Is ai “art” really art? Nope. The word art, or something like it, has been w us humans for a long time, going all the way back to proto-indo-european, which is the “language” (technically language family) most of the European languages came from, including your Latin and after that your French, and it is from that French, early in the 13th century that we import this specific word “art” in English, which referred to any sort of thing that you need practice to master—so we’re thinking more along the lines of a craftsman than a decorative painter, but remember that back in the day, the work of master craftsmen was incredibly detailed and beautiful. And that would indeed by a work… of art.
By the time we get into the 14th century, art is entirely associated w human workmanship, as opposed to the beauty of the natural world, and so it has remained. Ain’t nobody declaring a blossoming flower or a particularly symmetrical tree a work of art, at least not literally. Art has always been a culmination and celebration of the human sensory experience. The process of creation is inherent in the product.
Only recently, we’ve come to think of art as simply the product—the picture or story someone wants. This comes from the same genre of thinking that produces the middle-aged man who will stand in front of an abstract painting in a museum and declare that his toddler coulda painted that. In his mind, it’s just a few splatters on a canvas, random, devoid of meaning. Splat swipe. My toddler coulda done that. Then you learn what it symbolizes and you look at it anew and you realize that no, your toddler does not have the ability to summon up an emotional response to a few brush strokes, unless ofc those brush strokes are applying paint to say a cherished heirloom or the stove or the cat.
The idea that a computer program could actually come anywhere near replicating the human experience is laughable—do you have any idea how much “data” your brain processes all day every day, even when you’re asleep? Your senses are import jacks that never shut off. You wouldn’t wake up if they did.
There is nothing beautiful, or beneficial, or even relevant to the human condition that is devoid of emotion—least of all anything that would qualify as art. Folks have spent thousands of years debating the meaning of life and I’m not saying I have the answer to that question (but perhaps it’s 42), but I’m certain it at least touches and concerns our unending capacity to feel some way abt literally every fucking thing, and that any attempt to ignore or squash down that capacity is an utter denial of what it means to be human.
And yet we’ve prioritized STEM education over everything else. We’ve dismissed the arts as mere hobbies, as something you might do for fun in your ever-dwindling “free” time. We equate humanities degrees w jobs flipping burgers or slinging coffee. The fact that anyone even thought a machine could be programmed to create art is a testament to the systemic and systematic degradation of the humanities. And yet if you ask anyone to talk abt their favorite memories, there’s likely some kind of art, and a lot of emotion, wrapped up in that. The things we value the most as humans are the things society values the least.
The truth is we need artists, now more than ever. We need thinkers. An idea isn’t a product to be commodified—it’s a spark to be shared. The tech bros desperately want you to aspire to something beyond humanity. They want you to believe that emotions are weak and dirty, that compassion is naive and empathy is a sin—you’ll be better off without those things, bro, just trust me bro. They want to paper over their underdeveloped emotional intelligence by asserting it’s not important.
Your mind and your body aren’t separate things. Unfortunately our language doesn’t really accommodate that, but without your body, without your nervous system and your senses, your “mind” would not have a fucking thing to think abt. When ppl lose one or more of their senses, other senses often heighten. Your brain craves that stimulation, that “data.” It’s that data your brain uses to have thoughts and feelings, which you can then pour out into creative expression if you’re so inclined, into stories and songs and pictures and dances. The large language models that “ai” uses to regurgitate some semblance of “art” provide that data to the machine and yes, the machine will get better at replicating human output and yes, the machine will continue to feed on thefted human art. But what happens when there are no longer humans creating new art to feed the machine? You’re already seeing the answer to this question, as artists start locking down their work and removing images from the internet that might be stolen and used for the machine. The work becomes a pale derivative of itself, at the same time exponentially increasing its unreality. The machine doesn’t feel, therefore the machine cannot express feelings, which is everything art really is.
For as long as we’ve used the word “art,” it has always required people. So is ai “art” really art? Nope. Might call it “fart” for the way it stinks up the joint, or “part” because it can’t replicate the entirety of human expression, or “wart” for how it’s a malignant blot on humanity, but save “art” for work that bleeds.
Is ai “art” really art? Nope. The word art, or something like it, has been w us humans for a long time, going all the way back to proto-indo-european, which is the “language” (technically a language family) most of the European languages came from, including your Latin and after that your French, and it is from early in the 13th century that we get this specific word “art” in English, which referred to any sort of thing that you need practice to master—so we’re thinking more along the lines of a craftsman than a decorative painter, but remember that back in the day, the work of master craftsmen was incredibly detailed and beautiful. And that would indeed by a work… of art.
By the time we get into the 14th century, art is entirely associated w human workmanship, as opposed to the beauty of the natural world, and so it has remained. Ain’t nobody declaring a blossoming flower or a particularly symmetrical tree a work of art, at least not literally. Art has always been a culmination and celebration of the human sensory experience. The process of creation is inherent in the product.
Only recently, we’ve come to think of art as simply the product—the picture or story someone wants. This comes from the same genre of thinking that produces the middle-aged man who will stand in front of an abstract painting in a museum and declare that his toddler coulda painted that. In his mind, it’s just a few splatters on a canvas, random, devoid of meaning. Splat swipe. My toddler coulda done that. Then you learn what it symbolizes and you look at it anew and you realize that no, your toddler does not have the ability to summon up an emotional response to a few brush strokes, unless ofc those brush strokes are applying paint to say a cherished heirloom or the stove or the cat.
The idea that a computer program could actually come anywhere near replicating the human experience is laughable—do you have any idea how much “data” your brain processes all day every day, even when you’re asleep? Your senses are import jacks that never shut off. You wouldn’t wake up if they did.
There is nothing beautiful, or beneficial, or even relevant to the human condition that is devoid of emotion—least of all anything that would qualify as art. Folks have spent thousands of years debating the meaning of life and I’m not saying I have the answer to that question (but perhaps it’s 42), but I’m certain it at least touches and concerns our unending capacity to feel some way abt literally every fucking thing, and that any attempt to ignore or squash down that capacity is an utter denial of what it means to be human.
And yet we’ve prioritized STEM education over everything else. We’ve dismissed the arts as mere hobbies, as something you might do for fun in your ever-dwindling “free” time. We equate humanities degrees w jobs flipping burgers or slinging coffee. The fact that anyone even thought a machine could be programmed to create art is a testament to the systemic and systematic degradation of the humanities. And yet if you ask anyone to talk abt their favorite memories, there’s likely some kind of art, and a lot of emotion, wrapped up in that. The things we value the most as humans are the things society values the least.
The truth is we need artists, now more than ever. We need thinkers. An idea isn’t a product to be commodified—it’s a spark to be shared. The tech bros desperately want you to aspire to something beyond humanity. They want you to believe that emotions are weak and dirty, that compassion is naive and empathy is a sin—you’ll be better off without those things, bro, just trust me bro. They want to paper over their underdeveloped emotional intelligence by asserting it’s not important.
Your mind and your body aren’t separate things. Unfortunately our language doesn’t really accommodate that, but without your body, without your nervous system and your senses, your “mind” would not have a fucking thing to think abt. When ppl lose one or more of their senses, other senses often heighten. Your brain craves that stimulation, that “data.” It’s that data your brain uses to have thoughts and feelings, which you can then pour out into creative expression if you’re so inclined, into stories and songs and pictures and dances. The large language models that “ai” uses to regurgitate some semblance of “art” provide that data to the machine and yes, the machine will get better at replicating human output and yes, the machine will continue to feed on thefted human art. But what happens when there are no longer humans creating new art to feed the machine? You’re already seeing the answer to this question, as artists start locking down their work and removing images from the internet that might be stolen and used for the machine. The work becomes a pale derivative of itself, at the same time exponentially increasing its unreality. The machine doesn’t feel, therefore the machine cannot express feelings, which is everything art really is.
For as long as we’ve used the word “art,” it has always required people. So is ai “art” really art? Nope. Might call it “fart” for the way it stinks up the joint, or “part” because it can’t replicate the entirety of human expression, or “wart” for how it’s a malignant blot on humanity, but save “art” for work that bleeds.
