Duchamp said in 1959<\/a>, \u201cCan we try to define art? We have tried. Everybody has tried. In every century, there is a new definition of art, meaning that there is no one essential that is good for all centuries.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\nHe then goes on to say, with regard to the creation of ready-mades in defiance of artistic norms, \u201cAs we know, \u2018art,\u2019 etymologically speaking, means \u201cto hand make.\u201d And there [the object] is, readymade. So it was a form of denying the possibility of defining art because you don\u2019t define electricity. You see the results of electricity, but you don\u2019t define it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Implicit in his response is the opportunity to define art not as an object but as an effect that can be traced back to a stimulus.\u00a0 Let\u2019s put a pin in this.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While Duchamp denies \u201cthe possibility of defining art,\u201d he gives a glimpse into how the birth of conceptual art hints at a 20th-century definition.<\/p>\n
\u201cI thought [The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass)<\/em>] was a reaction against the retinal conception of painting<\/em>, and I think it still is because of the introduction of the conceptual. This is literary painting<\/em>.\u201d (emphasis added).\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cLiterary\u201d here implies authorship<\/em> or intentionality<\/em>, so we can put a pin in that concept as well.\u00a0<\/p>\nSave for a few unforeseeable innovations in art-making, these ideas jive with Aristotle\u2019s conception: \u201cThe aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Though Aristotle\u2019s definition seems refreshingly contemporary, it was followed by a couple of millennia of narrower views, exemplified by the following contention from Renaissance painter and art historian Giorgio Vasari, who wrote, \u201cpainting is just the imitation of all the living things of nature with their colors and designs just as they are in nature.\u201d (Boring!<\/em>)<\/p>\nWithout belaboring prior centuries\u2019 definitions of art too much, Roughly 100 years ago, with Duchamp\u2019s early work, is an agreeable place to start with a working definition: Art is an intentionally staged experience for communicating or evoking ideas and emotions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But Duchamp downplayed the stimulus in favor of the response. In other words, art is not a thing <\/em>it\u2019s a thing that creates a response. <\/em>But what response? Again, Duchamp, ibid<\/em>:\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cI have a very definite theory\u2026that a work of art exists only when the spectator has looked at it. Until then, it is only something that has been done that might disappear, and nobody would know about it.\u00a0 The spectator consecrates it by saying, \u2018This is good. We will keep it.\u2019 The spectator, in that case, becomes posterity\u2026\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
This \u201cconsecration\u201d describes the work\u2019s effect on culture, and so, we proceed to our definition.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Death of Art is either:<\/p>\n
\n- the end of intentionally staged experiences for communicating or evoking ideas and emotions or\u2026<\/li>\n
- the end of those experiences\u2019 ability to have a meaningful impact on culture.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Because it\u2019s just silly to declare the end of a given human activity, the first definition is useless. So we\u2019re left with the latter:<\/p>\n
The Death of Art happens when intentionally staged experiences for communicating or evoking ideas and emotions cease to have a meaningful impact on culture.<\/em><\/p>\nWe\u2019ll later debate what constitutes \u201ca meaningful impact on culture,\u201d but for now, let\u2019s move on.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nA Brief, Incomplete History of the Death of Art<\/h2>\n
In 1840, French painter Paul Delaroche first saw a daguerreotype and is said to have cried out, \u201cFrom today, painting is dead!\u201d As we know, painting did not die, and it\u2019s believed that Delaroche\u2019s declaration was something of a PR stunt.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But what Delaroche was referring to was the end of a craft, not the end of Art<\/em>. Many 20th-century artists did not paint, so painting<\/em> isn\u2019t totally germane to this discussion.\u00a0<\/p>\nThe end of a craft <\/em>is not what we\u2019re talking about. No prominent declaration of the death of art is premised on the idea that people will stop creating aesthetic experiences<\/em>. The Death of Art refers to art\u2019s decline in cultural relevance.\u00a0<\/p>\nFor the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, art had reached its cultural exhaustion point by the time he delivered his Lectures on Aesthetics <\/em>in 1818. I\u2019m no Hegel scholar, but this is my understanding. Hegel saw art in three distinct phases:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n- Classical<\/em>, referring to the golden age of Greek and Roman cultures, when it was closer to folk art that people tangibly interacted with. In other words, it was in<\/em> the culture, not about<\/em> the culture.\u00a0<\/li>\n
- Symbolic<\/em>, circa medieval times, when art represented <\/em>the culture (i.e., Christianity) back to the culture. This is when art began to require interpretation (and was useful to a largely illiterate society).\u00a0<\/li>\n
- Romantic<\/em>, circa Renaissance and beyond, as the Symbolic approach became increasingly secular and ever so gradually personal.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
According to Hegel, because \u201cart no longer affords that satisfaction of spiritual needs which earlier ages and nations sought in it,\u201d art as a cultural good \u201cremains for us a thing of the past.\u201d This is a little bit like believing that because composers are no longer solely supported by religious institutions (i.e., music is no longer \u201csacred\u201d) that music is no longer relevant to the culture.\u00a0<\/p>\n
More than a hundred years later, critical theorists Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin saw the death of art in its commodification and mass reproduction. Coining the term \u201cculture industry,\u201d Adorno believed that mass production and mass culture were destroying the authenticity of artistic expression. At the same time, Adorno\u2019s compatriot, Benjamin, argued that the mass-produced reproductions of works of art were reducing the aura, or unique presence, of the original work.<\/p>\n
Despite the merit of the critiques, one could argue that the cultural impact of a given piece of art has the potential to be far greater than ever, thanks to mass production, which could arguably increase<\/em> its gravitas and aura when finally encountered in the flesh. Authenticity of artistic expression <\/em>is a term that might require its own blog post, if not its own multi-volume tome.\u00a0<\/p>\nFinally, in the timeline of the Death of Art, we shift to philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto, whose most famous essay is called \u201cThe End of Art,\u201d which he wrote in response to seeing Andy Warhol\u2019s Brillo Boxes<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\nDanto\u2019s point can only be understood by dismantling the idea of linear progress in history, which is to say that there is no Point A or Point Z. \u201cProgress\u201d made sense in the context of a western monoculture defined by a small literate class of white men.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When History exploded into a million strands of histories, the dominant conception of \u201chistorical importance\u201d went with it, and that<\/em> is what Danto refers to when he declares the end of art. In his words, \u201cThe story comes to an end, but not the characters, who live on, happily ever after doing whatever they do\u2026The age of pluralism is upon us\u2026when one direction is as good as another.\u201d<\/p>\nHistorical importance hasn\u2019t gone out the window, but the definition of historical importance<\/em> has changed. As art critic Jerry Saltz has written, \u201cModernism\u2019s arrow of progress has finally been scrapped, replaced by a new model of evolution that is more like an ever-changing cloud formation, expanding, condensing, never predictable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nAre We Experiencing the Death Throes of Art?<\/h2>\n
To decide whether AI is the death of art, I\u2019ll return to Duchamp by way of Arthur Danto, who said:\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026 art works have to be about something \u2013 have a meaning \u2013 and, unlike sentences, they embody their meanings. Aesthetics is not a separate condition, though it can be part of how a meaning is embodied. But I felt that it was quite possible that something could be a work of art without having any aesthetic qualities at all. I think that was true of Duchamp\u2019s ready-mades. If there can be artworks that are not aesthetic, then being aesthetic is not part of the definition of art.\u201d<\/p>\n
Put another way, art may have aesthetic qualities, but those qualities are unnecessary to art. Art is, as we said earlier,\u00a0 \u201cintentionally staged experiences for communicating or evoking ideas and emotions to audiences.\u201d This is what Danto means when he says that art must \u201cbe about something \u2013 have a meaning \u2013 and\u2026embody their meanings.\u201d<\/p>\n
What AI allows for is a mind-boggling proliferation of aesthetic experiences that are not necessarily art, though they can be<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\nJerry Saltz gives more personal, qualitative criteria for spotting and connecting with art, which isn\u2019t the same thing as a definition. It\u2019s actually more in line with how Duchamp denied the possibility of defining art while allowing for a description of its effects.<\/p>\n
\u201cArt is the greatest operating system our species has ever invented, a means of exploring consciousness, seen and unseen worlds. It is an instrument, medium, matrix, or miracle that transforms old impressions into new thoughts; that makes thousands of insignificant details light up and draw you in.\u201d<\/p>\n
So are we, in fact, experiencing the death throes of art?\u00a0<\/p>\n
No. We are not.<\/p>\n
AI can be a powerful tool for artists and non-artists alike. AI, for example, gives non-artists the tools to create aesthetic experiences. It also allows those not so adept at creating aesthetic experiences a new means of creating art. But it also provides a new canvas for existing artists to express their creativity.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Though there will certainly be an unimaginable glut of lazy dross from those who merely churn out pretty pictures, I\u2019d have to say that we\u2019re not nearly at the end of the road for capital-a Art<\/em>. The only challenge henceforth for artists is grappling with Benjamin\u2019s contention that mass production diminishes art\u2019s aura and Adorno\u2019s argument that commodification diminishes authenticity.\u00a0<\/p>\nAs lowercase-a art gets easier for the masses, creating capital-A Art \u2014 with AI or not \u2014 will be harder. That ineffable aura won\u2019t come from virtuosity but thoughtfulness and the ability to evoke ideas and emotional responses. Though making great art that ripples through cultures will only become more difficult, the art that manages to make a genuine splash will be all the greater for its ability to stand out.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nTo get updated when we publish new editorial features, subscribe to our newsletter below. <\/h4>\n
\n\t\t<\/div>\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Are AI art tools like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion ushering in the Death of Art? Prelude to an Obituary Before beginning my elaboration on The Death of Art in light of recent developments in artificial intelligence, I must first address the elephant in the room: the absolutely justifiable outrage and concern that many skilled, meticulous, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3773,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/rare.makersplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/ai_deathofart.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3772"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3772\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3773"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nft.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}