The Death of Art

One has to believe that art will never die so long as there are genuine artists willing to make it and you'd be right, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I speak more along the lines of art in the public sphere as we know it is dead. Let me elaborate.

To my undying gratitude and humility, I was able to put my student work from the past couple of years in a faculty show at my present job. Despite how rough my work is in some places, it was overall well received. I enjoyed showing my progression from the past couple of years with people, hopefully encouraging other students to keep up the fight in their creative journeys. It's something I consider a professional and creative accomplishment to put my art on display for the world to see.

However, I found out this morning from a colleague that they and I are wrapped in slanderous conspiracy. It seems that many people who viewed our works at opening night think we used AI to make our art works, sadly this ire was directed more at my colleague than myself. They entered their digital paintings while I entered my hand drawn 2D animations, a few of them were digitally cleaned up and colored. These days, digital art is a much easier target than blatant pencil/paper drawings.

I've been sitting on this news throughout the day and reflecting on it. Mind you, the slander levied against us wasn't by just a few people, but dozens (most if not all are students). The level of animosity aimed at our works was something you'd only see in the annals of social media. On the surface level, it's easy to dismiss, and you'd be right to. For a faculty show, few students would have the qualifications to properly critique a work by a professional. The suspicion was raised because the works in question had some human errors to them, in the audience's minds, they had to have been AI generated.

There are multiple points of attack to why this incident is problematic, so I'll take it one at a time.

First, AI is becoming prevalent enough in our culture, it's turning out to be an impressionable technology on the current generation. As AI generated images flood the internet, the credibility of the artist is called into question. My colleague defended themselves by showing their critics recordings of them at work, but the response was "Well you could have easily made that with AI too!". The levels of brain rot are immeasurable. Nothing is real anymore.

Second, the main reason this slander began was due to people noticing a number of errors within the work. Mistakes have become synonymous with AI and that correlation is bad. On a philosophical level, this means artists are never allowed to make mistakes or risk being discredited as AI hacks. On the other hand, if a work is too perfect, then it's an obvious AI work too. There's no middle ground and this cultural attitude is only going to grow. Mistakes in art, in part, make it a uniquely human activity. To be dogpiled by peers who want to accuse you of AI when you make a mistake doesn't promote the creation or development of future artists. That vine will wither and die quickly.

Third, to put it succinctly, in real time, we are seeing art become the next moon landing conspiracy and real artists are Buzz Aldrin. We have reached a point to where if it's on a screen, it can't be trusted anymore. The AI technology has disrupted the credibility of everything that much.

Fourth and lastly, if an art program is letting in students who can't tell the difference between human error and AI generated stuff, then there is a much deeper problem on their hands. We as a culture have much deeper rooted problems on our hands.

I'll admit, it stung a little to hear people considered some of my student work to be AI. No one likes to be called a dishonest artist especially when you slave for countless hours to learn and hone your craft, no matter the amount of mistakes your work produces. However, the other 99% of me takes it with humor and humility. I consider it a badge of honor because I'm either so bad people think my work is AI or I'm so good they think it's AI. I've always said either I'm too terrible of an artist to worry about AI outdoing me or I'll be so good, AI won't be able to compete. So someone else's lack of discernment is too hilarious to let it hurt me.

I'm not going to play the game of defending myself if people want to accuse me of using AI. It's like apologizing to the woke mob - just don't do it because it's futile. Critics don't pay me enough to justify myself to them. . . well they don't pay me at all so I owe them nothing. If a potential employer wants to cut to the truth, through professional channels, they can reach out to me and I can show them my process in real time.

With all that being said, in a culture which has lost faith in art and no longer sees art in the public sphere as credible, art is truly dead.

Despite that, I agree with my friend Brian Niemeier, who has spilled a lot of ink over neo-patronage. We will see a rebirth of the arts in a more localized, private, and intimate sector. Much like the ways of old, artists will be hired out by a select few groups for their skillset because they will appreciate genuine art and artists when they see them. With the collapse of the creative industry and that void being filled by the endless legions of AI slop, there is no more room left for real artists in the public stage.

True creativity will find its home elsewhere and it will thrive. Mark me on that.

On a closing note, thanks to all who've read this far and thank you for all the support you give me. It means a lot and it's more than I deserve.