Original Text

I keep seeing definitions of art which were previously less prominant in philosphical discussion like "it must involve sacrifice and struggle" along with others that discount the properies of the final artifact and centrality of expressing creative intent or artistic vision. It feels like negative collateral damage from focusing on a secret sauce that is exclusive to mechanical processes that only humans can do.

Back in my philosophy of art class about 12 years ago, there was broad agreement among the artists in the room that a definition like the following was reasonable, even if not everyone landed there exactly:

Art involves objects or artifacts based on concepts originating from human creativity (ideas conceived before or during the process of using tools like paintbrushes, instruments, or AI). These objects provide subjective value unrelated to their functional value and convey internal states, narratives, or imagined ideas in ways that evoke a reaction in other humans who perceive them.

A good percentage of the artists fully agreed with that definition at the time.

I doubt that definition would hold up as well in a college art class today. It seems like the shift toward new definitions started as soon as AI began producing high-quality output. Some of these changes feel less like critical thinking and more like people adjusting their views to exclude AI. For younger people just starting to consider AI art, they often seem to gravitate toward definitions that already frame AI as outside the scope of art. The question is: are these definitions emerging from thoughtful debate, or are they motivated (consciously or not) by a desire to gatekeep AI?

There are plenty of legitimate, longstanding definitions of art that naturally include AI:

1. Art as Creativity and Communication:
Art is any creative act that communicates ideas, emotions, or narratives to others. AI fits this when someone uses it intentionally to express something they’ve imagined or felt. The human conceives the idea and directs the process, even if the tools are different.

2. Art as Evocation:
Art is defined by its ability to evoke emotions, provoke thought, or inspire a reaction in the audience. AI-generated pieces often achieve this; people can feel moved, provoked, or inspired when they view AI-created works. This definition focuses on the audience’s experience rather than the process.

3. Art as Process:
Art is about the process of creation itself, not just the result. When someone works with AI, they’re iterating, experimenting, and refining, much like with any other medium. The tool doesn’t change the creative process. Demanding a specific minimum amount toil implies that having creative ideas and expressing them is unimportant reletive to the time and energy spent which seems absurd--the internal ideation has always been a popular candidate for the most artistic aspect of creating art

4. Art as Representation of Intent:
Art is the physical or digital representation of an artist’s intent or vision. If someone uses AI to bring their idea to life, it’s still art. The intent and vision matter more than the tools used

These definitions aren’t new or built to justify AI; they’ve been around for a long time. That’s why the shift toward exclusionary definitions like “art requires sacrifice and struggle” seems suspect. Whether consciously or not, these definitions often feel like a reaction to gatekeep rather than a genuine exploration of what art is.

These exclusionary views also ignore how AI lowers barriers for many people. Not everyone has the physical ability, time, or resources to master traditional methods of creating art. If someone uses AI to express their inner world, communicate ideas, or evoke reactions, isn’t that exactly what art is meant to do?

Redefining art to exclude AI seems more about fear of change than a thoughtful shift in philosophy. Photography faced similar pushback when it first appeared, but now it’s widely accepted as art. AI is just another evolution in how we create and communicate ideas, and it deserves a fair place in that conversation.