When it comes down to it, there are really only two types of artists in the world. It is always a matter of how you cut it, but let me say right off the jump that not everyone who makes what we normally think of as art, or who works as a professional in a creative field, can be called an artist. Knowing what we’re describing here is going to be useful in defining how we think about the nature of art, and what making art means in our changing world.
I was started my art education taking classes which were mostly focused on technique. The weight fell heavily on what might be described as the “fine art” side of things, in which students were taught “core” technical skills related to drawing, painting and composition. Though I didn’t go far enough to hit many theory classes, the general perspective was this: that art was ultimately something personal borne out of the artist’s vision. The goal of art education was to provide the skills which would allow the artist to realize their vision in the most technically appropriate and skillful manner.
Later, when returning to art education, I found myself head first in a deep pool of design theory. Here the perspective was quite different. There was always an end goal, and end product and a problem to be solved. The best design was the one which elegantly solved the problem and clearly communicated the answer for the client to their chosen audience.
Between, and aside from, these two poles lay many other explanations for what art is or could be. Many artists describe themselves as process based, following rules which have been established to generate results which cannot be predicted. Others try and pull from a place of subconscious, to work without conception or to tap into a creativity they do not feel fully in control of. Others push the limits of their materials or find ways to disrupt the traditional methods of execution altogether.
It might seem absurd to say all of this and then try to narrow this down into two boxes, but here it goes anyway.
There are, in the end, only two types of artists: those who have a solid understanding and conception of their success metrics, and those who cannot fully describe what a successful work looks like.
I am inclined to think that what I learned of design theory was largely correct when it comes to art being created in order to solve a problem. For graphic design and similar fields these problems are handed to the artist from a client. For a fine artist the problem to be solved comes from within. It is easy to point out that an illustrator or designer is striving to create a solution which works for their client or project. Often the success metrics are clearly outlined in a brief and are reviewed at stages in which verbal criticism can be incorporated into a final version.
A fine artist, even one working from their own imagination, is not without their own design brief. They too have some sense of what it will mean for their work to be “finished”. They will have a sense of when they have achieved their goal, or will set themselves anew to the task of trying to solve the problem in a different way.
It might be tempting to point to someone who paints in a non-representational or abstract way and imagine that they do not have success metric in mind. Those artists still need to judge the execution of their craft. They still must assess what has been created and how, and determine whether it has become something which achieves these goals. It is not the case that these artists threw paint around and accepted whatever came out. They are still critical of the work that has been created.
One might jump on that point and bring up process artists, such as those who do paint pouring, or use procedural techniques to create images. Due to the nature of the process, these artists have no concrete idea how the final image will turn out, but that does not mean that they do not have a sense of whether it has been successful. Someone who creates images using paint pouring will know whether or not they executed the steps of their process in a way which fulfills their own guiding system. The judgment is not applied to the end product (often) but to the process of executing the image.
Even artists who rely upon dreams and subconscious, or automatic, drawing techniques will have a sense that they have captured something which is tuned in to those elements.
The artists may not be able to explain what they are looking for, and from the outside it may be impossible to discern where the line of successful execution lays. It does not matter whether any other viewer of the work has access to that sense of successful execution. Some artists will be able to articulate those aspects, and some will not. Both kinds are artists proper.
The core here is judgment. To be an artist isn’t to be tied to a technique or process, academic school of aesthetics, genre or similar classification. An artist is someone who uses their special talents and skills to solve creative problems while exercising their powers of creative judgment to determine the effectiveness of their results.
So what? How does this narrow anything down and what is it useful for?
It makes room for a vast array of art making individuals working on creative problems that don’t always have solutions that make sense to the rest of the world. It frees some traditional artists up from feeling tied to the materials that other artists use, and makes room to bring in a variety of creative artists who are not working using “accepted” methods.
Beyond that it also sets up a dividing line which cuts across industries and experience levels. Of all the people who are engaged in the business of generating visual assets, illustrations, motion graphics and other varies content elements, not every one of them should be considered an artist. There are many who, given the amazing accessibility of tools which can be used to quicky generate images, choose not to use their aesthetic judgment. There are many who churn out images and content without a critical eye for what is being delivered into our world and visual culture. If anyone is in the business of uncritically generating images or other visual solutions, and does not consider whether their creations meet their standards, then they cannot be called artists.
An artist is someone who assesses the success or failure of their work against a set of internalized aesthetic standards.
Artists who create work for themselves must be able to critically consider whether or not what they have created is appropriate to their vision or process. Artists who create work for others map the needs of the design brief onto their own set of standards. Even technical solutions must be judged internally to see whether or not they are successful.
Judgment cannot come from outside and does not reside within a brief. It is always a requirement that that artist make an interpretation of the brief, whether this is something they can describe or not.
If someone is making visual solutions without passing judgment on them before handing them off to a client or putting the out in the world, then this person is no artist. They are simply an image generator or content creator. Indeed, that title itself focuses fully on bringing new content into existence, without any reference towards whether or not that content has achieved a threshold of quality.
Why is the realevent? For this just the reason stated above.
Our world is such that we are drowning in content. Much of it has been created thoughtlessly to fill ever expanding spaces of our digital lives.
If someone is making visual solutions thoughtlessly then they diluting the richness and value of our collective visual culture.
There may not be many areas of overlap between all artists, but I believe that the most critical key element is a exercising of internalized aesthetic judgment. We need visual solutions which are oriented both towards practical client needs and towards internalized self expression. In both of these cases we need artists who concern themselves with the quality of their craft. Whether this means engaging deeply with their process, their subconscious or trained technique, it will result in something which has the ability to nourish others.
Just like comparing vitamin rich whole foods to cheaply processed empty calories, so too is the comparison between thoughtfully birthed art and design in comparison to throw-away images.
Drawing a distinction between artists and non-artists is to also highlight the sort of arts that we consume and allow to be consumed. Paying more attention to quality and design is a way of tuning our sense of taste.
The realm of aesthetic judgement is not reserved for artists alone. It may be what defines them, but the viewer must also learn to exercise this skill. We may or may not be privileged to know what an artist was thinking about their own work. We may have an artist statement with carefully crafted conceptual outlines, or we may have only the word “untitled”. We may encounter visual assets in advertising, video games or printed ephemera. We may be able to discern the amount of success achieved by the graphic as it works on us as a consumer. We may find ourselves inspired, energized or otherwise nourished by the work, or we may find that its influence passes us by. What matters is that there is a potential for meaningful engagement which does not exist in works that were created by an image maker rather than an artist.
One thing I love about WordPress and the blog environment is when good conversations and idea can bounce off of each other in just the right ways to drive curiosity.
Two threads came together for me recently. Each started in a very different corner of my perception and came together with a significant crash.
The first thread came from a long-running interest I have been developing about the life and photography of Minor White. He was an American who taught and practiced photography for much of his career on the west coast. He was working during the middle of the twentieth century and was highly influenced by the work of Ansel Adams, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston. The list of influential photographers whom he taught and mentored is significant. Aside form teaching he was also a founding editor for Aperture magazine, in which he contributed many fascinating articles about the theory and philosophy of photography. He was very influenced by the mystical, and became something of a photography guru during the later portion of his life, gathering a group of passionate individuals around him to talk about the power of photography to communicate deep truths.
The second thread has been several in depth, thoroughly presented and thoughtfully critical pieces written about the rise of AI art generators which are being written by Eric Wayne. The latest (as of the end of January 2023) is titled “AI Won. Human Artists and Humankind are Defeated“. Mr. Wayne is a contemporary art critic and artist who is very concerned about the place of the artist in today’s world.
These two threads came together for me while discussing some of the implications raised in the article linked above.
To summarize the points of this conversation that I felt to be at core issue (they are worth reading in depth if you are interested in hearing two slightly different takes on how art may or may not exist in a post-AI world): On one side of the discussion is the cold hard reality that AI is not (and will continue to become) much better than humans at content creation in nearly all forms. Art and image creation are already incredibly advanced, and have improved dramatically within only a matter of months. The writing on the wall is that AI will very soon be able to generate better art than humans ever could. Indeed, AI will generate better art than we may ever be able to conceive of. On the other side of the conversation I argue that the output, the image generated, is somehow different than “art” in some sense. I argue that the intentionality of the artist must have some influence on the experience of something as art. Both of us agree that there is a challenging aspect related to viewer response. Namely, that some AI art will certainly be impactful, inspiring and moving for human viewers, even if it was created “without” intention in the sense that I was alluding to.
Certainly many of the discussions happening now have significant emphasis placed on the origin of the work. Many people feel comfortable saying that they will never purchase AI art, and will never appreciate it as much as they appreciate art create by a human. The problem with this is that there is currently no way to know. The quality of production is so good that the majority of AI generated images cannot be discerned from those created by a human. Certainly, if someone tells us where the image came from it will color our perceptions, but should it? If a picture moves us, then isn’t it art?
One particular quote from Mr. Wayne is what helped set off this blog post:
Art has intrinsic value. Disqualifying AI art, poetry, musical compositions, etc., because they are by AI is a disservice to art and art appreciation. We have this happening already where are is being judged by the biology of the artist.
Thread three was the slow burning experience I have had trying to live the life of an artist creating original work not for a client, but for myself. Granted, as an unsuccessful working artist who perhaps never put in the 110% effort required to make it work, you can take my words with a grain of salt. I did spend a few years surveying the landscape, however, and trying to figure out what it would take, before realizing that what it would take wasn’t something I felt confident about executing.
The internet, as with any tool, provides benefits and drawbacks. It has never been easier, as an artist, for work to be shown to millions (or billions) of potential fans. Never before has any artist (and I mean literally anyone who is making art) had the audience that is now available. The cost and barrier to entry is laughingly minimal. One doesn’t even need a domain or web page, just a social media presence and the cell phone camera which is often attached. Suddenly anyone, anywhere, can see what has been created.
On the flip side, the competition for views has also never been so unbelievable. Every artist is trying to be the one who gets noticed, and every viewer is daily learning how better to skim quickly through visual content. Being seen is no longer enough. Viewers see thousands of images a day, sometimes in a sitting, and even the most awe inspiring and jaw-dropping pictures can be double tapped and passed on without much thought.
Making a connection with the viewer seems like it would be easier, and yet, how is it to be made?
Back to Minor White. As an editor at Aperture, and an art theorist, he too was involved in many discussions about what art was, who it was for, and how to look at things. In fact, his discussions about art are significantly skewed towards how to look at images. I have covered a few of his critical exercises in previous posts with the titles “Conceptual Awareness”.
Minor White, and his emphasis on how to look at images, was heavily influenced by one book about art criticism which I just finished reading. It is titled “Wingless Pegasus, a Handbook for Critics” by George Boas and was published in 1972.
The book is an attempt to describe and illuminate the many ways which art has been seen to provide value throughout different times and places. It is at its core a psychological and philosophical text about how humans interact with their world.
I don’t think it is difficult to see how complicated assigning values can be in terms of humanity, and art especially. Values are a product of the individual upbringing of each person, coming from their cultural background and then blended in with their individual experiences. It is a hallmark of the modern world and taken for granted that each individual is a unique universe unto themselves with an inner life and way of thinking that is theirs alone. We already accept that any two people who look at the same scene may come away with two different interpretations. Indeed, this is celebrated (in the west) as something that itself is to be valued.
Knowing how fickle taste can be, and living in a globalized culture in which so many different worldviews and perspectives may come to bear on each piece of art, how can we expect to find any underlying value which is inherent within the piece itself?
Two common areas in which many people have tried to pin value into the work itself are: the skill demonstrated in its creation, and the time spent on its creation.
Skill is quite interesting because it too changes with taste. Which artist was more skillful, Leonardo, or Van Gogh, or Picasso? Each style has its own rules and difficulties and requires different skills. Does it even make sense to compare? In the time of its painting, according to an article included at the end of Boa’s book, the Mona Lisa was praised on its completion for how incredibly life-life, “living”, the woman in the painting looked. Despite this, hardly any mention is made of the painting for hundreds of years after, and it is not included on lists of masterpieces from those centuries. It is not until someone writes again in the 1700’s that it comes back into circulation. In fact, it isn’t until critics of the nineteenth century analyzed it with a strong emphasis on the hidden psychological meanings did it start to develop the cache which it continues to have. In this case, what it is famous for now can hardly be the exquisite brushstrokes and technicalities. That skill didn’t change and yet did not speak to centuries of people about the inherent value. Similarly, though we may praise it now, very few people who actually go to see if (even those who try to see it) will never be able to identify that level of skill because they won’t be able to get close enough to apprehend the details. If skill carries value, then why do we value something which we cannot appreciate (except through anecdote) as being skillfully created? Why wasn’t it immediately and forever more a masterpiece?
Similarly, and in reverse, even art created with exquisite skill and technical aptitude may not inspire or engage with the audience. Other forms of image making, such as non-representational art, or forms of process art, or found art, do not rely upon technical skill in the same way. It may be the case that the skill being executed is a skill of perception, or curation or conception. All of these, while they may be trained and put to challenging use, are very difficult for the viewer to gauge or grasp.
That values by which art is judged come from the unique individual and their background, as well as their placement within a society. Values may be shared more broadly amongst people within a group so long as they share significant social values which make the translation possible. For instance, the majority of Medieval paintings were intended to support the words of the church by illustrating and aiding communication of the sermons and the message. In that context, the work of art can speak similarly to many people. That same work, seen now especially if it has been removed from a church, is being seen by a plurality of cultures, ages and backgrounds at once, and certainly means different things to different people.
George Boas ends his book with this summary of his journey through where human values about art seem to come from, concluding that it is simply not possible to find any universal and shared value that isn’t tied to changing modes of thinking. He suggests:
The critic therefore, if he is wise, will confine himself to explanation, interpretation, analysis and give up praising and blaming, legislation, evaluation. He will cease the attempt to communicate the ineffable and resign himself to a world in which there is an insoluble residuum of irrationality.
Boas, George. “Wingless Pegasus, A Handbook for Critics.” Baltimore, MD. The John Hopkins Press, 1950.
This is what jumped to mind upon reading Mr Wayne’s remark that “Art has intrinsic value.” Perhaps it was no meant to identify a specific shared value, or even a value which can be quantified. Perhaps it is a value which applies to a specific time and place.
Returning to my struggles with presenting my art in a contemporary market might be helpful.
It is already the case, I feel, that being an artist online is to be in competition with impossible odds. There will always be someone who spends more time than you, who has better skills that you, who came up with a similar idea first. Despite the changes in appearance, there is still actually very little new under the sun. It used to be that one could be the best in one’s niche, but now each niche has been filled. To find a new one means shaving off imperceptible spaces between others that have already been carved out. I feel that we didn’t need AI to disrupt the modern artist. Artmaking in today’s world is already a situation in which the artist has lost before even setting foot on the stage.
In order to have one’s art seen and appreciated in a global social media marketplace, one may be supported by many fellow artist mentors, marketing gurus and social media experts. Though their credentials differ, there are some interesting overlaps in what they say.
Artists who seek to make their own work and represent themselves to the world are really trying to sell themselves. Having a brand presence, being a strong brand, is key. Advice varies in detail, but generally they seem to agree on a few key points:
Show something of yourself, of the human behind the art.
Know what audience you are trying to reach, and have an idea of what kind of person you think your art might speak to.
Don’t try to cater to everyone, and keep your message consistent.
Splash page for Stop The Starving Artist by Lennon Bone, a website geared at helping artists find their tribes and those who will appreciate their work. https://stopthestarvingartist.com/
I understand from the side of the viewer how this works. There are several artists whom I follow that have caught my eye over a period of time and many works presented. I may be drawn in by one image, but it is only after I have seen several do I start to get an idea of what the artist is “about”. By seeing them working at visual problems in their own unique ways I get a sense for what they find important, what they struggle with and where they find meaning in the work that they do.
It seems that being an artist today has a significant amount to do with selling yourself, rather than your art. Or perhaps, selling your story with the help of our art. When people buy your art, they are actually buying into your story.
At least, that is how I have often heard the narrative. It has a nice quality to it as well, in that it encourages the artist to lean into their own unique voice, and medium and technique. It also doesn’t require that everyone appreciate the work that you do. With so many people out there, the goal is to find your tribe, rather than convince everyone.
This aspect of “artist as brand” has become quite popular within the last few generations, even in the analogue world. Minor White spent a good deal of time arranging and rearranging photographs into “sequences” which were meant to stand together, or at least be read together, rather than focusing on individual images. This has continued, and is easily seen in the amount of photography art books which are on the market. Artists are also seeing great success selling sketchbooks. These point further towards the affect an artist has being tied to who they are as a person, as well as the work they are creating.
Perhaps this is a key to the new sense of value in art. Value transferred to the artist which encompasses not only the specific intention and method for creating any given piece, but their approach to artmaking as a whole.
Is this what we mean by inherent value within the art itself? Can art have inherent value for one tribe and be overlooked by others?
What about images that move us even when we don’t know the artist or how it came to exist? What about images that spark our sense of beauty or wonder even when they happen to be from the hand of an artist we do not respect as a person? Artists are already in a situation in which, despite having more potential viewers than ever before, they struggle to explain why they are creating the images which they do. Have we ever really been in a world where artist intent made that much of a difference? Have we always lived in a world in which we only like the images that appeal to us on a more instinctual level?
To quickly round up where I find myself in this discussion and begin to bring it to some sort of conclusion:
AI text to image generators have the potential to upend how art is being created in many industries, including independent artists who are trying to discover and represent their own voice and style.
Even before this, with the rise of social media and the wave of modernist art movements the place of artists has become more ambiguous. Artists have more potential viewers than ever, but also much more competition, and often eyeballs on their work for fractions of a second at a time while scrolling through a feed.
The values we place on art come from the complex and unique set of circumstances which we all find ourselves in: our place in the world, our time in history and the unique experiences we have had growing up. Values can be shared by a group for a time, but change and flex and often do not mean that same thing to different groups. The value of an individual work of art does not seem to be fixed within the work itself, but must be somehow constructed in relationship to the viewer.
These three elements point to two conclusions I have come to about art in the contemporary situation, and in relation to AI text to image generators.
First, AI entering the scene isn’t fundamentally changing our relationship to art as much as I thought. This is mostly because it has already been very difficult for artists to control their own works and how they are distributed to the world. It is already very difficult for artists to find a tribe who appreciates their style and is willing to pay for it. It has also been very difficult to tell their own stories about why they are making what they are making.
An artist using AI to explore a certain theme is actually not at much advantage in this sphere. They may make one or two stellar images, but it will only be through the repeated body of their work which others will come to value their art at a deeper level. If they continue to turn out work that speaks together within that same narrative and stylistic structure, then they are clearly tapping into something true to themselves and artistic in its own right.
Second, AI image generators might actually be helpful when it comes to meaning making in a strange way. The sheer speed at which they can create images is going to test the limits of what we are already experiencing on a daily basis. Or, perhaps not, as I cannot image how to fit any more visual information into my day as it is. We are already creating works at a blinding pace without this technology.
When we think about what value art brings to our lives there should be some optimism here. If art does not carry any inherent value which can be “discovered” and shared amongst all people, then there is no gatekeeper and no litmus test for who can and should appreciate art. Though it may sound depressing to think that artistic value only exists for each person or small communities, that can actually be a great thing.
Art gains meaning and value when come into relationship with it. It might be shallow at first, but can deepen as we come to understand more about the work. A backstory and artist intention do not anoint a work with significance, but can provide us a new way to look at the piece and cause us to ask more interesting question about it. Historical or cultural context can do the same and give us broader perspective. Looking at the work in relation to other works by the same artist and other artists will also lend new meaning.
Rather than coming in and either seeing the value or missing it, we are able to build that value with the art. If we desire it.
How we choose to interact with art is up to us. What we choose to give our time and attention to is up to us. AI art isn’t a monolith sent to crush us. It is simply more images in our feed that we can choose to deal with as we want. If we find something interesting it is up to us to learn more about how it was made and why. If it was generated through a text to image bot then it is up to us to determine what the means. Perhaps there is still value there, or perhaps that is a roadblock to further understanding.
Our consumption is based on our taste, which we are at liberty to develop and exercise. If we want more meaningful art in our lives we need only go and get it. For individuals and society as a whole, what we surround ourselves can be a reflection of our taste rather than what other people want to feed us. If we decide to curate that mix that we consume then we can choose to partake in what brings us value and adds meaning to our lives. Art can and will have the value that we determine it does if we make time to build a relationship with it. The tools and the tech don’t determine it for us.
Like any new technology, AI art generators will affect different types of artists much differently. To speak about it as a monolith is misleading and unhelpful. To ban them outright is missing the point.
For someone who really wants an image and would normally hire an artist, they now have the opportunity to create versions of this image through an AI art generator. By inputting a string of written prompts the tool will produce several outputs which can then be iterated on through subsequent changes to the written prompts. This does not guarantee that the end result will adhere to the appropriate finished qualities which the user had in mind, but the quality of these tools in reproduction of various art styles and “realistic” representations is stunning.
The issues which are currently being raised around whether or not AI art generators are unethical and dangerous apply blame to the tool while failing to properly account for the intentions, skills and relationships brought by those who use them. My intention here is not to specifically fight for one side or another. Rather I would like to point out aspects of how AI art generators might disrupt the art world in ways which I have not yet seen discussed. I would also like to use this development in technology to highlight the relationship each of us has to art and media. There are important discussions to be regarding aesthetic judgements and the development of taste. Perhaps a different perspective on our relationship to tools such as this will be helpful in framing different conversations.
On Impacts to the Art World:
To speak about the world of Art as a unified field is highly dubious. The variety of ways in which visual media integrates into our lives is too varied to account for. From online ads, to branding to conceptual work, to video games and immersive experiences, to icons and navigation of our digital and embodied spaces, to visualization of information, and yes, to works of “fine art” intended for the gallery or museum, artists operate on a broad spectrum. Each with their own intention and relationship to both their tools and their final products. The following categories are certainly not exhaustive, but representative in the ways which AI art generators might have different sorts of impacts on the art world.
For many artist whose main income and focus is to generate images based on design briefs, this may well cause significant disruption to their industry. Concept artists, for example, are primarily impacted in many ways as this is specifically what they have been hired to do: turn concepts into images which do not yet exist. For these artists, crafting the images themselves may no longer be the primary focus of their job. Instead, one might imaging the concept artist needing to become an excellent interpreter of how the AI model receives textual prompts. Rather than skills in kit bashing and painterly rendering, the concept artist might need to become an expert at synonyms, historic artistic styles and vernacular relating to setting and mood. Given the extreme amount of examples which may be generated in a short period of time and the ease with which they can adjust and readjust the prompts, the concept artist will need to demonstrate excellent taste and refinement. No longer will it be a matter of generating “something” which captures the spirit, but rather the *exact* right look for the application. This exercising of aesthetic judgment will never be replaced by anything other than the creative mind which holds the unrealized vision up for comparison.
For illustrators working in commercial industries the challenge may be quite different. It is possible to imagine that some designers will be able to generate their own work without hiring out to an illustrator. Many others, however, will still need someone to provide them with collections to sell on fabric, home goods and other accessories. The market currently doesn’t have any particular favor for artists who create works digitally, through photography, or using paint and canvas. The value of the artist is that they have created a range of images which can be licensed regardless of initial medium. While many traditional artists working in the industry might bemoan the challenge of creating individual works themselves at a moderate pace, when another artist might leverage the power of AI generation to develop a broad swatch of designs in a sort amount of time. What of the artists working in watercolor who can only create so many images in a month as compared to their counterparts working digitally, who can create and edit multiple colorways simultaneously at much greater speed? Describing the unfairness of the tool in such terms would not be an addition to the conversation as it already exists. It has never just been about the efficiency of the tools. It is the ability to visualize the designs in the first place which sets these artists apart. Just because someone is holding the most expensive paintbrush, poised over a primed canvas and prepared with the finest oil pigments does not mean that they have the ability to generate an image others will appreciate, much less license. Even typing in “floral patterns” to a generator isn’t worth much. Choosing the best and most interesting, and being able to describe exactly what one is looking for requires artistic skills which are valuable. Whether an artist is able to submit one collection, or thirty, doesn’t ensure that their designs will be picked up.
Artists whose work is individualized as a personal expression may not see any threat. Indeed many artists have begun to explore the possibilities with which they can create new sorts of art with the aid, or even collaboration, of neural networks or deep learning systems. In more mundane cases there are also artists using image generators as a starting point from which to further develop their own works. Perhaps a bit like paint pouring or working from digital photographs, they don’t see the generator as a final product, merely a tool used to create the foundations for their own inspiration. For some artists who are posting works created through a generator, even if they do no other editing work afterwards to alter the returned image, this is still the creation of art. Knowing how to get a desired response out of an image-making tool through careful trial and error is still a craft of its own. Like paint pouring or other sorts of process art, there is a fine balance between controlling the inputs and being surprised by the outputs. The same could be argued about photographers. Just because they were in the right place at the right time to capture an amazing shot, does that mean that they are artists, or just lucky? Is it really different to talk about the understanding of a camera and the patience to wait for a subject in comparison to talking about how one learns to manipulate a generator? Certainly these conversations were had at the beginning of the twentieth century about those who “just snapped pictures” as opposed to being “real” artists. As in the examples above, the shift turns again on the importance of taste. Knowing what results are good and discerning where the real gems are amidst the hundreds or thousands of lackluster images.
On Intention:
The primary point I would like to focus on in this discussion revolves around intention of the artist. Is an artist someone who happened to create something which other people find value in as art, or is the artist necessarily someone who set about trying to create a work of art?
Is an artist hired based solely on their technical skills, or on their vision, or their ability to translate the abstract into a tangible end result?
Is the architectural draftsperson as much of an artist as the graphic designer who can adhere creatively to rigid specifications? Is the illustrator who can ink or color the pages of a graphic novel with consistency and style in the same category as the HVAC engineer who can adapt functional and elegant solutions to any convoluted home layout?
Are artists who bring their own inner worlds to life, advise other artists or outline future potentialities more artistic? How do we place style over content? Is it more artistic to represent something which has never before been grasped, or to present the familiar in a way which it has never before been experienced?
Do not misunderstand me. This is a rhetorical exercise and not a ranking of artistry. Depending on the final execution I am very happy to see the work of an HVAC technician as more artistic than that of an illustrator who is phoning it in. The sliding scale on which each artist falls does, however, impact their relationship to technology such as AI art generators. Those artists whose time, energy and employment rely upon technical execution, conceptual generation, layout or other technical aspects will be significantly impacted by this technology since it overlaps so wholly on top of these skills. Artists whose role relies upon their judgement, vision and narrative ability may see little impact, or even more opportunities.
As AI generators become ever better at filling roles which were traditionally focused more on technical skills and rendering, it will become less of a marketable skill that one can hand-render in perfect perspective.
On the other side, lowering the bar on ease of image creating to such a low level also creates the issue of determining what to create, in which way and for what purpose. Perhaps the creative teams will pivot to be more focused on the vision rather than the execution. Perhaps the intangible artistic skills will become more valued. Anyone can type prompts into a generator, but only someone with the right creative vision will be able to put together the concept with an appropriate manifestation.
On Theft, Intent, and Style:
The issue of artists’ works being fed into the data pools which help these generators learn new skills is certainly worth keeping at the forefront of discussion. Serious issues related to the intellectual property rights need to be addressed as we move quickly into a world where many such collisions will continue to challenge our current ways of thinking. It isn’t new that artist styles have been co-opted by others and essentially stolen. The pace, and ease, with which others can use AI to co-opt signature styles does create a uniquely challenging situation for independent artists. Theft is theft, whether the person using the AI generator understands that or not. What is unclear, however, is whether an artist should be able to stake any claim on their “style”. Where does one draw the line to determine whether another artist, whether painted by hand or through a digital tool, has copied someone else’s style as opposed to adapted it? If the crux of the argument comes down to intent, then perhaps it would be possible to enforce such a move as logging textual entries as they are input. If someone is including the names of specific artists when crafting their prompts, that could be a clear line demonstrating intent which could aid in enforcement. On the other hand, using the phrase “in the style of” shouldn’t always be seen as theft. How many musical artists have written their own works in the style of Bach, or Mozart or the Beatles? This sort of blending of inspirations is a cornerstone for how art develops and evolves. Artists, as humans, can only work with inputs they have already absorbed. Incremental development relies upon styles, techniques and content which has been previously integrated into the psyche of the artist. In this way the AI generators are not unlike the working mind of many artists.
To be caught up in a battle about what sort of art is being generated is to substitute any final representation of a style as if it were on equal footing.
Many have asserted that AI art has no “soul” as compared to a human artist. If that is the case, then where is the worry? If it is self-evident that this form of art is simply not as good, then we will automatically dismiss it when we see it. That is, of course, to confuse form as content, amidst a variety of other factors. Just because a work is created by a human doesn’t make it soulful, nor does every work created by a master of their media automatically a masterpiece. If I were to encounter an image which moved me, opened me up to new ways of looking at the world, and continued to live in my subconscious even after the encounter, I would be happy to think of it as art, no matter how it had come into being.
Artistic Judgement and Individual Taste:
Even writing the words “the cat is already out of the bag” is something which I don’t find particularly helpful, but I also believe that it is an important truth. In the long history of technology there have been vanishingly few times in which it was possible to close pandora’s box. Once something has been created and let out of the lab, there is simply no getting it to go away. Like social media, like cameras on our phones and the internet in our pockets, there is zero chance that AI created art is going to reverse course and diminish from culture.
The current pain points revolve around infringement of rights for independent artists due to the work of several bad actors. The technology certainly makes this easier, but hasn’t created the problem. Future concerns, I believe, are going to come as the technology begins to disrupt the many industries which make use of visual artists in a variety of capacities. In some cases this will allow for artists to relieve themselves of menial and unrewarding “artistic” tasks, while for others it will mean the end of a job, and for others still the opening of new frontiers not yet imagined.
Beyond all of these issues I see a larger disruption. Even in our world as it existed before this technology became widely available we have been drowning in visual content. Our ability to reproduce and display images has been increasing, and this technology removes certain roadblocks at the level of content creation. Any bottleneck for image creation that currently exists due to lack of available artists or simply production time is about to be dramatically reduced. Not only will this make content creation faster, but it will also allow content creation by those who have not been trained, or indeed, might not even be particularly interested in crafting a piece of quality. A similar analogy might be drawn to the recent rise of applications such as Canva, which tout their ability to make anyone a graphic designer.
This increase of the total volume of visual information and the increased frequency with which it scrolls through our feeds each day is a much more potent threat to our collective sense of aesthetic judgment. What counts as good, as passable, as eye-catching, as shocking, have already become diluted into a slurry of questionable value.
Developing a strong aesthetic judgment will be a key skill in this landscape. Not only for the artist but for anyone interested in consuming artistic media of quality. While there is much discussion about AI generated art has no “soul”, I think that we need to reconsider writing off an entire segment of visual culture based on how it was produced. The value of a work of art, or even of a working image, does not derive from any one area. Indeed it can be different for each viewer, and different within a specific context. This has always been the case, even if we tend to think of “good” taste in terms of what is shown in museums.
It is not interesting to look at the taste of a culture, especially since it seems very little value has been placed on this aspect of western culture within the last several decades. That is also why it is important to clarify what I mean by taste. Not that generalized ability to know what a society thinks is good, what the experts have deemed worth looking at, or what the critics understand to be important, but a personal sense of taste for each individual. Taste is the ability to discern for oneself what creates, sustains and nurtures value within an individual life. It is a continuously developing skill which grows through exposure to art and self-reflection. Unlike academic knowledge it cannot be picked up from a book or handed down from a teacher. It must be cultivated consciously through practice.
Simple questions may help the individual to think about what visual information they are consuming. Some questions like: what was my initial reaction to the work? Why did I choose to spend time looking at this particular work? Did it stop me in my tracks, or did I single it out for attention? Did it bring me a new perspective? Did it challenge me? How did it make me feel to experience it? Would I find it interesting to experience it again? What specific aspects of the work continue to stick in my memory, if any? Is it something I find myself wanting to share with others? Did it trigger any ideas or spark me to action in any way? Did it increase my connection to others, or make me feel more isolated? Did it make me want to learn more about the artist(s) who created it?
These sort of questions can help point out as much about us as about the works. Indeed, taste isn’t the development of an aesthetic framework which exists outisde of the viewer. Taste is developing a sense of our own values. It is a way of discovering more about ourselves, specifically what sort of art influences us and why we think that it is important.
Developing a strong sense of taste helps one to choose how to spend time in the world. Naturally, as taste develops, each person will spend more time around media, situations and people that foster their values, challenge them in healthy ways and add meaning to their lives. Conversely, aided with a strong sense of taste it is much easier to know what aspects of media or activities do not further, develop or challenge one. It becomes automatic to let those unhelpful and time-wasting aspects of life fall away.
The result of more people consciously developing their sense of taste will be compounded: First, the individuals themselves will be able to navigate a multifaceted and variegated world with confidence while maintaining connections to that which brings them meaning. The more individuals who develop and act on their sense of taste will ultimately shift the baseline for public media as a whole, for they will not wish to create media which does not meet their standards, and nor will they wish to consume it.
AI art generators are going to cause dramatic changes to the ways in which art is created and will have impacts for artists in a variety of ways. AI art, however, is not itself valueless or base or secondary just because of the tool that was used. It is simply more incumbent than ever that each of us spends time developing a sense of what our values are. Not just in art, but in all aspects of life. It is only the person who knows where and why to spend their time who will not be swept away by the torrents of cultural media which are already pouring down on top of us each day. Part of those values will naturally have to do with how we come to value artists themselves and what role we foresee them having in society. Where technology infringes on that role in illegal or discriminatory ways we must be ready to step in and create space. That likely doesn’t mean, however, the elimination or boycott of AI generated art. It requires a reorientation towards how we view, consume and value art and media of all kinds. The art that springs from a culture, the representation of that culture in artifacts, is not the “creation” of that culture, it is a reflection of it. We live in the world that reflects who we are. The only way to change that is to change ourselves.
Recently I have been going through a difficult transition with my career. The stress of trying to fit myself into a box that I don’t desire, don’t feel comfortable in and don’t particularly see as a path towards growth and development has been one of the most psychologically difficult things I have had to deal with.
A few days ago I had a peculiar experience. Returning from work I could feel tightness throughout my back and shoulders, creeping up at the base of my neck and the back of my skull. It is normal for me to have stiffness, especially in the shoulders, often in the neck, but not like this. This was like being gripped. Instead of the usual awareness of being tight, this was an awareness of that tightness actually occurring and taking root in the moment.
There are a couple of techniques I have to handle physical stiffness. One of them is a simple conscious loosening of targeted muscles. When I was on my bike ride home and waiting at a stop sign I took a moment, tried to find some stability and began to consciously target and unwind the areas of tightness, hoping to off set the damage before it occurred this time.
To my great surprise the process of allowing my muscles to relax unleashed an immediate wave of emotion, sadness, the urge to cry. Surprised and ready to start biking again I stopped my meditation and the sadness went away, replaced once again and immediately with the same spreading tightness, though somewhat sharper this time.
I had heard about the relationship between stress and the body, about how emotions reside within us and are carried around by us in ways that are not normally considered when we think about emotions. All of us understand that tightness and stiffness, headaches and other such symptoms come hand in hand with too much stress. It isn’t as common to think about what anger, or sadness, fear or loneliness do to us physically.
When I had finished my commute I was in a pretty bad mood. I didn’t want to let the sadness overtake me on the way home because there was a lot to do in the time I had before the kids went to bed. I didn’t want to miss out on the part of the day I had been looking forward to, and I also didn’t want to have to explain what had been going on emotionally. So the tightness remained, a roadblock to my ability to function properly. It was perhaps a migraine, or very like one, and every moderately loud noise or bright light was piercing. I found myself unable to focus on more than on things at a time, especially noises, and had a difficult time concentrating.
Sleeping didn’t help either. I woke up the next morning with the same tightness, more settled in this time. The same general cloud of distraction had settled around me, and though I was less triggered by my environment, my overall energy, ability to think and focus were all diminished. It was a long day at work and I knew that this wasn’t going to be sustainable.
This time, on my commute home, when I was feeling like there was some space to be alone with myself, I concentrated on letting it all go.
I ended up sitting at the stop sign for much longer on that ride. As soon as I started to concentrate on letting my shoulders relax I felt the same wave of sadness, like the tipping out of a bucket. It wasn’t easy to start. The tears came, which is what my body told me it needed, but they came in waves, and I had to be intentional about maintaining focus on my muscles. After several minutes, however, it started to flow on its own.
Chinese medicine has for thousands of years described most of the ills that befall humans as blockages of energy flows. This is named as Qi, or Chi, and is broadly the circulation of vital energy throughout the body and the world around us. Qi has much in common with the circulation of blood, the circulation of air through the lungs, and all the bodily cycles which are occurring within us moment by moment. Naturally the inability to breathe, or the cessation of blood coursing through our veins will cause significant issues very quickly. Qi, however, encompasses energy which flows through us in ways that western medicine does not accept, or at least does not know how to get a handle on. Though the Chinese describe the cycle of Qi as flowing through bodily organs like the lungs, liver and heart, these are also metaphors describing the nature of the flow rather than a blueprint. At least not for someone who hasn’t been trained.
Problems arise when Qi stops flowing. When there is a knot, or a blockage or an impairment of the usual order. To be healthy is to be in balance and have all of one’s energy flowing properly.
My experience with sadness existing as muscle stiffness was exactly this, a blockage of my emotion. My sense of being trapped, my resentment, my frustration and my hopelessness were all valid feelings which I was not allowing myself to express. Instead of flowing out and through me, they had no path, no option, and so they dug themselves deep into my muscles and nerves. The energy from emotions cannot simply disappear. Blockages don’t simply evaporate. Sometimes they flood, sometimes they trickle, and sometimes time does heal a wound, but more often than not it is because we find outlets along the way. A true blockage will not leave until it is allowed to.
After allowing myself time to cry, and time to express some of the thoughts that I had been having, I found myself in a much better place. My external situation has not changed. The aspects which had triggered these emotions were still part of my life. I am still sticking to this path because of the logical and logistical reasons for which it makes sense at this time in my life, for my family, for stability and other reasons. These elements were also something I had named and discussed ahead of time. What I hadn’t yet done was allow myself the space to experience the emotions that went into those decisions. Just because I have a rational plan doesn’t mean that I need to be happy about it, or that choosing this path wasn’t painful. Carrying that emotion around with me compared to after letting it wash through me is dramatically different. Now, in a space where my head is able to reason, those decisions make more sense and carry more influence.
Feeling my emotions as they worked their way through my body was quite new, and has solidified my respect for the mind/body relationship. So much of what we carry around with us on a daily basis must be emotional and cognitive weight. I am not qualified to talk much about the psychological aspects, but it is clear to me that listening to the signals we receive moment by moment from our bodies can be a critical tool for identifying and addressing aspects of our mental lives of which we are not fully aware.
That emotions are able to affect us physically might seem distressing on one level, but on the other side of the coin it is greatly to our advantage. Whereas psychological issues may be obscure, subconscious and difficult to identify and untangle, physical issues can often be more directly identified and worked upon.
Since so much of our stress and other emotional weight ends up in our muscles it makes sense that stretching exercises like yoga can be so impactful. Massage is also an excellent tool, as well as the anecdotal evidence I have from others about how well acupuncture has helped. Many of these take time, space or money. I highly recommend having at least one of these in one’s life on a regular basis. Clearly they aren’t very helpful when one is in the moment or unable to make the time. I have a couple of simple “take-along” tools that serve me well. The first thing I have at my disposal are breathing exercises that help with focus, reenergizing and relaxing. I have heard them go by a few names, but I learned it from Yogabody as “Water, Whisky and Coffee Breathing“. Whisky breathing in particular is very effective to help relax the body. It helps set the ground for muscles to loosen up and is very effective when used in support of long-hold stretching exercise as well. Doing this breathing technique while mentally targeting tight muscles helps me to loosen up my shoulders during meetings, waiting in line or during any other small break in the day. The second technique I use regularly is a standing meditation called Zhan Zhuang. At its core this is a standing mediation in which one stands legs slightly apart, knees slightly bent, and tried to align the spine so that it sits comfortably stacked atop the hips. If done right the entire upper body hangs off of the spine effortlessly, while the legs remain firmly rooted in place. This builds muscles and stamina in the legs, but also provides an amazing opportunity to allows all of the muscle groups of the torso, shoulders, neck and head to relax completely. This is something that is very effective over a number of minutes, but even doing it while waiting at the checkout line, or any time one has a few minutes to stand , can help to mitigate tension. When used together with whiskey breathing it can quickly turn down the tightness in acute areas.
Embodied emotions are another clear signal that our minds and bodies are more unified than they are separate operations, as much of western philosophy has come to believe. As I continue to explore aesthetic knowledge, muscle memory and the ways in which we can experience the world other than through words, the more I am coming to see the intelligence and understanding which comes through all portions of our existence. Instead of us having a mind and a body, what we really have is a thinking body, a body-mind, of which our brain is only one part.
Learning how to identify and release these blockages of emotion is the first step. Allowing ourselves to feel them is what comes next. I have fewer words to share on this aspect. It is often uncomfortable and painful and feels extremely vulnerable. As the sadness was washing through me I felt unable to control it and had no idea how long it would last. I did know really know what to do, but letting it takes it course seemed to work well. Anything, so long as it was allowed to manifest itself the way my body required. I can’t say I have a lot of experience with my feelings. I am very sure that my relationship with my feelings needs to be rebalanced on the whole. This seems like a good next step in that process, providing vital perspective. One set at a time right?
Paying attention to how we are feeling physically is often much easier than trying to figure out how we are doing mentally. By spending time using some of the mindfulness techniques and trying to target physical symptoms we are also building aesthetic knowledge about ourselves. Like any form of practice, the more we seek to know our own bodies the more in alignment we will be with how we are feeling. This, in turn, will lead to a greater sensitivity and acuteness in how well we can perceive issues as, or before, they become more severe.
I am not a psychologist, psychiatrist or medical practitioner. I don’t have training in Chinese medicine or other therapeutic systems. I know what has worked for me and I hope that these techniques can be helpful to others. If you or someone you know is suffering from acute depression, anxiety or other situations which are making your day to day experience difficult and challenging your quality of life then I highly recommend seeking professional support. No one should be in this alone and there are resources and support groups available.
Emmanuel Kant laid out his thoughts about the nature of Aesthetics, and changed our perception of beauty for all periods that followed. To digest the question of “what is beauty” isn’t in my scope or my interest for this post. What I am interested in is Kant’s description of the aesthetic encounter, or what is happening when we encounter the world through framework not based on language or concepts.
Kant is interested in no less than describing how mankind interacts with the world in all aspects. He spend most of his energies speaking to the faculties and nuances of rational thought. When it comes to aesthetics, however, he describes the way in which we encounter the world unmediated by language or rationality of any kind. An aesthetic judgement is essentially our non-rational and non-judgmental response to the world which we are experiencing in the moment. It cannot be put into words but does provide us with an experience and a kind of knowledge. It also awakens our curiosity through the linking of our imagination and understanding.
Imagine our potential reactions to a great work of art by someone we have heard of as a great master of the brush. We may praise its masterful execution, or composition, color theory or novel use of narrative elements, but these are all intellectual judgements we have made using what we know about the artist, the technique or the context. When you stepped into the space with the painting or sculpture, how did it make you feel? What was the energy in the room? Did it take your breath away or quicken your pulse? Did you feel overpowered or overwhelmed? Were you drawn in to look at it from across the room without even realizing what you were looking at? The aesthetic judgement is how we feel before the words come, the initial buzz of excitement or halting of our attention. Nothing in the aesthetic can be explained to someone else. It is an unmediated encounter with the object. It might be more helpful to talk about it as a relationship with the object.
It is perhaps clearer to think of aesthetic reactions when we talk about the awe-inspiring or the wonderous in nature. A beautiful sunset or the sight of dramatic clouds sweeping across the landscape. These sorts of things, precisely because they have not be curated according to human rationality, make sense to us in terms of emotional reaction. Aesthetic knowledge, however, is not the same as having an emotional response.
Paying close attention to the details of a tree, to the heft of a familiar tool or how a certain ingredient blends with other elements of a dish are all forms of aesthetic knowledge. They are things that we know just as much (if not more) than facts and figures. The knowledge of the body lives with us in ways which often do not realize. Each time we interact with the world and make ourselves open to a relationship, we put ourselves in a position to gain aesthetic knowledge. Unlike data, the body seems able to hang onto aesthetic information more comfortably. While trying to juggle phone numbers, birthdays, appointments and due dates it is common to have something you just worked to remember fall right out of the head. Contrast that to what we think about muscle memory. There is a reason we use the phrase “like riding a bike”.
Beyond being able to ride a bike, or skillfully manipulate a tool, aesthetic knowledge seeps into us about relationships that exist in the world around us.
Like any kind of knowledge, aesthetic knowledge can be sought, gathered, consciously added to. Unlike what we learn through words, the lessons taught in a more visceral way are not always apparent, and the knoweldge we gain main not come readily to hand.
Having an artistic practice can be like having a gnawing question. If an artist has a practice, and this practice solves their problem, then why do they continue? Do they need to craft a cup out of clay because they thirst for water, or are they seeking something else? Is their pleasure simply in the making of the cup? For those artists who are seeking through their art, it is both the execution and the final product which can provide steps towards the solution. Trying out technique allows us to see what is technically possible, but the magic of actually creating something new is that we are provided with a further aesthetic subject from which to ignite our imaginations.
Is artmaking a physical pursuit of philosophy? A methodology for systematic questioning of our aesthetic relationship with the world? I believe that it is, and propose that it is something very helpful for our time and place. A world in which rationalism and conceptual studies are being rejected on the public stage, and experts are regarded with skepticism. Moving towards a new aesthetic understanding would encourage individuals to tune themselves towards beauty, and would encourage refinement of taste.
Could aesthetics philosophy be useful in a post-post-modern or post-deconstructionist world? Perhaps this plays well with the “earnest” arts categories in their overlap of seeking an authentic and non-ironic expression. Perhaps it is a post-words world in which we live, and a positive spin on a sort of “post-truth” experience. The caveat here is that the onus is on the individual to actually refine his or her taste, and not simply repeat back what the world is saying.
Perhaps in this way artists are a model for what that sort of knowledge seeking might look like. Art as a path towards aesthetic understanding. Art making and craft skills as a physical in-road, a non-verbal in road, to a non-conceptual encounter with our world.
One of the most promising aspects of Kant’s description is how much he hangs on this sense of “purposiveness” or inner directing aspect that is required in order to talk about art. This aspect is always included within any aspect of the natural world. Every tree and animal in its natural environment grows and develops according to its own inner purposiveness. It is related to the innate self-regulating “is-ness” of each unique aspect of the natural world. In judging taste for beauty, one is specifically looking to identify the underlaying purposiveness, or nature, of the thing. I personally find it very interesting to think about how this particular skill might come in handy as our society slips further and further away from nature towards a human-centric and human-built world. If we were all spending time looking at things for their underlaying nature, would it help us to formulate values and segment off those digital aspects which, in my opinion, lack that particular quality?
Wisdom is knowledge that has seeped into the bones from the time and energy spent on practice. It cannot be taught, only pointed out. I have spent much of my time talking to myself about ways of knowing without giving myself the gift of practice.
Shinto is a Japanese religion centered around shrine worship, or the worship of places of great power and spiritual importance. I explored the idea of learning to respect one’s own personal shrines in previous post. Up until now I have cultivated a respect for those aspects of my life which carry an added depth of meaning, but I have done so in a passive fashion. When I find myself in the mood or the need to take part that is, rather than making the time to engage in those activities.
Stoics have been outspoken about the need for diligence. The importance of making a habit out of mindfulness. Common practices include daily contemplation exercises and journaling. Many wisdom traditions are centered around a regular meditation practice. The consensus is that one must remain consistent, whether it be daily or weekly, as long as it is something that can be continued over a long enough amount of time for the practice to develop into deep aesthetic knowledge.
Habits, as many of us know, are difficult to break and difficult to form. It is one thing to change when we are driven, but it is quite another to try and form habits when we do not feel compelled. Fascinating how “knowing” something intellectually often has incredibly little sway in comparison to “knowing” something viscerally. That certainly speaks to the importance of aesthetic knowledge and deserves a much deeper dive.
In order to help myself I thought it might be a good idea to make a list of the activities which I consider my personal shrines (activities which carry extra layers of meaning, and allow me to connect to the world around me). Hopefully with this list in hand I can pick some activities which I would like to add more purposefully into my life, and also make a plan for how and when I can fit them in.
I offer this in the public forum as a simple and practical way to start at the first step, since that is where I find myself.
My personal shrines:
Yin Yoga/Deep Stretching/Breathing Exercises – long hold poses and breathing exercises with the specific intention of increasing range of motion. Specifically helpful to counteract the effects of distance running on my hips and posture. Time required: 5 minutes per pose, suggested to do at least 15 minutes in a session, but 20 to 30 would be a good target.
Meditation – simple awareness and perception exercises, focus on the breath and the pattern of thoughts in passing, coming back to center. I have often sat for 12 to 18 minutes but have not yet developed a regular practice.
Reading – I get to do this for my classes and will continue to have the requirement, but I would like to do this daily. Reading before bed is relaxing but I often fall asleep before I would like to which means I don’t retain as much and it takes a very long time to progress.
Music – Especially classical, I have been pretty good about keeping music on in the house and have started to include it as part of my commute. This has been the most successful portion of my practice. An iteration would be to be more conscious about picking an artist or composer whose work I would like to become familiar with. Instead of letting the algorithm choose for me and not knowing what I am listening to I can pick an album.
Gratitude – Not something I have done very much, but something I am interested in consciously practicing. There is a great deal of research on the effects of this and I suspect that it would significantly deepen my sense of appreciation. Especially at this junction of my life when I am having trouble seeing the next steps, much less the path beyond.
Photography – this is a practice which always makes me feel better, connects me with nature and often provides a sense of belonging to something greater. Looking through the lens remains magical in a way that other things do not. My practice of late has been affected by many things, not least of which is complicated thoughts about photography as a means to an end either financially, artistically or professionally. I have unfortunately let negative thoughts about the purposelessness of this practice invade into something which does in fact mean something to me. Whether or not it has the ability to turn into anything other than that need not factor in if I can get over myself. Logistically this practice takes a bit of time (often, not always) and I prefer to do it when I am not rushed. Those sorts of moments do not happen often, and certainly not in a way I can predict.
The plan: In order to improve the sustainability of any practice I feel that it must be folded as gently as possible into what structure my life currently has. Here is a proposal for how this might work:
Commute time: Classical music and gratitude practice. Time is already dedicated and happens most days of the week, no significant changes needed.
Reading: Bring a book to work each day and use my lunch break to read. This gives me at least 20 minutes of time when I am awake, will keep me off of my phone. I have been surprised by how many pages I can cover in 20 minutes. It will also give me something to think about while finishing out my shift at work, as well as something to look forward to.
Stretching/Breathing: The most difficult one to work in but something that I know will be very helpful if I can keep it up. I was doing well making this happen while the children were having their dinner, but it hasn’t been regular. Until I have more daily regularity in my schedule this will need to be an act of willpower.
Photography: This, for the moment, will remain something that I do when I have the opportunity. Instead of holding myself accountable to make this happen I will try and think of it as a bonus, as something to grab hold of as a gift. Not doing this isn’t a sign of failure, and not making time for it is not neglect.
With compassion as a watchword, let me approach this plan with compassion for myself, and curiosity about what I may learn in the process.
Jean Baudrillard describes our world as a nested, tangled, layered incomprehensible piling of Simulacra, or Simulations. He is describing a reality in which our perceptions of the world are contingent upon and directed towards meta-narratives that we have built around ourselves.
Our unceasing news cycle feeds upon stories of crime and corruption, which feeds into our perceptions about how much crime and corruption are out there, which in turn begins to influence legislation and social norms, which in turn generates more newsworthy content as the edges of new norms become violated or illuminated.
Our consumer habits are driven by the advertisements that we see all around us, targeted with precision to the things we are already curious about online, or have purchased in the past, and in turn new start-ups crop up to develop iterations of what they think that we think that we want, which generates more advertisements telling us about things that we didn’t know we wanted.
These narratives do not develop out of our encounters with anything grounded, but our encounters with narratives we have already been telling ourselves and each other.
Strangely, in such a world, our encounters with nature are also Simulations. Whether romanticized and sensationalized in documentaries or reality television shows, or balanced as exploitation against conservation, our sense of “nature” comes pre-loaded with baggage, context and history.
Against this backdrop, what does it mean to try and build a relationship? What would it look like if we could discard the rhetoric and the labels?
The strange twist of a branch, the nuanced rivulet twisted into bark and the subtle shifts of color within a single leaf. Our stories can’t prepare us for this, have no words for this. So real it stands oddly outside of what we call reality.
Unwrapped and immediate, abstract in its presence, though unedited and immediate in a way which cannot be denied.
Perhaps simply looking, really looking and allowing the object of our attention to actually be an object of our attention, could be the new avant-garde, the new abstract art, the new conceptual frontier.
Can you explain complex ideas without using jargon or technical terms? Can you give someone a clear idea of what you mean in less than two sentences? I just had a masterclass in breaking down ideas to their core elements while playing a game with my six year old daughter.
The game “Oh Really” is a fascinating social experiment in which five cards are selected each round and players have to rank them in terms of most to least important. The content of the cards varies wildly from seemingly simple things like “teeth” or “heat”, to more abstract ideas like “patriotism”, “faith” or “wisdom”.
It is great fun to choose someone as the focus person for each round, and then all of the players try to guess how that person will rank whatever elements are drawn. While the most humorous elements occur when someone is trying to passionately explain why they think that “haircuts” are more important than “freedom of speech” (I mean, if you didn’t have haircuts then we would all just be incredibly shaggy!), what I found most fascinating and challenging was actually what happened before each round really got started.
As he placed each of the five cards for the round on the table, we had to run them by my six year old to make sure she knew what we were working with.
Here is the challenge that I came up against: how to describe some of these things simply, clearly, and in as few words as possible. Too much qualification, too many terms, and suddenly the description becomes top-heavy, awkward and anything but clear.
Sure, I can begin a long tirade about “wisdom” (which I did) and talk about philosophy and mysticism and experience and practice and having an innate sense of moral good, etc…but I have already lost myself. The need to qualify, to add another facet or flavor to round out the picture, these are things that point out just how little we actually grasp what we are talking about.
Enlightenment thinking and the purity of rational thought is about breaking down and defining everything until it fits neatly in a box. So much of the philosophical canon is simply people trying to tease out slight difference between theories. Certainly, there are implication about the mechanics of things, and whether qualities inhere in something as opposed to simply being projected onto them, for instance. In most cases, however, these nitpicking points don’t actually offer us a branch to hold on to. When we are living our lives, these nuances don’t often have an influence on the way we actually encounter the world.
Take, for instance, Zeno’s paradox. An archer stands at one side of the colosseum and fires and arrow at a target which stands across the space. Zeno states a simple logical fact which seems to lead to a paradox. He states that in order for the arrow to arrive at the target, it must first cross half of the remaining distance. Then, it must cross half of the remaining distance again. This halving continues. As there is always an amount of distance to be covered, and it is possible to always measure half of that distance, the loop seems to go on into infinity. The arrow can never reach the target because it must continue to cross half the remaining distance and infinite number of times. Even if the time required to do this is infinitesimally small, it is still an infinite amount of time, and therefore can never be achieved.
Of course this is absurd, hence the paradox, of what we can puzzle out about how we expect the world works and the bald reality of how it actually operates. So often our philosophy seems to be wrapped up in the way the paradox is written rather than accounting for what the arrow actually seems to do as it clearly crosses the space in a smooth and unhindered arc.
I believe that for many thinkers, perhaps due to the postmodern penchant for dismantling any and every postulate, there is an overabundance of caution for how one states a belief or a theory.
After my game had ended I continued to think about how I could have defined “wisdom” in a more concise way.
The best I have come up with is this: “Wisdom is the kind of stuff you know about life from having lived it, instead of reading about it in a book.”
Immediately the alarm bells start going off, and I want to clarify and add nuance, but then I feel like maybe I should stop myself.
It feels vulnerable to leave such a simple statement hanging out in the open, but I think I can stand by it. The longer it sits, the more I press and prod, the more comfortable I become.
My need to define and qualify everything is probably just insecurity coming through. It takes a kind of guts to state something with clarity, knowing that there will be questions, and “what ifs” and other kinds of challenges. Perhaps the insecurity is about my ability to answer those questions appropriately.
I think that this is an excellent exercise to try out on things we think we know.
Having to explain “generosity” and “politics” and “responsability” means clarifying it for ourselves.
There is a second reason that this is so important. The ability to present these ideas clearly, concisely, is a point of entry for others. My being able to explain “wisdom” to my kid gives her a frame of reference and an entry point. It puts the concept on her mental map, which gives her a destination to explore if she so chooses.
One of the things I find most frustrating about philosophy, and other academic fields, is that they are often presented in such a way that one feels unqualified to even begin to understand. The barrier to entry seems too high for many people who encounter these ideas without a knowledge of the context or the terminology. Even to build a knowledge of that terminology often requires a canon of historical and contextual knowledge. What might it look like if more people felt that they had footing to approach these concepts? What sort of insights would we be able to gain from those who chose paths other than the academic, but have still gained knowledge that bears sharing in the same conversation?
Try it out for yourself. Can you break down the concepts which you find more intriguing, which matter the most to you, into a simple phrase without jargon? How does it feel?
I may not be able to back much of this up with citation, but it is definitely something I have come to learn from my time living as opposed to what I have been reading in books.
Grief and loss impact a life as a projectile. Often it is the impact which we notice the most; jarring, often spectacular, and difficult to look away from. More difficult to perceive is how our trajectories have been affected. Upon rebalancing our daily lives, more or less retaining a sense of equilibrium, we may never come to grasp how significant the change to our wider orbit.
The movement of celestial bodies, we often forget, occur in a complex three dimensional space. It is easier to imagine rings of movement occuring upon a plane of existence. Human lives also travel more complex paths than we are able to envision. For me, the impact of my father’s untimely death, ahead of a time of my life that was already poised as a pivotal transition, served to deflect the wide plane of my life’s orbit. Instead of traversing amongst others in what I imagined to be the normalized circumfrence of life, I found myself slipping below the plane of normalcy.
This perspective, traced out over my lengthening arc, has been forever tinted by our truncated relationship. His words and our time together continue to stand for me as ruins and echoes littered throughout the landscape. Within the dimensionality of our circuits I am beginning to see that traditional perspectives of “above” and “below” are interchangeable. Ruins may spark longing for the golden ages of times past, but they also, as incomplete potentialities, speak to a developing future. In this way they act as mile markers staked out upon the road ahead, shining in the dark, tiny lighthouses beckoning from the misty unknown future.
Eldena, 1824, Caspar David Friedrich
These thoughts intertwine with my current studies of art history. I am researching ruins and fragments as they appear in Romantic era visual arts. The example here, by Caspar David Friedrich, echoes on more than one level.
His work, however else it might have developed out of his natural inclinations for art making, would be forever sloughed off course by the death of his brother. An event on a frozen lake in which he also nearly drowned, but was saved, while his brother was not.
Many of Friedrich’s pieces relate what appears to be a struggle between structures and institutions which have been created by man, and a relentless overgrowth of wild nature. The struggle, really, isn’t depicted as it takes place. Rather, it is always depicted after the fact, once nature has reclaimed its spaces. Human structures in ruin provide support for the overgrowth, their former architectural duties having been long neglected.
Lives coexist in a shared space along divergent trajectories. In one view the human lives unfold presently, quietly, small figures unobtrusively going about their existences both comfortable within and oblivious to both the wild nature and the encompassing ruins which tower around them. The existence one leads in the current moment of perception, myopic to past and future, necessarily concerned with the previous and forthcoming footfall.
In another version of reality the past looms ever present, indeed framing, the happenings of the now. These figures, though blithe to the fragmented walls and broken arches, nevertheless exist within this windbreak. The moment unfolds according to a constructed history that beckons ever backwards. Shadows of what once were linger over each moment of the present.
My father was a man who knew how to listen. He appreciated a good story and would make himself open to receiving one when it presented itself. His words did not go before him, but always seemed to come after. His imagination slumbered with one eye open, waiting patiently for nourishment to arrive, ever ready.
His story was not kept behind locked doors, but he waited for an invitation in order to begin telling it. Without the right question he was not inclined to explain himself. About stories, however, he was often eager to share. To hear him offer up a bit of plot was to uncover a thread of excitement. It was by gathering these threads that I came to an understanding of who he was.
In the manner of detecting exotic particles, unable to observe the phenomenon itself, I learned what I could by watching how he interacted with stories.
The crumbling ruins of my past portray him seated in his recliner, book in hand, absorbed in ideas of the novel and fantastic. Fragments of him lay embedded in the soil around me, of a look or gesture, a secondary clue as to what his mind was engaged with. In many ways, while those elements remain as ruins of ruins in my landscape today, they were already ruins. I learned how to read these ruins even as they were being created, rubbing the patterns and documenting the dimensions of his life in order to build a model of the man even while he lived.
Returning to Friedrich’s depiction of ruins we see a third layer of existence beyond the realm of man. Each part of the image, man at present and man of history, are engulfed in the wild living and entangled reality of untamed growth. Nature itself writes and flows in a quantum state of superposition. Observe any detail of the work, a branch or leaf, and it can be made out in detail, static, unchanging. To focus here, however, is to lose focus there. Any point in the image which we are not currently paying attention to grows unchecked, flows, writhes, pushes its boundaries and moves towards its own realization.
The plants are everywhere and eternal. This growth exists equally in all times. To cut down the trees and raze the fields is not to eliminate them. It is merely an ebb in the tides of existence. Now the plants are dominant, now subdued, now expanding now cut back. The taproot, the eternal seed, exists outside of time, connecting our separate realities to an unchanging axis.
In the excavation I was doing on my father’s character I covered more territory than I understood. It wasn’t the content of his words that caught my memory. Indeed, though it rolls heavily off of my tongue to say it, I do not recall him in specifics. I recall him as a framework, perhaps, or a model, a flowchart. Place the input at one end and track the process by which one arrives at a result. To know him in this way was to understand something about what provided him meaning.
Crucially he demonstrated to me that there was meaning between us. My words, my thoughts, my imagination matter to him. The machine churned and the pistons fired and I had a sense of knowing beyond the face value of human communication. I could see the mechanism deriving fuel from content I had created, and it felt like touching the sun. Like something real.
I have always hung some significant portion of myself upon the hooks provided by others. My father has unconsciously left hooks for me upon his ruins. Rather than mourn the structures that once existed, I am coming to realize that they are still able to serve a purpose in my noon-time journey. Whether that be shelter from the barren landscape, or sun-dial markers upon which to orient myself, these ruins maintain their presence.
For romantic painters, writers, musicians and thinkers of the time period, ruins could no only exist in the past and the present. Melancholy crucially combines longing for the past with a desire for the future. To see something that once was is a stark depiction of change. Layered history necessarily leaves open an undefined future state.
To restore a ruin is not to resurrect it. Each stone may sit where it used to reside in relation to all of the others, but that does not mean that they retain a similar relationship to us. A building is only as meaningful as our collective understanding. Place the disparate branches and leaves of a fallen tree back in relation to one another and there will not suddenly be a return to form. No animating faculty continues as it once did, not in the same pattern.
A study in ruins as symbols of greatness reveals the relationships that we once had with place and space. To understand the function of a ruin as it was, and how it came to be what it is now, is to understand the continuity of activity which provides it with unique energy. Like the wild growth all around, which follows an internal unfolding, so may we place the fragments which surround is in relation to the future.
I hear stories now as my father heard them. I too slumber with one eye open for the things which my curiosity seeks to entrap. My father’s model overlays like augmented reality across my vision.
Above and below the nominal plane of existence I see these fragments and ruins intersecting our space. They carry me forward from within, and stake safe passage on the path ahead of me. I triangulate my position by looking simultaneously backwards and forwards from these points to map out a narrative which encompasses the life he lived and the paths he may have taken if given the chance. His loss bound me to these ruins, perhaps less like a projectile and more like a hewing together of sympathetic trajectories. Had he continued to live it would have been simple to draw a distinction between the path he charted and my own. Since that is not the case, to chart his future journeys and separate them from the paths that I walk will always be impossible. I do know that without these milestones and lights in the fog, my path forward would not have been possible in the same what that is has been.
When the pressing need to keep talking overrides the vital perspective that what one has to say isn’t worth saying, or, that saying something just for the sake of saying something is less educational than knowing when to keep quiet.
The old saying: “if you don’t have something kind to say, don’t say anything at all” ties in to this, but I don’t mean this to be about kindness.
Another linked idea is “art for arts sake”, which in this case should be more accurately stated “art for the sake of the artist”. How many artists out there are making things because NOT making things feels like failure? How many of us are filling the void with acts of creation? How much of humanity at large has been about bringing things into existence simply because it makes us feel less alone? Because the act of creation feels like an accomplishment, feels like a clear mark of achievement? This is at least partially about developing taste, the discernment required to understand the worth of what we are putting out into the world. To be able to make use of our creations as stepping stones towards our ultimate purpose.
I must be speaking from a narrow pocket of reality here. I must be one of the few artists whose creativity has been put to use for internal purposes, to explore my relationship to the world in which I find myself. In that regard, the purpose of my art can be analyzed apart from the market and the world of the consumer. For many other artists, the act of creation is the end goal, is their livlihood. To create is to live. They are making art which they enjoy for the use of others. There are no deeper questions here, no barometer for philosophical growth.
Does that excuse us, or alter the frame? What of the engineers and inventors, the food scientists and writers? Is the act of creation always a worthy end in itself? Or, should we consider the cradle-to-grave implications of anything we hope to call into being? Can we reframe our unique nature as creative beings to include increased discernment? What would it mean to only call into being that which passes layered levels of vetting, perhaps moral, aesthetic and philosophical?
Is this a saving grace of the looming meta, to give us a place in which our creations can flourish apart from “real world” impact? Of course there is still a footprint, but beyond that, in a purely zero-impact world, is there reason to consider why we feel the need to create and what purpose it serves? Is there potentially fruitful ground to cover when considering our sense of taste? Do we really know what questions we are trying to answer? Do we really know what avenues to pursue? Will the work we are following deliver us closer to our goal, or is it being subverted in service of someone else’s expectations?
If we aren’t creating, even if we are continuing to learn and grown and mentally “pursue”, can we still call ourselves artists? Do we need to adjust this term to separate those who produce work, from those who are merely seekers or philosophers?
James Elkins is a professor of Art theory, criticism and history at the School of Art Institute Chicago. He is a fascinating writer who has spent a good portion of his time exploring what it means to teach art including art theory and history. He is by no means fully on board with the way in which art is taught, and offers up some very interesting critiques about the state of art education, including the way critiques are conducted. Much of his writing is available from his website.
Along with the literary work he has provided for free, he has also made available a wonderful collection of youtube videos comprising a survey of key topics in art theory and art history. Watching these vidoes, each of which is generally about 20 minutes long, is essentially to attend lectures for an introductory survey class. The intention of this series is to provide general introduction for artists so that they can identify potential areas of interest and study which might inform their work.
Each video is categorized as either a theory or history video along with clear topic, so it is easy to find any topics that one might be interested in. Along with providing a solid background of where the ideas tend and originated, he does a great job highlighting developments of thought while providing resources and authors who might be useful to investigate further.
In the course of his series he takes time during video C28 to consider whether or not it is helpful, or desirable, for artists to study these theories at all. In the course of encapsulating his thoughts he presents two slides which summarize why it might be that students should avoid learning theory (or history). The slides below were taken from his video.
I found myself surprisingly indignant as he outlined these points. Though he does add some more context with his voiceover for these slides, the general bullets stand by themselves.
Without going into each one in detail I would like to highlight how they seem to fall into a couple of broad categories.
The last argument about learning history, and the first argument against learning theory both bring up the idea that when we are exposed to novel information, we run into the danger of being side-tracked by that discovery. Like falling down a wikipedia hole into the MCU, the multiple dimensions of art theory and the ever proliferating array of art movements already comprise too much academic information for anyone to meaningfully take in. As professor Elkins notes it can take a significant amount of study time for any student to get a solid grasp upon the core theory with which they feel their own work is trying to engage.
Perhaps a bit like someone learning a new language can’t be expected to read novels or write letters right out of the gate, an art student who sees potential in engaging with gender theory, post-modern aesthetics or questions of identity probably won’t feel confident creating work that expresses itself effectively in those areas until they have deepened their connection to the context.
Don’t we want those who are engaged with crafting our shared culture to do so mindfully? Don’t we want students who have spent time thinking about the ideas and work of other artists who have come before?
Elkin’s main fears for this point seem to be that diving into these vast subjects will take the artist away from the studio. It may sidetrack them from the creation of their own works.
Is time spent in the studio the best way for artists to discover themselves? It seems to be the general thought. University art departments, while often requiring the general education requirements for other degrees, still provide a silo of studio work time as the backbone. Art institutes, like the one Professor Elkin’s teaches at, provide even less extra-disciplinary experience for the artist to draw on. There is a lot to be said for becoming a master of the material, and for learning everything that it can and cannot do. I might argue, however, that the most interesting growth in any area comes when one must step beyond the traditional boundaries.
Which brings me back around to my initial questions. Is creating work for the sake of creating work a good end in itself? Is creating work even the best or most effective way to discover oneself, or one’s voice?
In an age of humanity that threatens to drown itself within its own creations, is there value in remaining silent? Is there honor in spending a lifetime crafting one piece, rather than hundreds of half-formed ideas? Can this be fulfilling or sustainable? Would anyone still call themselves an artist?
I don’t have answers to any of this, but these thoughts have been rattling me.
Lens Taoism 