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.

Other Connected Posts:

Fanciful Friday: AI Art I, Disdain and Rejection – 7/10/2026