What're your thoughts on this?

PREFACE: The following (slightly pretentious) reaction is based on my personal opinions – subject to change (unlikely).

I want to begin with an excerpt from a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

“When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a branch in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: “It’s pretty, but is it Art?”

– The Conundrum of the Workshops (1890)

I’ve been noticing quotes from the The Conundrum of the Workshops resurface since the launch of DALL·E 2 – the AI based “art” generator. Most recently it was brought up by The Canvas Art History, where they discussed the negative capitalistic implications of AI generated images (I have no formed opinion on this topic, yet).

Kipling’s words have struck a nerve with me. The excerpt above has inspired an internal conversation within myself that is far more abstract; an internal conversation on the nature of art itself. I believe my passive admiration for the arts has reached its limit. It’s time for me to bring something to the proverbial table and express my opinions on “what defines art” and the chronic misuse of the word “art” itself.

It’s only natural to start at the “current” definition of art. Oxford Languages describes “art” as:

“The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.“

I somewhat agree. However, I believe there is a fundamental, often overlooked ingredient that constitutes art: the Intent to create. Art can only be created if the artist INTENDS it. Therefore, the onus of defining something as art itself lies with artist, not the consumer of the art. In other words, something can only exist as art, if the artist intended to create it as an expression of their own human creativity and imagination.

Therefore, I propose a new definition for “art”:

“The intentional expression of one’s human creativity and imagination through creation“

Often times while visiting art shows or galleries, like clockwork, one of my friends remarks: “I can make that”. My rebuttal usually goes: “Yes, maybe you can make it, but can you create it? Can you form an abstract idea and through your imagination and creativity will it into existence? Probably not brother.”

To defend my definition, let’s discuss some scenarios:

a) Is a courtroom drawing that visually describes a murder trail, art? It is a form of visual expression steeped in human creative skill that produces a work with great emotional power (at times beautiful). However, I believe it is not art, as it is not an intentional expression of the artist’s imagination, but a recreation of reality for a utilitarian purpose. I would bet that most courtroom drawers don’t consider their artifacts as works of art, but merely a by-product of outdated photography laws. Yet, as per my definition, if the courtroom artist intends their work to be art, an intentional expression of their human creativity and imagination, it is art. In that case I will happily accept it and streak across King Street.

b) Is the drunk dancer swaying his body to “Dancing Queen” creating art? Is the “For Sale” sign written in crimson text on a crisp white background art? Is the bathroom singer humming a jovial tune creating art? I believe the answer is no, unless the “artists” in this case, are consciously intending to express their creativity and imagination with an intent to create art, as opposed to their expressions being motivated by utility or light hedonism. It is unlikely, but I will happily streak across King Street (again).

Additionally, not all that is beautiful is art. The act of projecting “beauty” on to others’ work (beauty in the eye of the beholder etc…) does not inherently make that work art (think of the pretty “For Sale” sign). Also, not all art needs a “deep” emotional core, think of aestheticism and Oscar Wilde (beauty for the sake of beauty). These concepts are not exclusive to art. Art may or may not be beautiful, art may or may not be emotional.

Finally, I don’t believe art is a “natural” phenomenon. I believe art is intentional creation reserved for humans (sorry, @KokoTheGorilla, your bullshit scribbles don’t count).

Now that I have redefined art, let’s see how it relates to “AI generated art”.

A few weeks ago Balaji Srinivasan, an American entrepreneur and investor tweeted:

“AI directly threatens the income streams of doctors, lawyers, journalists, artists, professors, teachers.”

This tweet gained lots of traction as many people interpreted it as AI threatens the artist itself. I believe Balaji has a point, but it may not be as dire as some have interpreted it. I do believe AI generated images will make some illustrators and designers obsolete, however I do not believe that AI will phase out the artist itself. Fundamentally, there is a misuse of the work “art” and “artist”.

When a person prompts DALL·E 2 to generate an image, DALL·E 2 does not inherently become the “artist”. Even if the output is visually beautiful or conveys some pseudo-emotionality, the AI is not creating art. At its root, the AI cannot associate its output with a conscious intention to create and express its imagination and creativity. It is purely a tool, based on prompts to generate images, imagine it as a glorified paintbrush. A paintbrush that artists can now use to enhance their own art and or seek inspiration to fuel their own desire to create.

In the same vein, when the camera was invented, painters continued to paint and artists continued to express their creativity and imagination by creating. Counter intuitively, the camera birthed a new medium of art, a new medium for expression. This is history repeating itself.

As long as people continue to have a desire to express their imagination through the intentional creation of art, the artist as a concept is not going anywhere. If history has taught us anything, human expression through art will continue to thrive, we will just find new mediums through which to create.

As for Adam scribbling in the mud, if he intends his portrait of Eve to be art, an intentional form of his expression, then sorry Mr. Devil, its beauty has nothing to do with it. It is art.

Thanks for reading. I know some will agree, some will disagree and most couldn’t be arsed.

Next time I’ll make my case against the outdated and delusional concept of “luck“.

-Zubin, 2023