Moral Outrage and Art Maximalism in the Age of AI

A short argument for the separation of church (art) and state (economics)

Since ChatGPT launched last year, we’ve been in an AI panic. AI coming for jobs. AI coming for relationships. AI coming for… art!

But what would that entail?

Maybe art does feel different. After all, human reason has always been a weak fortress to stake our humanity on. Our reasoning abilities, required for tasks like multi-digit multiplication and strategy games like chess, have relied in large part on structured protocols, routines, and decision-making heuristics. Put a trained algorithm on the job and watch it kick ass.

But art? Art is too human. Art is sacrosanct. How could robots compete?

Art does depend to some extent on the intention we put behind it. It’s about the human BEHIND the work. What did that human experience? Who did they lose in their life? How did they suffer? What message are they laboring to send? Which art trends are they nodding to and which ones are they bucking?

Of course all of that matters. Art is multi-dimensional and there are no real rules for what or how to appreciate it. But why the AI panic?

As far as I understand, the catastrophizing headlines have to do with AI’s ability to render humans obsolete. But is that an existential or economic fear? Perhaps both.

What of the existential fear then? If the threat of automation forces us to contend with systematic and systemizable (it’s a word, I asked ChatGPT) parts of our creative process, then I think this is a good reckoning.

Take screenwriting for instance. All screenwriters rely on genre, which itself relies on formula. That’s a system. A large language model understands what a “crime thriller” or a “dystopian sci-fi” is because those genres have consistent tropes. And even the most brilliant writers rely on some of those tropes in their creative process.

But the difference is they merely use the tropes to establish a context before subverting the genre. That’s how they birth new concepts and styles, and eventually new genres. All the greats nod to the familiar before departing from it to give audiences something they haven’t seen before.

Unfortunately, if you’re a writer who churns out uninspired, genre-cleaving sci-fi, then AI should be provoking an existential crisis. If your work’s genius hinged on tropes, then it might be worthwhile to re-examine your process and invest more time to understand what you bring to the table as a unique human with a unique lived experience.

And what of the economic fear of AI? It is completely valid. If you’re a creative and you already struggle to make ends meet, then new automation can be scary and even devastating to your livelihood.

But here’s my point. These are two separate conversations. One is about how to value creativity and the second is about the economic viability of a creative life.

In other words, I think we tend to conflate the conversation about the value of art with the conversation about the profitability of art.

Don’t get me wrong. I do think that whether artists should be compensated fairly for their creations is a moral question. Of course, they should be. But whether AI makes art that is any good should not be a moral question.

I think AI makes incredible art. And it also makes garbage. But dismissing AI on moral grounds when it appears in creative spaces humans used to occupy feels deeply anti-art.

Let’s call my position Artistic Maximalism, i.e. the position that any new artistic avenue SHOULD be developed if it can be developed.

The art maximalist relishes the birth of new art forms. They believe we should turn every stone. Lift all Pandora lids. Generative AI. Large language models. Splattering and dripping paint. Finger painting. Mouth painting. Foot painting. Let’s embrace all of it. Let the creators go to town and let the audiences reward their work with praise if it’s any good. There is nothing moral here. Just taste.

Then there is the moral question of paying an artist, which becomes less about art than it does about the welfare of creatives in our society. One can be an art maximalist and therefore support AI as a new creative engine, and yet abhor the support structure in place for artists to create and thrive today.

Maybe the answer is UBI (universal basic income). Maybe it’s better social safety nets or more public funds for creative professionals who need to reskill to survive.

But I believe it’s wrong to dam up the means of new art forms or to turn the adoption of art tools and technologies into a moral question.

Let’s let art flourish in all directions and while we paint, let’s leave our wallets where they belond: in our pockets.