Commentary
Art is the highest form of human expression; that is, art is most effective in evoking and exploring expressions intrinsic to the human experience.
There can be no room for what you might call fake art, art that is, at its heart, inauthentic.
I examined authenticity in my Honour’s thesis, and submit that authentic art is, in both conception and inception, “honest, grounded in knowledge”.
To be dishonest as a painter, deliberately reproducing the brushwork of Rembrandt, is hardly to be an authentic creator. Similarly, to know little of the history and pioneers of one’s craft brooks no confidence that one’s work will be distinct—in fact, such ignorance would suggest insincerity, that one actually had no interest in striving towards creating authentic art in the first place.
In a sense perhaps most resonant with my readers who are proponents of capitalism (hopefully all), art is not a product.
Products are manufactured for a purpose. Art, alternatively, in a perfect world, is created regardless of whether it is purposeful or not.
The poems of so many poets, the symphonies of so many composers, or the paintings of so many artists have been written, composed, and painted without any prospect of outcome.
An emerging novelist’s unpublished manuscript cannot be said to possess any certainty of reward, and yet what strongly increases the chance of its publication is its literary quality.
For do not mistake me: art without purpose must still be excellent, and I have written previously on the necessity of craft.
More to the point, though, the author has laboured many hours a day for many months, sometimes years, over his manuscript, without any guarantee that a publisher will champion his work. But labour still he does, and for the simple reason that he does not expect, he loves.
Indeed, I have written much music that remains unperformed—in some cases, definitely for the better!—and yet this has not dissuaded me from my resolve to compose because the ultimate success of my work is not what led me to write it in the first place.
In the Absence of Lived Experience
Herein all of this lies the philosophic problem with art generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
Humans alone can be artists, for only humans can adequately express the experiences, be they physical or emotional, that are intrinsic to them.
How can a machine describe the beauty of a blood-crisp sunrise or the pain of a parent who has lost a child?
Preconceived interpretations of such things may be programmed, yes, but why programme and replicate when one can uniquely experience them?
I am certainly not one to advocate that the ideologically weaponised concept of the lived experience be accepted in the courthouse or taught in the classroom.
But for the artist, the experience of life—to experience living—is fundamental. (Incidentally, nearly all wokeness originated in the university Arts faculty; perhaps now you understand why. With art comes great responsibility, for the ability to imagine is the ability to attain and yield power.)
And so, while we might say that AI-generated art is, by necessity, grounded in knowledge, it is inhuman and thus not an honest representation of the human experience. Nor is it honest in generating its art, merely manipulating a pre-programmed digital library of components and ideas built by humans.
Thus, it is inauthentic and not art.
Moreover, machines are functionary and purpose-driven. They perform their operations in pursuit of concrete outcomes. After all, machines cost money and energy; anyone standing to benefit from AI-generated art should demand a return on investment.
And here is further cause for concern: the basic premise of AI is to service humans.
Just who is being serviced and doing the benefitting? These ethical questions must be asked—loudly.
Private experimentation with innovative software is one thing; using technology to achieve widescale commercial dominance is another.
It is my belief that AI constitutes a legitimate threat to authentic artists, as well as societies that rightly prize art as vital—if not now, then certainly in the not-so-distant future.
The solution seems to me to be a kind of global stance: artists everywhere must first identify AI-generated art and, second, reject it and its beneficiaries.
Art, the highest form of human expression, must be upheld, lest we risk jeopardising our humanity altogether, or at least our ever-continuing quest to comprehend it.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
