A Handmade's Tale
And the Art of Discernment
I’ve been thinking about how 1-to-1 the AI consumption experience seems to be right now. Even story-centered outputs that we can create in no time, we can finish viewing in no time. Not really the “grab some popcorn and watch it together with friends” experience yet. What would it be like to experience AI together beyond the “check this out” sharing that happens? Point being, as an experience today, AI is feeding me. Not we. As a technology, it’s perpetuating our solitary “confinement.”
I get that we’re at an inflection point in industry where everything is shiny and new, and chuffed to be alive for it all. Yet I want to see more hints – soon – of ways AI will bring us together.
Sidebar: Bare with me momentarily while I share other societal conditions I think about...
There’s been a fair amount of data about the rise in loneliness – defined as “inadequate meaningful connections” – in the US where I live today. In 2023, the former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared it as a public health risk for society. 73% of those surveyed in May 2024 selected technology as contributing to loneliness in the country. While they didn’t break it down to types of technology, other research points to “social” media particularly increasing feelings of social isolation.
Documentaries like Join or Die by siblings Pete and Rebecca Davis – based on the work of political scientist Robert Putnam – also highlight the decline of community (again in the US). The key reason cited? A giant drop of people joining clubs or civic organizations over the past decades.
Taking a broad brushstroke now…
More isolating technology + Less in-person clubs >> Less togetherness
I recently facilitated a longer looking experience in the AI Literacy Space that I’m co-hosting with Nitzan. I wanted others to experience the meditative quality I get from observing something slowly – and together – through Visual Thinking Strategies. (It’s a methodology that uses art to enhance critical thinking and visual literacy skills.) Lingering on one piece of art online – as a group – and not shifting attention to something else – felt quasi rebellious given the less patient, scroll-based digital consumption behaviors that many have fallen to at times.
I selected a piece of art from an artist (to be named later) that the multi-faceted museum curator and educator Dabney Hailey brought to my attention. (Thank you Dabney!) Established artist, yet not a household name like, say, Picasso. The piece was from 2019. Materials: acrylic, transfers, colored pencil, pastel, and collage on paper. (This all must sound so old school in comparison to AI.) When I screen-shared this art, I initially withheld context: no attribution to the artist, no mention of the materials, nor scale, nor story. Not even my inquiry about the lack of collective experiences with AI so far… Just stand alone observation of one piece of art, with indication that I would guide them through a set of questions to see what we discover together.
As expected, the more we looked, the more we noticed. The more we noticed, the more we unpacked. And yes, different people were drawn to different things as we kept focus on this one piece for over 30 minutes.
Observations ranged from noticing and trying to interpret blanker spaces in the art piece, to observations on the incongruity of physical objects depicted – breaking from our logic of what we might expect in a “real” context. Others made note of the photographs repeated like a wallpaper motif in the art that was on the walls, the central woman’s skin, and on the floor as if a shadow, as well commented on and critiqued formal artistic qualities on light and perspective… Some in the group reflected on the perceived imperfection in these later elements, and speculated if they themselves as non-artists might do that (with the expectation for an artist to do better).
What I didn’t expect, though, was the soft debate that grew about whether or not this piece of art was AI-generated. (I know, I shouldn’t have been surprised.) The term “AI slop” popped up in a couple responses. (I found myself feeling a bit protective of the actual artist I hadn’t yet revealed - given “slop” is attributed to a presumed lack of effort linked to AI outputs.) One who was convinced fairly early on that this piece was AI-made expressed an almost inability to appreciate the output because of it – perhaps a disappointment in the sophistication of technology to create good visuals. They also seemed surprised (at themselves?!) when others built a case for the piece being artist-made.
What is or will give us confidence to declare something as AI-made?
What can our eyes rely on as evidence to discern what’s handmade vs AI-made as tech evolves?
I didn’t set up this facilitation to trick anyone per se – but the AI conversation got richer when I revealed that In the Lavender Room was actually handmade in 2019 by the Nigerian born, American-based artist Njideka Akunyili Crosby. Her work is shown in esteemed galleries around the world, and her hand-crafted collage and photo transfer-based paintings were ways she represented aspects of her two worlds.
Will we judge AI-made creations differently based on gallery showings?
Will the “Materials” plaque that lists all elements an artist uses to create the piece need to put “AI” in bold, so we don’t equate it to what’s human-made?
Are we more judgmental of quality when it comes to AI-generated art because of the promise of precision from technology?
What do we consider is a fake image?
We left the experience with perhaps more questions than answers: how do we judge art now? Yet the beauty of this tale is that we got there by observing one thing… together.
PS. We’re meeting on Wednesdays online to ponder different corners of this technology together. If you’re interested in joining a handful of these conversations, reach out.