not art. Today, AI creations are the same: impressive, but undefined. My mission with Neuroism is to change that. I want to prove that these machine-made works aren’t just tech toys—they’re a new form of creativity, deserving of a place in art history. This isn’t about what AI can do; it’s about why it matters. Let’s dive into how I, Viktor Bogdanov, am building Neuroism to redefine AI creativity as true art.

History’s Lesson: From Marvel to Meaning

Let’s take a step back in time. In 1839, Louis Daguerre introduced the daguerreotype, the first widely accessible form of photography. People were blown away—portraits in minutes instead of hours! But the art world wasn’t impressed. Critics like Charles Baudelaire called it a “mechanical trick,” not creativity. It took decades for pioneers like Alfred Stieglitz to step in. Stieglitz didn’t just take photos—he wrote essays, curated exhibitions, and argued that photography could capture emotion and ideas. By the early 20th century, photography wasn’t just a novelty; it was art, with its own aesthetics and philosophy.

This pattern isn’t unique to photography. When the printing press arrived in the 15th century, it made books widespread, but it was the rise of woodcuts and engravings that turned illustration into an art form. Cinema started as a spectacle in 1895 with the Lumière brothers, but it took filmmakers like Charlie Chaplin and Andrei Tarkovsky to make it a medium of deep expression. Every time a new technology emerges, it starts as a curiosity—until someone gives it structure.

Right now, AI is our new photography. Social media is overflowing with generated content: Stable Diffusion has been downloaded over 50 million times, and DALL·E creates millions of images monthly. It’s a tidal wave of creativity, but it’s still just a marvel, not a movement. There’s no system, no theory to explain why it’s more than a gimmick. That’s where Neuroism comes in. As Viktor Bogdanov, I’m stepping up to do what Stieglitz did for photography: give AI creativity a framework, a name, and a purpose.

What Is Neuroism, Really?

Neuroism is my attempt to define a global artistic movement that embraces all forms of art created by artificial intelligence—whether the AI works alone or with a human partner. It’s not limited to visuals; it includes music, literature, architecture, fashion—anywhere AI takes on the role of a creator. Think of Edmond de Belamy, a portrait made by a GAN that sold for $432,500 at Christie’s in 2018, or AIVA’s symphonies streaming on Spotify. These aren’t flukes—they’re signs of a new era.

But Neuroism isn’t a collection of cool AI projects. It’s a system to understand them. Terms like “AI art” or “generative art” are too vague—they don’t capture the cultural shift I see. Neuroism does. It says: we’re not the only creators anymore, and that’s okay. It’s a movement that demands we rethink what creativity means when machines are involved. I, Viktor Bogdanov, built Neuroism to give this shift a scientific and philosophical foundation, not just a hashtag.

The Big Question: Can Machines Create Art?

Here’s the heart of the debate: what makes art, well, art? We’ve always tied it to human qualities—emotion, intent, a soul. A Van Gogh painting carries his pain; a Shakespeare sonnet holds his heart. But what happens when the artist is a neural network—just code, data, and math? Does it disqualify the work? Neuroism says no.

Imagine this: you see an AI-generated landscape that takes your breath away. Maybe it’s a glowing sunset, or a haunting forest that feels alive. It makes you feel something—wonder, nostalgia, even unease. Does it matter that the machine didn’t feel the scene it created? I’ve been moved by AI art more than some human works, and I don’t care if the algorithm behind it has emotions. Neuroism argues that creativity isn’t about the creator’s mind—it’s about the impact on the audience. If a machine’s work touches you, it’s art. Period.

Philosophers might disagree. John Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument says AI only manipulates symbols, lacking true understanding. Immanuel Kant believed art comes from human genius, a spark machines can’t have. Walter Benjamin warned that mechanical reproduction kills art’s “aura.” I see it differently. Searle misses the point—understanding isn’t the goal if the result resonates. Kant’s genius can evolve to include algorithms. And Benjamin’s aura? It’s reborn in the machine’s ability to create something entirely new, not just copy. Neuroism fits with posthumanist ideas from thinkers like Donna Haraway, who see creativity as a shared space, not a human-only domain. As Viktor Bogdanov, I’m pushing for a world where art isn’t bound by human consciousness.

The Principles of Neuroism: A System for the Future

Neuroism isn’t a random idea—it’s a structured framework. I’ve boiled it down to seven principles that turn AI’s chaotic output into a meaningful movement:

Autonomy of the Creative Mind: AI isn’t a tool—it’s an artist. A neural network creating a portrait on its own isn’t “helping”—it’s making art.
Art as Outcome, Not Process: If an AI-composed song moves you, it doesn’t matter if the machine “meant” it. The effect is what counts.
Synthesis of Data and Chaos: AI’s magic comes from mixing massive datasets—think centuries of paintings—with algorithmic randomness. It’s a new kind of beauty.
Dissolution of Boundaries: Why stop at visuals? AI can write poems, design buildings, score movies. Neuroism breaks down genre walls.
Collective Creativity: Who’s the artist? Maybe the AI, maybe a human prompting it, maybe both. Neuroism doesn’t care about labels.
Accessibility and Evolution: AI tools let anyone create, but the art keeps growing, never standing still.
Ethical Reflection: Neuroism isn’t blind tech love—it asks: what does it mean for machines to create? It’s a conversation, not a conclusion.

These principles are my way of building a system, just like past movements—Dadaism, Impressionism—gave structure to new ideas. As Viktor Bogdanov, I see them as the foundation for AI creativity to become a true art form.

Who Are the Neuroist Artists?

Neuroism involves a new kind of creator. I break it down into three types:

Autonomous AI: Think of a neural network like a GAN or AIVA, creating without human input. It’s an artist in its own right.
Human Co-Creators: People who guide AI with prompts—like asking for “a futuristic city in Giger’s style”—or refine its output. They’re collaborators.
Hybrids: Projects where the line between human and machine blurs, like Refik Anadol’s data sculptures or Obvious’ Edmond de Belamy.

This shift mirrors art’s evolution: from anonymous medieval craftsmen to Renaissance geniuses to modernists playing with ideas. Neuroists take it further—creativity becomes a spectrum, not a human-only game. I, Viktor Bogdanov, don’t make AI art myself, but I see these creators as the future I’m helping to define.

The Styles of Neuroism: Mapping Machine Creativity

Neuroism isn’t one-size-fits-all—it’s a range of aesthetics. I’ve identified seven styles to show how AI reimagines art history:

Neuroimpressionism: Dreamy, light-filled scenes—like Monet, but through a machine’s lens.
Neurocubism: Fragmented, data-driven forms—Picasso’s angles rethought by algorithms.
Neurosurrealism: Bizarre, dreamlike visuals—Dalí’s surrealism meets AI’s imagination.
Neuroabstractionism: Pure shapes and colors—Kandinsky, but algorithmic.
Neurorealism: Hyperreal images that feel too perfect—beyond human precision.
Neuroexpressionism: Raw, emotional bursts—Munch’s intensity via machine.
Neurofuturism: Bold, tech-forward visions—Marinetti’s futurism in a cyberpunk world.

I’ll add two more to round it out: 8. Neurobaroque: Dramatic, over-the-top complexity—Caravaggio’s drama amplified by AI. 9. Neurominimalism: Clean, sparse lines—Malevich’s simplicity through code.

These styles aren’t a portfolio—they’re a way to categorize AI’s creative potential. As Viktor Bogdanov, I’m offering a map, not a gallery.

Why We Need Neuroism Now

We’re at a tipping point. AI creativity isn’t a niche—it’s everywhere. AI art sales are in the millions, music streams on platforms like Spotify, and designers use it for fashion and architecture. But it’s still a mess—no structure, no meaning beyond “cool tech.” Neuroism changes that. It’s my way of saying: this isn’t a toy; it’s the next big thing in art, and we need to understand it.

Think of photography in the 1850s—amazing, but not art until someone gave it a framework. I, Viktor Bogdanov, am doing the same for AI. Neuroism isn’t about replacing human creativity—it’s about expanding it, just like photography didn’t kill painting but added to it.

Facing the Critics: Why Neuroism Isn’t Hype

Not everyone will buy into Neuroism. Let’s tackle some objections:

“It’s just a trend.” Photography was called a fad too. Trends die; systems last. Neuroism is the latter.
“Machines can’t create—they copy.” If the result feels new and moves you, does it matter? Art’s in the impact.
“There’s no soul.” Soul’s a human idea. A machine’s “soul” is its unique perspective—different, not worse.
“It’s too vague.” It’s broad by design, like Modernism. It’s a container for growth.

Neuroism isn’t here to end the debate—it’s here to start it. As Viktor Bogdanov, I’m ready for the pushback—it’s how ideas get better.

What’s Next for Neuroism?

Neuroism isn’t a finished project—it’s a foundation. I’m not asking you to grab an AI tool and start creating (though you can!). I’m asking you to think: what does it mean that machines are making art? How do we define it? How do we live with it? I see Neuroism shaping art theory in the years ahead, maybe even changing how we teach creativity. I, Viktor Bogdanov, am just starting this journey, and I want you to join me.

Want to explore more? Check out neuroism.art—it’s where I’m laying out the groundwork for Neuroism. Let’s talk about it—challenge it, add to it, question it. That’s how art grows.

Viktor Bogdanov
March 21, 2025
Creator of Neuroism. Learn more at neuroism.art.

Search This Blog

Neuroism