Context, crabs, and creativity

A lot of people talk about how the AI work is the same quality and if we can enjoy and it is equally aesthetically pleasing, it is of equal value to human created art. And don’t get me wrong, the one in 3 million IKEA print you can put on your wall is not dissimilar to AI art – it’s functional and it brings some colour to a room. But for an art collector to say this…

Hear me out.

In music there were two interesting concurrent evolutions. Kind of like how everything turns into crabs (carcinisation for the curious), the 20th century saw sound as a material – distinct from the language of harmony – take root.

On one side of the ring, we have Pierre Schaeffer and musique concrete. In this practice, recorded sounds are used as raw material but – and this is crucial – the sound source is totally divorced from the sound. That means if there is a creaking door sound used, in Schaeffer’s work it is not a creaking door but simply another collection of sine waves.  

In the other corner we have R. Murray Schafer and the acoustic ecologists. In this practice, recorded material is again used to create sound works but – and this is crucial – the sound source is integral to the composition. That means if a creaking door sound is used, it’s because that creaking door holds significance in the time and place (real or imagined) of the piece.

"Today all sounds belong to a continuous field of possibilities lying within the comprehensive dominion of music. Behold the new orchestra: the sonic universe! And the musicians: anyone and anything that sounds!" - R. Murray Schafer

So. We have two parties, arguably the outputs sound similar but the intention behind them and philosophies are wildly different. You could argue that Mr. Tangen is more aligned to the Schaeffer-with-2-Fs camp. (Note: I am not likening Schaeffer's work to AI because he and his work is brilliant and rich, this is only in reference to the dismissal of the significance context). I, however, believe context is everything. Because art can be, should be, and often is more than entertainment or an emotional journey.

It’s about communication. Art bears witness to a time/place/social sentiment. Why I have always adored playing classical music is because when I play composed music I have a direct connection with the composer. When I play Bach, I’m bringing to life an idea and feeling that was conceived 300 years ago. So when we create art today, we shouldn’t just be thinking about today’s audience, we need to understand it as an invaluable link to the future and a contribution to the catalogue of humanity.

The way I conceptualise artistic context is that every thread of meaning and association hangs to the work like tiny spiderweb threads blowing in the wind. Not immediately obvious, but hanging like a halo giving the work a richness that we can’t quite put our finger on. With AI art I believe there is no purchase for the threads, because beyond marking a technological advancement I can’t find the story.

Art for art’s sake is totally valid, and I love it. I do have the unscientific feeling, however, that as people we love a story and despite our best efforts to aloofly exist in the abstract world, we can’t help but catch and weave wisps of context. So AI art might look good on the wall, but beyond a vague aesthetic function I believe it is counterproductive to human connection and communication, and lacks the magic of meaning.