Abstract:

The rise of generative artificial intelligence is systematically reshaping how we distantly view and perceive the human face. This paper takes the entertainment industry as a key site of analysis and proposes a four-phase process model termed “facial digital assetization”—the Auxiliary Asset Phase, the Malleable Asset Phase, the Circulatable Asset Phase, and the Agentive Asset Phase—to critically examine this profound transformation. This process marks the transition of the face from an intuitive image bound to the physical body and specific narratives, through a phase of becoming a computable data object susceptible to computational analysis/distant reading (rather than mere human intuition), and finally towards a quasi-agentive entity with commercial and interactive potential.

This research reveals that this non-linear evolution is essentially a co-evolution of technological logic, asset attributes, and power relations. In the Auxiliary Asset Phase, digital technology acts as an “advanced makeup brush,” serving the visual authenticity of specific works through 2D restoration and enhancement; facial data at this stage constitutes non-circulatable means of production, and public acceptance is based on a logic of “restorative justice.” The technological leap in the Malleable Asset Phase lies in 3D modeling, where the face is fully extracted from its biological carrier for the first time, becoming an editable and deployable malleable model. This newfound “separability” triggers intense contention between the right of publicity and emerging digital asset rights, shifting audience acceptance logic towards a scrutiny of “artistic necessity” and “emotional legitimacy.”

With the maturation of digital asset management platforms, facial assets undergo a fundamental shift in the Circulatable Asset Phase, transforming from specialized means of production into standardized commodities freely tradable on the market. Whether as the symbolic capital of virtual idols or as licensed assets for video game characters, facial data is integrated into capital circulation through the “model once, license multiple times” paradigm, yet simultaneously faces unprecedented legal challenges such as digital inheritance and the temporal limits of posthumous publicity rights. Presently, we are entering the Agentive Asset Phase, where generative AI, instead of replicating, synthesizes faces ex nihilo from vast datasets, pushing the nature of assets towards algorithmically generated agents capable of independent operation. The emergence of virtual influencers and AI actors signifies that digital faces have acquired a certain “agentive” spark, their value assessed not by resemblance to a real person, but by their market influence and personified setting.

It is crucial to emphasize that these four phases do not represent a simple linear succession but manifest in current industry practice as a complex landscape of intertwined and coexisting forms. This process precipitates challenges across three core dimensions:

1.The Evolving Legal Void: Moving from the contest between the right of publicity and digital asset rights to the legal ambiguities surrounding the ownership of AI-generated faces and the definition of digital heritage.

2.Systemic Ethical Challenges: The focus of controversy shifts from artistic authenticity and the motivational legitimacy of “digital immortality” to encompass issues of labor displacement, crises of social trust, and the potential erosion of human dignity.

3.The Reconstructed Perception Paradigm: The audience's logic of acceptance evolves from pursuing “technical restoration,” through examining “ethical justification,” to ultimately facing the complete dissolution of benchmarks for authenticity when confronted with prototype-free, generated faces.

By systematically mapping this process, this paper aims to provide a critical analytical framework for understanding the dilemmas of digital identity, rights governance, and humanistic values in the AI era. This research not only responds to the conference’s core concern regarding how technology reshapes paradigms of cultural analysis (Distant Reading) and cultural reception (Viewing/Perceiving), but also strives to offer a critical perspective for constructing a future governance framework that can harness technological creativity while safeguarding human value and dignity.