Disclaimer: I know I’m dredging up a long dismissed argument from 10 years ago, and discussing it in all the same tone as people did back then, despite everyone having moved on. My core thesi…
Who knows, who cares. First you have to define what art is, which you will never come up with a definition that carries widespread agreement and that also isn’t gatekeeping what is “creative enough.” It’s a completely unproductive conversation on the same level of “what constitutes a sandwich.” Is a ravioli a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is the Earth a sandwich? Who knows, who cares. It doesn’t fucking matter. It’s the same conversation except “art” “matters” and “what is a sandwich” doesn’t. The only reason art “matters” is because rich people say it does.
I’m not going to get out here and gatekeep what is “creative enough” to be considered “art” and neither should anyone else. There are better things to do than help wealthy capitalists gatekeep “art”
“Art is what an artisan does”. There is nothing obscure about what art is, and to pretend otherwise is to yield the definition of “artisan” to capitalists. It has nothing to do with “creativity” and everything to do with labor. A CNC machine can’t produce art, but a machinist can certainly use one to create a new configuration of material that has never occurred previously. An LLM can’t produce art, but a person using one can apply their narrative and aesthetic sensibilities in the use of the tool to create something. Likewise a paintbrush, a text editor, a recording device, etc. “High art” is the mystification of the creative impulse we should combat. We should not petulantly refuse to engage with the topic at all while suggesting that “art” as a concept cannot be defined materially.
Who knows, who cares. First you have to define what art is, which you will never come up with a definition that carries widespread agreement and that also isn’t gatekeeping what is “creative enough.” It’s a completely unproductive conversation on the same level of “what constitutes a sandwich.” Is a ravioli a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is the Earth a sandwich? Who knows, who cares. It doesn’t fucking matter. It’s the same conversation except “art” “matters” and “what is a sandwich” doesn’t. The only reason art “matters” is because rich people say it does.
I’m not going to get out here and gatekeep what is “creative enough” to be considered “art” and neither should anyone else. There are better things to do than help wealthy capitalists gatekeep “art”
“Art is what an artisan does”. There is nothing obscure about what art is, and to pretend otherwise is to yield the definition of “artisan” to capitalists. It has nothing to do with “creativity” and everything to do with labor. A CNC machine can’t produce art, but a machinist can certainly use one to create a new configuration of material that has never occurred previously. An LLM can’t produce art, but a person using one can apply their narrative and aesthetic sensibilities in the use of the tool to create something. Likewise a paintbrush, a text editor, a recording device, etc. “High art” is the mystification of the creative impulse we should combat. We should not petulantly refuse to engage with the topic at all while suggesting that “art” as a concept cannot be defined materially.