The above images were sourced from midjourney using the following text prompts: [Artist, Artists Looking Deeply, People Looking at Art Deeply, thoughtful critique, more artists, good artist, bad artist, bad artist, bad artist] I have included the text prompt as the title of the image. What is interesting to me is to see the bias that comes through here. Is this a reflection of what the internet thinks?
This morning Sam sent me a reel advertising how non artists can make murals now using a virtual headset that maps out the design so it becomes just a matter of tracing and coloring in.
I have been of two mindsets when it comes to generative Artificial Intelligence. I recognize that it is a tool, and tools create more possibilities. How empowering it would be to have limitations of skill and cost be lifted and now that dream of a painted wall in your house becomes a reality. I always support people trying new things and as someone who has continually explored new media and mechanics, I recognize that attached to the experience is the realization that a skilled and trained person could probably have done it better. So, on the one hand, it will probably take away some work from muralists, but for those more discerning eyes, I believe the artist’s role remains intact.
But that brings me to another question that has been on my mind lately: what makes a discerning eye? Does a population only exposed to AI generated art recognize or value the mark of a human hand? Does the impact of our quick consumer culture affect our ability to sit with an art piece? Jerry Salz is an art critic and discusses the state of art criticism, noting that it is "on pause" and that there are hardly any negative reviews. Does the absence of critical thinking about art create a void in appreciation for it?
I thought it might be interesting to ask AI these questions.
From ChatGPT:
You’re bringing up deeply relevant and layered questions—ones that many artists, educators, and cultural thinkers are grappling with right now. Your reflection holds space for the nuance: recognizing that tools like generative AI or augmented reality can democratize creative expression, while also acknowledging the irreplaceable depth and subtlety that skilled human labor brings to artmaking.
On tools and democratization:
The idea that non-artists can now make murals using VR as a guide is a perfect metaphor for this moment. Like camera obscura once did, or later photography, and even Photoshop—these tools expand who gets to participate in visual culture. That accessibility is empowering, and it can foster a deeper appreciation for art when people who never thought they could "make art" try it themselves. Yet as you rightly note, the trade-off is a potential devaluation of expertise, subtlety, and authorship, especially in the eyes of a general public that may not be trained to discern such nuances.
On the discerning eye:
A discerning eye develops over time, through exposure, context, and education. It’s about being able to see more—not just in terms of technique, but in terms of intention, tension, history, and emotional or symbolic depth. When art is consumed quickly—on Instagram, as a filter, or as a decorative backdrop—it risks being flattened into surface value. In that sense, your question about quick consumption is critical. If we’re only seeing what’s new, slick, or optimized by algorithm, we may start to lose our appetite for slower, more complex, or challenging work.
On criticism and criticality:
Jerry Saltz’s comment about art criticism being “on pause” hits a nerve. In a time when opinions are often either polarized or softened to avoid backlash, the kind of rigorous, constructive criticism that helps both artists and audiences grow is in short supply. The result can be a hollow echo chamber where everything is “amazing” and nothing is interrogated. Without critical frameworks, it becomes harder for people to recognize what is at stake in a work of art—what it’s doing beyond being beautiful or trendy.
This all loops back to your earlier point: when you’ve trained your eye and hand over years, you can usually see the difference between something generated and something deeply made. But the real question is—can others? Will they care to? And if not, how do we reintroduce the value of looking deeply?
You said:
How do we reintroduce the value of looking deeply? Any ideas?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a profound and timely question—and it gets at the heart of what both artists and educators can uniquely contribute right now. Reintroducing the value of looking deeply involves creating conditions for slowness, curiosity, and connection. Here are a few ideas—some practical, some philosophical:
1. Curate slowness into experiences
Offer guided looking sessions: Whether in galleries, classrooms, or community spaces, invite people to spend ten full minutes with one artwork. Share prompts: What do you notice first? What shifts over time? What materials or choices are speaking to you?
Host “unscrollable” events: Organize analog, tech-free art viewings or pop-ups where phones are checked at the door and viewers are invited to take in work without distraction.
Create interactive viewing guides: Instead of explaining a piece outright, pose questions that draw attention to composition, gesture, intention, and mood.
2. Re-enchant the hand
Expose process alongside product: Show sketches, mistakes, underdrawings, time-lapse recordings of physical making. These artifacts demystify the hand’s role and build appreciation for labor.
Invite others into making: Hosting open studios, workshops, or participatory mural projects gives people tactile, embodied experience with creative challenges—and often leads to deeper respect for trained skill.
3. Contextualize and narrate
Tell the stories behind the art: In captions, newsletters, wall texts, and artist talks, let your audience in on the why and how. When people understand what went into something, they often look longer and care more.
Teach visual literacy: Even casual conversations—pointing out color choices, metaphors in form, or historical references—can open new dimensions of seeing.
4. Champion critical conversations
Model thoughtful critique: Whether in reviews, blog posts, or studio visits, demonstrate that critique isn’t about takedown—it’s about engagement, questioning, and growth.
Amplify slow thinkers and art writers: Share voices that help people read art deeply—not just interpret it, but sit with it, revisit it.
5. Build rituals of return
Encourage revisiting artworks: Make it part of your practice or programming to return to pieces over time. The second or third viewing often reveals the soul of the work.
Frame artworks as companions, not consumables: Help shift the mindset from “What does this give me now?” to “What does this teach me over time?”
Reintroducing the value of deep looking isn’t about resisting new tools—it’s about reinviting attention, and giving people reasons to linger. It’s the antidote to aesthetic fast food.