Ai Weiwei, A.I… Ai yi yi

As you may or may not have read recently, the (potentially) most recognizable name in the art world, Ai Weiwei, made a bold statement about A.I. and art last week. This is going to get a little confusing, so to try to mitigate the confusion between artificial intelligence and Ai Weiwei’s surname I will use capitals for artificial intelligence (A.I.) and Ai Weiwei’s surname as Ai.

According to The Guardian, when Ai (the artist) was asked about the challenge facing artists when it comes to A.I. (the software) replicating their work, he stated “That’s not a problem. I think that kind of art should [have died] a long time ago,” before he criticized art teaching that focuses on creating “realistic” images. “It takes A.I. a second to do it. So that only means what they have learned very often is meaningless.” He then even goes on to criticize Picasso and Matisse, saying “I’m sure if Picasso or Matisse were still alive they will quit their job. It’d be just impossible for them to still think [the same way].”

The arrogance of this guy. It’s like watching Donald Trump call himself an artist and go on a tirade. He’s talking about geniuses that somehow stood apart in an era flooded with geniuses; when artists were asking big questions of themselves, the world, and art as a whole. And Ai Weiwei believes that they couldn’t cut it in a world with A.I., or is it just in a world with Ai Weiwei.

Some articles such as the one from The Conversation bestow on Ai (the artist) a Neitszche-like brilliance in his dismissive statement about other artists. Why would they give Ai such a dignified slant to such an arrogant statement. Ai Weiwei has been nothing but conspicuous and blunt throughout his career; from sticking a middle finger up to national monuments to putting backpacks on a school building that collapsed during an earthquake. What you see is what you get with Ai Weiwei. So why do sources such as The Conversation trip over themselves to mitigate Ai’s words. Because everything in the art world is a tacit ass-kissing of Ai’s brilliance, and god forbid some arrogant statement he makes allow the audience to see what mundane garbage his newest work is.

The “experiment” is hardly worth explaining, but I’ll sum it up quickly. Over 81 days, Ai will ask ChatGPT 81 questions; another reminder of his imprisonment in China, which he has capitalized on since 2011.

Here’s my first problem with Ai’s dismissive statement (along with his traditional dismissive expression he seems to never leave home without); Ai assumes that his work is entirely free of replication from A.I., since he often uses sculpture and installations for his work. There hasn’t been a computer yet that can easily make a replication of an installment no matter how flaccid and unimaginative it is (I’m looking at you banana on a wall guy, and I didn’t mean to use flaccid and banana in the same sentence, but there it is). I liken this to a construction foreman telling an engineer his work is useless because it can be replicated by a printer. Of course if the validity of work relied solely on whether a printer could replicate it, then the foreman would be correct; though now there are 3D printers making homes, so that’s coming for you too arrogant dumb faced foreman. However, why is the fact that a computer can replicate artwork make it meaningless.

While no computer can replicate much of Ai Weiwei’s installations, Ai’s ideas could be easily replicated and even improved considerably by A.I. For instance, in Ye Haiyan’s Belongings 2013, Ai Weiwei creates an homage to his friend Ye Haiyan, a Chinese women’s right’s activist who was evicted from China because of her work. In this piece Ai places her belongings in a single room in a gallery- wow! Mind Blown.

I decided to ask ChatGPT to “give me an idea for an art installation for a woman's right activist cast out of her home country.” What ChatGPT gave me was actually quite compelling and immersive. It’s a long description, so here is a link if you’re interested in reading ChatGPT’s take. As you can see below, Ai just places her stuff in a room in a museum; a tired and uninspired concept. So, even though A.I. can’t send out robots yet to go to his friend’s and take her belongings and place them in a room, artificial intelligence creates an idea that is far more artistic than Ai Weiwei’s. I would say then, that Ai (the artist’s) piece is meaningless; as would Ai himself, according to his statement.

Now, overlooking his arrogant tilt to the statement, a lot of artwork is meaningless (now I’m looking at you misty landscape, “abstract” hotel art, etc.). I’m speaking in the sense that it is without meaning, but not that it is pointless; though I could do without both above genres. Hell, I’m talking about myself and a lot of my work, too. I easily admit that most of my work is design, not art. I think this is an important distinction in the art world that has yet to be made meaningfully.

Art should ask questions of its audience, not tell them answers to questions they haven’t bothered to ask. Or make statements that are, by this point, a given in civilized society; people being kicked out of their country for speaking their mind and children dying in an earthquake because of shoddy construction are bad. Everyone feels that way.

I’m not saying that what Ai Weiwei is doing isn’t important, but I am saying that much of it isn’t art. He’s often more an activist with a paintbrush (or camera, or gallery space as the case may be) than an artist with something important to say. If Ai Weiwei’s work, like the one above, or the one below are considered art, then any activist that paints a slogan on cardboard before marching downtown or any TikToker that sticks their middle finger up at something has as much right to the title artist as anyone else.

Artists throughout history have made statements about society and fought against injustice; they have questioned themselves and their place in a society that is often at odds with the artist. They have just done it in more creative, subversive, and compelling ways than Ai Weiwei, without forfeiting that ethereal mystery at the center of art.

To be fair, Ai Weiwei is a brilliant artist in his own right. He has created magnificently haunting, skillful, and thought provoking pieces. I am especially drawn to his work Water Lilies #1, 2023 below.

However, as often happens with big name artists, they and their work are automatically given deference regarding their brilliance. No one dares question the work less they be seen as an ignorant neophyte. And, since critique is the growth serum of an artist, left to spoil in the cellophane wrapping of sycophants they become stagnant, uncreative, and arrogant. They may still do some great work (like above) but they can no longer determine easily between what is brilliance and what is drivel.

If art is dying, as this dumb dumb from The Conversation believes Ai was stating, it is because 1) we give unwavering deference to any artist that has reached rock star status in the art world and no longer critique their work. This is a crucial factor in the artistic process and encourages burgeoning artists to better decipher great art from uncomposted poo. And 2) We as an audience are mistaking activism, design, dumb-assery or any number of other marauders that are highjacking the name of art for their own purposes to succeed in declaring states of art arbitrarily. The landscape has become so confused in the art world that there is no real common consensus on what art truly is (think glasses left on the floor of an art museum,) or Mister Brainwash in Exit Through The Gift Shop . In these moments artistic elitists double down on their world view and sharpen their swords on the “ignorance” of the plebeians, while the populace looks at artists as arrogant gatekeepers divorced from reality, and hence unable to make meaningful statements about the world.

Art needs to be redefined and better insulated from those that want to appropriate if for themselves because they are unsure of their own purpose or want to elevate what they see as mundane. Just because you call design or activism by its correct name doesn’t take away from the work; it just places your efforts in the correct lexicon, and gives clarity to your purpose.

What’s most interesting about Ai Weiwei’s latest work is that he states his purpose like this; “This is not about freedom of speech. This is about freedom of questions. Everyone has the right to ask questions.” It seems to me that Ai Weiwei would typically rather tell people exactly what to think instead of posing questions to his audience. It just so happened that Ai couldn’t find a project that would put his name on a marquee twice (Ai vs AI) without asking some questions. So maybe, just this once, it was worth it.

What I Learned from a Mucus Eating Know It All

The Golden Country; when you think too much about George Orwell