Fanciful Friday: AI Art II, Setting The Bar
…this post is related to my previous Fanciful Friday post (see the link at the bottom of the page), which addressed some of the opposition to AI-generated images from the current art establishment.
So, what the heck is art and what qualifies as art?
One of the best conceptual definitions I’ve found is that “Art is human expression given form — visual, sound, movement, words, or other media — meant to communicate meaning, emotion, or experience beyond simple utility.” I’d heard similar, much longer definitions, but I came upon this particular definition during a rather evolved discussion of art with AI-Claude. The reason I initiated this conversation with AI-Claude is that I wanted to understand a learned AI perspective on art, and I knew Claude must be far better read on the subject than I am. I’m confident in calling the resulting exchange of information a discussion because Claude not only answered my questions to the best of its training/ability but also somewhat intuitively asked me some pertinent questions, which made me rethink what I thought I understood. It was interesting.
There’s no single agreed-upon, absolute definition of art, but below are a few common lenses used to determine it. Any combination of these lenses may be relevant:
- Expression: art conveys inner experience — feeling, perspective, imagination — that might be difficult or impossible to express directly via other means
- Communication: it creates shared meaning between the artist and the audience, even across time and culture, and perhaps for different reasons
- Form and craft: skillful arrangement of elements (color, rhythm, structure) for aesthetic effect
- Institutional view: something becomes “art” when it’s presented and recognized as such by an artist, audience, or the art world
However, to further complicate it, some art aims for beauty, some for discomfort or critique; some is highly skilled, some deliberately raw or “unskilled” as a statement. Art covers a wide range of elements, personal tastes and interpretations.
That’s as close as I’ve been able to get to a definition of what is and what qualifies art–it’s nebulous.
The art lens that bothers me most is the Institutional view of art; the “just because I or we say so clause”. To this point, in my discussion with Claude, Claude reminded me of a past example in which Duchamp’s urinal was designated as art by much of the art world; and to think, how many little “art galleries” I’ve visited answering the call of nature. 😉 This institutional view bothers me perhaps the most because it is the easiest lens for political, power and greed manipulation.
I’ve taken a meandering approach (what else would you expect) in this multi-part discussion. The first post (linked below) focused on the initial “man the walls” defensive stance that many traditional artists and art-related institutions have adopted toward AI art. This post discusses the murky waters of what makes art art in general, incorporating my thoughts as well as some conclusions shared with me by Claude, an AI. Next Friday’s post (if all goes as planned) will present my take on the case for and against recognizing AI images as art. I’ll also share my perspective on how it adds value to my limited creative endeavors.
Disclaimer: To be clear, what I write here are my views, and they are evolving even as I write. Please also note that I am not an authority on art or any form of it. What I know and what I might happen to create are simply the result of the self-taught efforts of an inspired amateur. I do have experience with computer programming, creative arts and photography — and I’ll have you know that I won a contest for an ink-and-watercolor sketch in the fifth grade. 🙂 All kidding aside, I take the subjects of these posts seriously, but they should still be read like personal notes or journal entries. So be warned.
Other Connected Posts:
Fanciful Friday: AI Art I, Disdain and Rejection – 7/10/2026
Discover more from MeanderingPassage
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Absolutely gorgeous. 😊
Thanks, Pepper. Dandelions definitely look better in my images than in my yard. 😉
😁
I love this image and agree the institutional view scares me, and has for some time now.
Thanks about the image, Monte. Art will not be pinned down to any one definition, and I think that’s a good thing.
I could easily descend into a thousand rabbit holes on this topic, but I resist, and so, I’ve never seen the Duchamp discussion / piece before – but hey – important enough to get Stieglitz to photograph it!! Then, does it become another version of art? And if the basic question is “creating a new thought for that object,” it seems like that criteria can be applied to so many different things – even a shrug – or a banana taped to a wall. ;) But the thought “is this art?” isn’t a new question or even a new thought – does that disqualify it then? These aren’t asked to be argumentative, they are just questions that then pop into my own head for which I don’t have answers.
We have frequently come across pieces at the Detroit Institute of Arts that might be something like just a couple wooded blocks or some other rather ordinary thing. Wondering “why?” is probably why I am not qualified to answer. What’s the old saying? … “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it!” LOL. I think that sometimes applies to art.
Sure is an interesting time we are in — and us being able to not only live through the whole dot-com boom and birth of the internet, but this emergence of AI capabilities too, which some are referring to it as the “next industrial revolution.” Just be wary of “token burn” – I’ve been reading it’s a “thing.”
Good post Earl – and I like the image – and the dandelion seed is an interesting metaphor.
Thanks for your input, Mark! I think you’re wise to resist those rabbit holes on this subject. I realized early on that I needed to stay at the 10,000-foot level to avoid getting bogged down, and it’s not because I don’t want a firm answer; it’s because I’m not yet knowledgeable enough to be sure of the right questions on this subject. Still, I feel there is enough here to provide some food for thought and provide some footing on the matter; at least for myself.
These are indeed interesting times, and I can even recall a period when there were no personal computer options at all. My first computer was a small Sinclair ZX80 that I bought while serving in the USAF and stationed in England. I later upgraded to an Atari. I remember downloading text files from dial-in bulletin boards, where I could read the text faster than it could be downloaded. And now, with AI—wow!
AI probably does have the potential to be as unsettling and change-worthy as the Industrial Revolution, at least in some fields, and also if we survive all the doom-and-gloom scenarios.
I understand that token burning is a legitimate concept. I’m quite frugal and have set limits for my AI image generations. It just requires some planning in advance.
I’ll wrap this topic up this coming Friday. Have a good week, Mark.