To Save Human Artists, We Need to Redefine Art
To save human artists from AI, we need a human-only definition of art.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Generative AI is rapidly infiltrating every area of our lives, threatening to take over everything from internet research to the workplace to even human creativity. Search engines have all built AI assistants, Logitech is building ChatGPT right into your mouse, and even our pets aren’t immune. In 2024, a Wired article announced a new startup that is adding talking chat bots to pet collars so you can have conversations with an AI pretending to be your dog. Apparently it’s too much work to just use your imagination and a bad Scooby-Doo impression.
Generative AI has even entered the workplace, despite the fact that AI has been shown to have serious issues with accuracy. Google’s AI search summaries made headlines across the world when it started advising people to eat rocks and put glue in pizza. AI is unable to tell whether a piece of data is from a serious source, a parody news article, or a troll on an internet forum.
These Google mistakes were from already written sources, but AI frequently just makes things up by itself, a malfunction that AI defenders call “hallucinating.” AI defenders are constantly using anthropomorphizing language to convince people this incredibly flawed technology is more like Jarvis from the Iron Man movies, and less like an overhyped version of Clippy from Microsoft Word 97.
OpenAI has even brought AI hallucinations into the medical field. Medical centers are rushing to adopt its new medical transcription tool Whisper, despite the fact that researchers say it’s been shown to hallucinate in nearly every transcript, putting patients at risk of misdiagnosis or other serious issues.
However, there is a field where factual accuracy is less of a concern: art.
As a writer, I’ve seen many self-published authors try to save a few bucks by using clearly AI generated pictures as book covers and promotional images. Graphic designers and other artists are reporting either losing jobs to AI. Art departments are slashing staffing, managers assuming that one artist can use generative AI to match the output of ten. From Instagram to Etsy, soulless, bland, machine-generated art is taking over everywhere you look.
So how do we stop it? If we don’t want human artists replaced with generative AI and the art world to turn into one big hotel wall, the idea of human-created art has to be elevated in society.
An Exclusionary Definition of Art
The first step is a new definition of art, one that eliminates the popular idea that everything an artist does counts as “art.” Just like people form a union to improve their working conditions and wages, and exclude non-members from their workplace, artists need to defend themselves from AI by excluding some forms of creation from the accepted definition of art.
What if we don’t do this? If everything is art, then AI generated pictures are art. There is no need for human artists to be paid or rewarded for their work. People will continue devaluing the idea of art by insisting that typing prompts into an app is the same as using a pencil or paintbrush. If it’s all art, then there is no reason for any business to not just close their art department and use ChatGPT instead. The tech bros and the corporations and the billionaires win, and everyone with a soul loses.
To get actual artists the respect they deserve, the definition of art must be restricted to something that excludes generative AI. We need a slightly exclusionary definition of art, where not everything counts.
I know people will object to this. “Art” is unique among words. It’s the only word where people will get angry if you insist that it needs an actual definition.
And no, “anything an artist points at is art” isn’t a definition. If you define art as “anything an artist does or creates,” and you define an artist as “anyone who creates art,” then you’ve essentially said nothing. It’s like defining a “goal” as “the thing goal-oriented people are oriented towards.” You’ve communicated nothing. No information has been gained.
We need a definition of art that avoids this circular logic problem, and that also helps protect artists from the intrusion of AI.
I propose the following:
Art – Noun – An artifact or performance produced by the combination of creativity and technical skill, and for the purpose of inspiring emotion and communicating the meaning present in the work.
This definition has six components, and if any of them is missing then a created work or performance falls into another category. It doesn’t mean it’s good or bad, just that it’s something else.
- An artifact or performance – Art is created through human activity. Sunsets are beautiful and provoke emotions, but nature is not art.
- Creativity – Take creativity away from art, and you get decoration.
- Technical skill – Take skill from art, and you get experimentation, or practice, or play.
- Inspiring emotions – Take emotion from art, and you get things like art criticism, corporate logos, industrial films, and purely functional craft like mass manufactured chairs and tables.
- Communicating meaning – Take communication from art, and you get decorations, craft, or confusion.
- Meaning present in the work – The meaning communicated must be present in the work itself. If taking your artist’s statement off the wall turns your “critique of capitalism” into just a stick figure, then your work is missing something. Any artist’s statement must merely supplement the work, and not stand in place of it.
All six have something in common: they require the creator to put something of themselves into their work. Putting time, energy, imagination, thought, and intention into a work elevates it to a truly impressive and meaningful piece of art. Not doing that results in empty, soulless work. Hotel wall paintings, billboards, and the Minions.
This exclusionary definition of art is closer to the historical definition. The English word “art” is derived from the Latin “ars,” meaning “ability or skill.” The Ancient Greeks used the word “techne,” which meant art, skill, or craft. Historically, art was always thought of something done, made, or produced by humans with some manner of intentional, learnable skill.
A Brief History of All-Inclusive Art
So how did we get here? Where did this idea that “everything counts as art” begin?
I’m a science fiction writer, not an art historian, but I believe this change to the definition of art started with Dada. Dada was an anti-art movement that began in 1915. Dada was a reaction against traditional notions of ascetics and sensibilities, everything that the art of that time stood for. There were earlier anti-art movements, but they aren’t as remembered or as influential as Dada.
Essentially, it was a reaction to the horrors of World War I. A bunch of artists saw all this destruction and death and thought that if our current culture had produced that, they would do their best to burn it all down and start over. And burn it down they did.
One of the biggest names in Dada was Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp took the idea of “readymades” from Surrealism and popularized it. Readymades are ordinary objects that are supposedly “turned into art” by some minor alteration by the artist, such as flipping them over or signing them as if they were a painting. Duchamp’s most famous readymade by far is Fountain, a urinal. He supposedly turned a urinal into a work of art by signing the name “R. Mutt” on it. In the years “Fountain” has been on exhibit, several artists have urinated in it, considering the act of urinating to be “performance art.”
Dada opened the door to a world of meaningless and even incomprehensible artifacts being glorified with public exhibitions. For over a century, artists have continued calling random objects, garbage, and even bodily waste “art.”
- In 1960, avant-garde “artist” Piero Manzoni inflated some balloons and called it “Artist’s Breath.” Apparently this was parodying art world’s obsession with permanence. A year later, he filled 90 tin cans with his own waste and called it “Artist’s Shit.” This was apparently a parody of the art market and a critique of consumerism. A critique of consumerism which has sold for over $100k a tin.
- In 1965, “conceptual artist” Joseph Kosuth gathered a collection called “One and Three Chairs,” a piece consisting of a physical chair, a photograph of a chair, and the dictionary definition of a chair.
- In 1987, artist and photographer Andres Serrano created “Immersion (Piss Christ),” a photo of a crucifix submerged in his own urine.
- In 2019, visual artist Maurizio Cattelan created “Comedian,” a banana duct taped to a wall.
- In 2021, Salvatore Garau created “Io sono”, an “immaterial sculpture.” This so-called sculpture was literally nothing. The display space was empty. He managed to sell nothing for nearly $20,000.
And would-be artists everywhere are still coming up with ways to point at garbage and say they’re artists. I’m sure, as we speak, some unemployed drunk is writing an artist’s statement explaining why the stack of beer cans next to his bed is actually a statement about the alienation of the modern man.
What is the result of all this anti-art? There have been numerous cases of “artists” creating work that was so unimpressive, the gallery’s cleaning crew mistook it for garbage and threw it away.
- In 2001, an art installation at the Eyestorm Gallery in London made of beer bottles, coffee cups, and filled ashtrays was thrown away.
- In 2004, at Tate Brittan, a bag of cardboard and paper created by artist Gustav Metzger was thrown out.
- In 2014, an artist created a work called “Where shall we go dancing tonight?” by scattering cigarette butts, empty bottles, and confetti on the ground. It was also accidentally cleaned up thrown away.
Some will defend a bad piece of art like these by saying it’s intentionally bad. “They’re actually critiquing the kind of horrible, faux art you’re complaining about!” But isn’t it more effective to critique bad art by creating something good? Aren’t you just adding to the number of bad art pieces? Aren’t you just making the total body of art worse?
People will insist there is a deeper meaning and significance to bad art, even when the artist themselves insists there isn’t.
People have built entire careers around insisting there is a deeper meaning to Andy Warhol’s soup cans and screen prints of actresses. “It’s a commentary on consumerism!” Well, what’s the comment? What was he actually saying about consumerism? People with too much money will buy crap they don’t need?
What did he say about his own art?
So, creating art doesn’t require skill, because you can just sign someone else’s name to a urinal and call it art. It’s the meaning or the commentary that’s important. But wait! Warhol created art, and he intentionally created art that didn’t mean anything. So art doesn’t require skill or meaning. Perhaps the definition of art should be:
Art – Noun – Nothing.
If humans aren’t willing to contribute anything to the creation of art, let’s just take them out of the definition of art altogether. If art is nothing, why not have it created by nothing? A non-person, a non-being. Ones and zeroes. Sand that pretends to think.
Dada and the artists that followed created an art world where random and meaningless works are considered “art.” This is a dangerous thing, now that AI can generate endless amounts of such works every second, to the point that they are starting to drown out human creativity.
If art galleries are exhibiting literal garbage, no wonder people are so ready to replace artists with AI. If artists don’t want to lose work and opportunities to ChatGPT, something has to change.
A Return to Sincerity
After a century of anti-ascetics, anti-technique, anything goes art, isn’t it all rather boring by now? In his essay “Anti-Anti-Art,” Stuckist artist Billy Childish said “Today’s art is not art. Its working methodology is to think of something which is not art and to call it art. This is exactly Duchamp’s ideology. Conceptualism is so called not because it generates a plethora of concepts, but because it never manages to progress beyond one single concept, namely Duchamp’s original thought.” Indeed, Dada was interesting, but how many more urinals does the art world need? How many more times are people going to repackage the same idea?
We don’t need more explorations of the boundaries of what is art. People have put every random object you can think of in an art gallery. The question has been answered, and hanging a picture frame on a dirty diaper won’t add anything to the discussion.
The most interesting thing an artist could do right now is sincere, non-ironic, non-meta, skillful and communicative art. That is what will differentiate human art from machine work. That is what will make people value human creativity again.
Art and Politics
At this point, some people will want to shut me out and ignore me because this argument doesn’t fit with their personal politics. Some people will say, “If Dada is a reaction against traditional values, then you are advocating a return to old fashioned values, which is an inherently conservative position.” And this will be followed by a series of baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks.
However, Marxist essayist Walter Benjamin argued that mechanical reproduction of artworks devalued the “aura” of the work. Duplicating a work of art removed it from its historical context, such as a religious temple or a museum, and reduced its aura, the almost magical quality of its uniqueness and impact.
He also argued that mechanical duplication democratized art by making it more easily accessible and not just a thing the elites could enjoy.
Benjamin died 80 years before generative AI was introduced, but I believe he would see it as just another method of mechanical duplication. Generative AI destroys the original aura of an artwork by allowing users to take the Mona Lisa from the context of the Louvre Museum and turn it into a Mona Pikachu. It also democratizes art, by making it infinitely reproducible, and removing all of the human emotion and skill. We end up with vastly more images, but images of vastly less value and significance.
Art vs. Trolling
Ah, but some will argue that the value of a work of art is in the reactions it produces. Just by talking about an image like Mona Pikachu, I’ve reacted to it, which means it’s achieved its function as a work of art. But isn’t this giving the artist credit for the audience’s thoughts?
Something that gets regularly criticized on social media is people who post “engagement bait.” These are bland questions like “What’s your favorite holiday movie?” or a mildly inflammatory opinion like “Taylor Swift is overrated!” They get lots of comments, so the platform’s algorithm assumes it’s an interesting post and shows it to more people. This happens even though the actually interesting part is the comments, not anything the original post actually said or did. If all an artist wants from their work is a reaction – any reaction – they are relying on the same attention-grabbing tricks as any internet troll.
Art vs. Marketing
If your work isn’t appealing on its own, without knowing your name, without reading an artist statement or your personal background information, then something is missing.
There has to be some separation between art and marketing. If an artwork is only valuable because of the name attached to it, then what’s the difference between it and a celebrity autograph? It’s merchandise, it’s a T-shirt.
Art Logic in Any Other Field
The idea that “anything an artist does is art” seems to mostly apply to the visual and performance arts. Once you try using that logic in any other field, it starts to break down.
Try calling a whoopee cushion’s noises “music,” or a bowl of alphabet soup a “novel.” People would think you were nuts, not an art critic.
And what about non-artistic field? Why can’t everyone just abandon form or ascetics or skill?
Imagine an accountant filing out tax paperwork with random numbers, and just telling the IRS that “I’m examining the boundaries of what math is.” Imagine a construction worker just placing boards and nails at random, and telling the foreman that “It’s a critique of modern housing.” People would immediately recognize them as lazy, no-talent trolls.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be noted that I’m not proposing any kind of yardstick or scale to evaluate the worth of art. When I say an artwork should be created with skill, I’m not demanding any particular level of skill. When I say art should have meaning, I’m not saying what that meaning should be or how apparent it should be in the work. What I am saying is that the art world needs to step back from anti-art, from Dada, from Conceptualism, from the rejection of aesthetics and meaning and form, and embrace real, human skill and creativity. This is what an exclusionary definition of art would do.
If this doesn’t happen, and happen soon, artists everywhere will be crushed under the boots of the AI tech bro army. If we continue saying everything is art, then art buyers will see no need for humans to create it.
Unless we act now, we stand to lose the soul that gives art its authenticity. The world will become a place without artistic intention, emotion, or skill, one giant hotel wall. Once all the artists are gone, and we’re left with a world of bland, hotel wall garbage, it will be so much easier for the tech bros and CEOs to replace the rest of us. If ChatGPT can’t take your job, Boston Dynamics and their humanoid robot Atlas will.
To sum everything up, if you agree that art needs a new dictionary entry, fantastic. Let’s kick AI creators and all the other no-talent trolls out of the art world.
But if you disagree, this has all been an elaborate performance piece that you failed to properly appreciate, which proves you just don’t understand art. You just don’t get it, man.
