A Verificationism Definition of Art

The argument between artists and the AI crowd regarding if AI-generated art is actually art hasn't been settled yet. You would think that the artist would admnit defeat with next-to-none logic and the most amount of appeal to emotion. But no, they are still fighting. The only formal education I got on philosophy was in my freshman year, took an intro to philosophy class in our philosophy department. I might be wrong, but I am entitled to my 2 cents. And I think I'm correct.

My philosophical view is heavly influenced by this video years ago by a youtuber "Philosophy: Engineered!" (was AntiCitizenX at the time). Where he applied the Verificationism principle to the question of "does free will exist?". The video is great and I highly recommend it. There was a longer form, actual discussion on the topic, but it has been removed from youtube.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario. There's Mr.Ennis, a painter, whom have absolutely mastered digital painting and is able to create art that is simply breathtaking. It's safe to assume that Mr.Ennis is the peak of human artistry. And there's the AI, which like most stories go, has practically infinite computing power and can run any algorithm, as long as it's runable on Turing machine. Now, we challenge both Mr.Enns and the AI to create "the art" defined by some painting that when shown to all existing human, sums up to the maximal amount of appreciation. It turns out Mr.Ennis with his peak artistry and the AI with infinite computer (maybe it simulated the entire human race) both created the exact same painting. Down to every single pixel, and of course, the hash is the same. Has the AI created art?

The current artist consensus says: no. Arguing that AI simply learns from human art and cannot form it's own experiences and emotion. Let's do a double-blind trial to see if the artists are right.. Let's show subjects a painting, randomly selected from either Mr.Ennis or the AI, and ask them to decide if it's art-worthy. Then we reveal the source of the painting. We should expect that the subjects would be able to tell the difference between the two sources if Ai truly cannot create art. (note: the alternative hypothesis is that humans cannot create art either, but we assume human art is art as a priori).

That would totally work right? NO, IT WON'T. Assuming "art" for whatever it means, has a consistent definition, we cannot have a process that both returns a yes and a no given the same input. That's a contradiction. In fact, we already have an algorithm since the beginning of computing that can generate art from art. It's called a copy-paste: Given a painting stored in digital form, a computer can generate a new painting that is identical to the original. And we all agree that copy is still art. Made by the original artist of course, but still art.

Expressed mathematically, this is the axiom of choice. If we have a function f that maps an arbitrary value x (the painting) to a value y (the art-worthiness), for the math to be consistent, two different results must not be returned for the same input. That is, for all x, y₁, and y₂, if f(x) = y₁ and f(x) = y₂, then it must be y₁ = y₂.

∀x∀y₁∀y₂((f(x)=y₁∧f(x)=y₂)⟹y₁=y₂)

We showed that since both Mr.Ennis and the AI created the same painting and given the axiom of choice, both paintings must either be art or not art. And since we assumed that Mr.Ennis's painting is art, the AI's painting must also be art. QED.

The above prove has a glaring issue. We assumed that weather something is art can be determined by the final product. Maybe art is the process of creating the painting, not the painting itself. I argue against that direction as it is not relevant to the discussion. In the consumerist society we live in, people buy paintings to hang on their walls, not to watch the artist paint or spending literal thousands to listen to the artist's thought process. If that's the case, we wouldn't sell paintings, we would sell the artist's time or the exclusive right to the artist's story (and the painting would be a certificate to that story).

Now we know that AI can create art. But only for the specific case where the AI and the human artist create the same painting. How about the general case? How do i know if a painting is art when I see one?

This where what Verificationism tries to do. What is art? How about a chair, a table or heck a human? Is that wooden blob there a chair? See, unlike what we were told in the elementary school. Nouns are not the objects themselves, but a label we gave to the object. Thereby quickly identifying and communicating the object to others. Under verificationism, every noun is a shorthand for a set of properties that the object must have. We verify that the object has those properties, if so we assign the label to the object. If not, we don't. The list of properties is then effectively your definition of the noun. That blob of wood does allow me to sit on it and it doesn't topple over either I do or not. It fits the list of properties that I require for a chair. Therefore, it is a chair. Tom there, is good at computers, he can download Chrome and fix broken Microsoft Office installation. However, he can't install Windows on a brand new computer. He doesn't fit the list of properties that I require for a computer technician. Maybe he's a decent computer user, but he's not a computer technician in my eyes.

So, what is art? To answer this question, we ask our selves: why do people buy art? The reasons will be effectively why people want art. Thus the definition of art. I consulted several online sources and both ChatGPT and LLaMA 3.1 70B (to my defense, these LLMs have seen all content on the internet). This a list I boiled down that is exclusive to art:

• Aesthetic Appeal: Many people buy art because they enjoy the way it looks and want to enhance the beauty of their home or office.
• Personal Expression: Art allows individuals to express their personality, values, and interests, and buying art is a way to showcase their unique taste and style.
• Emotional Connection: Some people buy art because it evokes a strong emotional response, such as nostalgia, joy, or calmness.

And that's it. If something is aesthetically appealing, expresses the owner's personality or evokes an emotional response, it is art. Code, photos, music, even a power plant can be art in the right eyes. And there's nothing stopping AI from creating art. As long as it can generate something that is aesthetically appealing, expresses the owner's personality or evokes an emotional response, it is art. That's all what art is and that's all what art will ever be.

Blabbery

Just like the invention of photography replaced a lot of painters, AI will most likely replace a lot of artists. It's unfortunate, but what happens is what happens. We shall not let inconvenient facts stop us from seeking truth or sturing up political wars. Art used to be difficult to create, needing years upon years on experinece and dedication. New tools have been created time and time again to make difficult to obtain items more accessible. The invention on AI is no different. People loosing their income is sad but it has no bearing on what a word ought to mean. Discussions must stay true to the facts and not be swayed by emotions. Only then can we have a meaningful discussion.