I’ve often heard the phrase “art is in the eye of the beholder”, supporting the death of the author perspective: the idea that the artist’s personal meaning behind their work comes second to the audience’s personal interpretation. While the general audience’s consensus towards meaning is mocking the perceived lack of it, with the evolution of modern art being the prime target. It made me think more about the recent trend of using A.I to replicate original artistic styles such as Wes Anderson, and more recently, Studio Ghibli animations. Now, what do these two social phenomena have in common? We say that A.I cannot produce real art as there is no genuine artistic meaning behind the work, yet why do we dismiss modern art as being inherently meaningless?
While the periods of art styles can be difficult to officially determine by date, the concept of ‘modern art’ has seen a timeline of at least 90 years since being founded by Edouard Manet. Since its inception, the general society has thrown around a lot of words and sentences that basically boils down to one thing: “It’s not real art”. Things like “oh a child could do that” “there’s no talent or meaning”, are commonplace in real and online spaces. Those in the art world, or really anyone with the care to actually seek an understanding, can quickly discover meanings through what the artists want it to mean, which is easily accessible as it is often right next to the art piece in a museum.
While even art lovers can express mixed feelings, and express concerns regarding the true integrity of modern art, the distain goes beyond the questioning of meanings. When the everyday person thinks of art, the classic styles of the past will almost always come to mind, with our new chapter in art styles and eras being ignored. This feeling is not unique but often happens with other bold new style changes in the art world. But this is different, there is a general consensus often sparked by the most baseline of knowledge about art. Kelman’s Basic Theory suggests that as humans, our true feelings, thoughts and behaviours do not operate on a single level, but rather different levels that use their own unique processes for us to achieve conformity with a sociological influencer.
While this be interpreted in many ways, the most relevant interpretation to the topic at hand, is simply that the distain and often mocking of modern art comes from a place to social normality as the highest level, a phenomenon that is strong enough to discourage the individual from seeking out said different levels of thoughts.
Ajay Orona, a professor at SAC who was formerly an art journalist, sums up this point best;
“They don’t say how hard that is or, often, the amount, the rigor that goes into making something that could look fairly simple just at first glance is complex, you know, or, is conveying a message, you know, about, you know, the artist’s feelings or their histories or something at large in society. And something that could be felt if you look at it for a while. But for most people, when they don’t have that experience with abstract art, they haven’t been around too much art then. They see it and they go; abstract art is meaningless”
One social theory that may pose a reason for such is Terror Management Theory, in which it is suggested that our fears and concerns regarding morality and the meaning of life must be clearly stated in our figurative interactions in order for the individual to find appreciation.
Now you may be wondering, how does the perceived meaningless of modern art relate to the accurate meaningless of Generative A.I “art”?
I refer back to my mention of the recent emergence of Generative A.I Ghibli. The Ghibli style of animation is one of the most famous and most beloved style within the genre, often being described as sentimental and calming. Hayao Miyazaki however, stresses the themes and messages beyond the comforting aesthetic, with among others, the love of nature and its fight against human greed, being a common underlying meaning across several of his films. The themes of war from the viewpoints of pacifist characters are also used, with prementioned themes being indicative of Miyazaki himself. It is these meanings that make the art of Studio Ghibli so memorable and significant. Art cannot just be a pretty image; the passion and meaning of the creator has always been its finishing touch.
This presents a certain justification, we hate modern art for its perceived lack of meaning or effort yet will enjoy the casual use of Generative A.I in copying familiar art style, fully aware that the love and substance of actual human-made art does not exist. Or in such cases, is meaning not as important to familiarity? Or not as important to our own desire to create without the actual work in the process of art, because I guess then it’s admitting that art takes actual work.
Or perhaps we have to look towards the philosophical theory of Relativism, which, much like its predecessor, Kelman’s Basic Theory, suggests the idea that views are relative to perspectives or considerations. Someone who has no experience within the creative fields would perhaps not care about the ethical considerations behind Generative A.I art, and desire to be considered an artist without gaining the perspectives needed to actually create works with meaning and soul.
While there are some tides of morality shifting against Generative A.I art and imagery, its ever more casual and overlooked, something to have fun with, to create or more likely to steal styles from actual artists to replicate with a click of a button. With the economic elite seeking to replace humans with technology, and the concerning rise of anti-intellectualism and anti-humanities studies emerging, maybe we all need to learn to look closer and see the meanings we all desperately crave.
