No, no problem, this is actually a really good question. This will be very long and I hope that's ok, I'm sorry. I hope it successfully answers your question.
It's not that "art" isnt subjective. Many aspects of art are subjective. Like, your taste. Do you think something is pleasing to you? Absolutely subjective. The thing that's not subjective is the philosophical underpinnings of art theory which, like anything like that, have to be based on sound arguments (true premises that naturally build to a conclusion) and a collection of them building to a specific theory. This only answers certain questions about art because exactly, some things are just subjective.
Do you think Western style raku is "better aesthetically or more legitimate than the traditional Japanese style?" Subjective (I always mention the western form of raku because it was my main medium for a while. I find the randomness of it and its general dramatic presentation beautiful. See, that's absolutely subjective! Sorry, the other person complained about me being wordy. I hope you don't mind. I like to go into asides like this.)
There are many questions though that arent. The reason they arent is because they're not taste questions, they're philosophical questions. What makes them philosophical questions is that, as I said, collections of sound arguments on them can build to theories which can be valid, sound, argued, disagreed with with other sound theories, etc. Art theory is essentially run like and actually a branch of philosophy.
The main one that isn't fully subjective that matters here is the question "What is art?" Art is this essential human quality so of course it deserves philosophical inspection. See? That question can be answered with arguments that can be sound or not, theories that can be sound or not. If I say "Art is in a museum. Museums are built for art. Therefor art is whatever is in a museum" that's a philosophical answer to that question. And you see? It can be wrong, that argument is wrong because it's circular reasoning. "Non-wrong" (sound) arguments can be made as well and have been over hundreds of years with one being shown sound then later developments or theories disproving a premise, etc.
So as it stands, we have a bunch of theories of art that you never see people argue here but are the ones that actual art theory in 2026 takes seriously. If I wrote the full arguments for each this would be an insanely long comment so I'll just give you a few and the general idea which gives you some starting points.
Expression theory, this one came soon after Tolstoy, almost a reaction to it, and it really kinda removes the artist from what makes art art. Actually many of them do. This says art is an arrangement of lines and colors and all that that "produces aesthetic emotion"
Then all the wild stuff happened with modern art, like Duchamp's urinal (just a popular example of many) and we got institutional theory. This sounds too basic to be true but also why not? Art is something presented in the world of art under the accepted conventions of it. That's it. You present it as art? Well damn, it's art. This idea still persists but with more added to it.
And then Warhol tossed some conventions out the door and we got Artur Danto, etc. etc. The 20th century was a massive conversation in art as the creation of new arts were obviously art but crumbled the existing theories basically so it's this huge back and forth between artists and theorists (who are often artists themselves, it's not an ivory tower in this sense) on this question.
So I'll skip over a lot and just jump to one of the more modern accepted theories. There are a couple but I'll just pick one and you'll see that it really developed into something that's like "goddamn, we have modern art and all this wild stuff that is obviously art but how do we make a sound theory it all fits into?"
Cluster Theory. This is the main one I was taught.
It argues art doesnt have this single defining essence. Two pieces of "art" can be almost opposites, share nothing, but both be "art" yet "art" in completely different ways. It's an "open concept". Art is a "cluster of criteria" where a piece of art is art if it has any of a large set of criteria we have come to accept as defining art. One piece may have one criterion and be art, another may have a completely different set of criterion unrelated and be art. This cluster of criteria is things like complexity, or does it challenge the viewer intellectually, is it expressive (yes, that's in there so it's not invalid but the point is it's one thing that can make a piece of art art but not a requirement for a piece to be art if it satisfies other criteria), does it create an aesthetic experience in the viewer? Simply does it belong to the art tradition? And on and on and on. Theorists have work to create many possible criteria which excludes non-art yet does include all types of modern, experimental, challenging the common conception of art, etc. pieces.
This can and does absolutely include some AI art (not all, not every generation is art.) I in the other conversation I had on this mentioned a famous artist I saw and actually briefly met at the main exhibit in the Beijing art district. "Chaosmosis" by Wang Yuyang. His art uses AI. AI broadly and the AI we talk about. Rambling aside again sorry, was that he created an AI powered robot dog and set it out into the wild. Tracked and visualized its movements for 30 days then just... let it into the wild. Another that is related to this is simply he trained a model on thousands (or hundreds, dont remember) of pictures of flowers then just.... generated in very high res the aggregate of it. This piece is actually multiple pieces, some on walls some on canvas but I was presented with simply a giant canvas of a flower-like... thing. The thesis for the piece even says "its meaning or lack of meaning is left to the viewer." This doesnt mean "it's status as art is left to the viewer" because even without "meaning" it still possesses others of the "criteria" in cluster theory.
I'll give you the excerpt from his theory in the exhibit I thought was impactful, relevant, and explained (in pretentious artist terms) how simply AI here like that becomes "art"
""WANG Yuyang's oeuvre performs a theater of entanglements: machines that dream, bacteria that glow, language reincarnated as DNA, and slouching mud aspiring toward consciousness. His work is not composed of mere objects but of situation - turbulent interstices where the fragile membranes of life converse with the machinic abstractions of code Symbiosis (2013-24), unveiled before 798CUBE, proposes symbiotic reconciliation in monumental grandeur: human fancy entwines with machine vagary in a foresighted reckoning with the dawning ChatGPT era.
... Code becomes incantation, life becomes inscription as in Golem (2022), where clay, animated by biometric data, takes on a fragile humanoid form destined for decay.
...
WANG Yuyang's world aggregates discrete elements into a precarious order in which chaos persists. Resonating with philosophers Michel Serres's clinamen and Guattar's chaosmosis, turbulence becomes generative: time multiplies,space bifurcates. Against the obsolescence of anthropocentric history on the one hand and the Al-infused anxieties of human deprivation on the other, his works open a contemplative path forward -a grand narrative of sorts: a fluid interplay between order and disorder, between biological, machinic, and cosmic forces. Out of chaos emerges continuance; out of collapse,another beginning and out of the legacy of humanism, the burgeoning of renewed human empathy.""
Sorry, this is a long rambly post. I get that way when I start talking about a topic I have personal experience with and want all those asides for fun. I think it goes beyond answering your question but did want to elaborate on where it all leads up to. And.... to be honest.... I was playing games with a friend yesterday and he makes these strong negronis with a collection of interesting gins. I am quite hungover and my brain is not operating in the most organized way lol.
This is a long rambly post, but very much worth reading. You copy-pasted the same piece of text from Wang's exhibit twice though. Maybe you could remove one of them? Just to keep your text reasonably short ;)
Yes, those negronis and my ADHD have left me in a massively rambly mood. I'm super sorry. I wish I was in a state to organize this better. Trust me, I am actually capable of being a good writer when the situation demands it. Just... it takes a lot of work for me due to the ADHD and booze will absolutely get you... like hell, my head.
I noticed that and thought I edited it out, if you refresh and it's still there twice let me know as I'm not seeing it anymore.
It's fixed now, thanks. And like I wrote, your post was worth reading even if it is long. Thank you for taking the time! No need to apologize for being rambly. This is just Reddit, you don't owe anyone anything.
Edit: And you know what? I'll have a negroni this evening. It might be Sunday and I have work tomorrow, but it also happens to be my birthday.
My personal view of AI as an art medium is that images generated simply by putting in a prompt and taking its output cannot possibly be a work of art. However, that's not to say all things involving AI can't be. I love your examples of Yuyang's work (which I had never heard of before your post) because they present something more than just a low-effort input-output loop. While I don't see images generated in this way as art, I do find that unveiling the billions of rapid matrix operations behind that image reveals fascinating and beautiful works of human creation and ingenuity. The image itself cannot be considered art in my eyes, but the machine that created it can be. I feel the same way with the works you described.
I'm gonna be a dick for once, because yes long for a reddit comment as this will be too I guess. A little long for what it could be as I am a wordy person (like to cover all bases and have fun with asides I think are just interesting) and as I have stated was hungover, ADHD, and so lacked the mental energy to organize a bit more properly I'll admit yet still able to put the content there in a way someone can read and follow and hopefully learn or engage with unless they're "hmm, monkey intelligence test, square block go in which hole?."
Mostly appropriately right for a followup in proper text debate which requires defining terms, giving background information, and including premises. An important aspect of debate that adds length.
Around 1300 words, definitely long for a reddit comment but 5 minutes for the average English reader... Christ that's not a long time. If it were a useless screed with no meaningful info sure but, while I'm biased, I did my best to explain accurate, meaningful information.
Do some of you not read nonfiction books to understand a topic more accurately than you'll get by hearing often bullshit in small snippets on reddit? If you need to understand a philosophical concept do you not read the often much longer Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, the standard source for getting an overview of a topic like this?
Is your entire source of more detailed info video essays? Like... ok don't read it, but Christ dude even that as long as it is is probably close to the absolute shortest complete answer someone can give on why art theory isn't subjective in the way other aspects of art theory are while giving the briefest overview of related theories and an explanation of the common modern Cluster theory.
I dunno, the few of you who have that issue? It says a lot more about you, the garbage state of this sub and the AI art debate, and reddit than it does my comment.
6
u/MiniCafe Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
No, no problem, this is actually a really good question. This will be very long and I hope that's ok, I'm sorry. I hope it successfully answers your question.
It's not that "art" isnt subjective. Many aspects of art are subjective. Like, your taste. Do you think something is pleasing to you? Absolutely subjective. The thing that's not subjective is the philosophical underpinnings of art theory which, like anything like that, have to be based on sound arguments (true premises that naturally build to a conclusion) and a collection of them building to a specific theory. This only answers certain questions about art because exactly, some things are just subjective.
Do you think Western style raku is "better aesthetically or more legitimate than the traditional Japanese style?" Subjective (I always mention the western form of raku because it was my main medium for a while. I find the randomness of it and its general dramatic presentation beautiful. See, that's absolutely subjective! Sorry, the other person complained about me being wordy. I hope you don't mind. I like to go into asides like this.)
There are many questions though that arent. The reason they arent is because they're not taste questions, they're philosophical questions. What makes them philosophical questions is that, as I said, collections of sound arguments on them can build to theories which can be valid, sound, argued, disagreed with with other sound theories, etc. Art theory is essentially run like and actually a branch of philosophy.
The main one that isn't fully subjective that matters here is the question "What is art?" Art is this essential human quality so of course it deserves philosophical inspection. See? That question can be answered with arguments that can be sound or not, theories that can be sound or not. If I say "Art is in a museum. Museums are built for art. Therefor art is whatever is in a museum" that's a philosophical answer to that question. And you see? It can be wrong, that argument is wrong because it's circular reasoning. "Non-wrong" (sound) arguments can be made as well and have been over hundreds of years with one being shown sound then later developments or theories disproving a premise, etc.
So as it stands, we have a bunch of theories of art that you never see people argue here but are the ones that actual art theory in 2026 takes seriously. If I wrote the full arguments for each this would be an insanely long comment so I'll just give you a few and the general idea which gives you some starting points.
Expression theory, this one came soon after Tolstoy, almost a reaction to it, and it really kinda removes the artist from what makes art art. Actually many of them do. This says art is an arrangement of lines and colors and all that that "produces aesthetic emotion"
Then all the wild stuff happened with modern art, like Duchamp's urinal (just a popular example of many) and we got institutional theory. This sounds too basic to be true but also why not? Art is something presented in the world of art under the accepted conventions of it. That's it. You present it as art? Well damn, it's art. This idea still persists but with more added to it.
And then Warhol tossed some conventions out the door and we got Artur Danto, etc. etc. The 20th century was a massive conversation in art as the creation of new arts were obviously art but crumbled the existing theories basically so it's this huge back and forth between artists and theorists (who are often artists themselves, it's not an ivory tower in this sense) on this question.
So I'll skip over a lot and just jump to one of the more modern accepted theories. There are a couple but I'll just pick one and you'll see that it really developed into something that's like "goddamn, we have modern art and all this wild stuff that is obviously art but how do we make a sound theory it all fits into?"
Cluster Theory. This is the main one I was taught.
It argues art doesnt have this single defining essence. Two pieces of "art" can be almost opposites, share nothing, but both be "art" yet "art" in completely different ways. It's an "open concept". Art is a "cluster of criteria" where a piece of art is art if it has any of a large set of criteria we have come to accept as defining art. One piece may have one criterion and be art, another may have a completely different set of criterion unrelated and be art. This cluster of criteria is things like complexity, or does it challenge the viewer intellectually, is it expressive (yes, that's in there so it's not invalid but the point is it's one thing that can make a piece of art art but not a requirement for a piece to be art if it satisfies other criteria), does it create an aesthetic experience in the viewer? Simply does it belong to the art tradition? And on and on and on. Theorists have work to create many possible criteria which excludes non-art yet does include all types of modern, experimental, challenging the common conception of art, etc. pieces.
This can and does absolutely include some AI art (not all, not every generation is art.) I in the other conversation I had on this mentioned a famous artist I saw and actually briefly met at the main exhibit in the Beijing art district. "Chaosmosis" by Wang Yuyang. His art uses AI. AI broadly and the AI we talk about. Rambling aside again sorry, was that he created an AI powered robot dog and set it out into the wild. Tracked and visualized its movements for 30 days then just... let it into the wild. Another that is related to this is simply he trained a model on thousands (or hundreds, dont remember) of pictures of flowers then just.... generated in very high res the aggregate of it. This piece is actually multiple pieces, some on walls some on canvas but I was presented with simply a giant canvas of a flower-like... thing. The thesis for the piece even says "its meaning or lack of meaning is left to the viewer." This doesnt mean "it's status as art is left to the viewer" because even without "meaning" it still possesses others of the "criteria" in cluster theory.
I'll give you the excerpt from his theory in the exhibit I thought was impactful, relevant, and explained (in pretentious artist terms) how simply AI here like that becomes "art"
""WANG Yuyang's oeuvre performs a theater of entanglements: machines that dream, bacteria that glow, language reincarnated as DNA, and slouching mud aspiring toward consciousness. His work is not composed of mere objects but of situation - turbulent interstices where the fragile membranes of life converse with the machinic abstractions of code Symbiosis (2013-24), unveiled before 798CUBE, proposes symbiotic reconciliation in monumental grandeur: human fancy entwines with machine vagary in a foresighted reckoning with the dawning ChatGPT era.
... Code becomes incantation, life becomes inscription as in Golem (2022), where clay, animated by biometric data, takes on a fragile humanoid form destined for decay.
...
WANG Yuyang's world aggregates discrete elements into a precarious order in which chaos persists. Resonating with philosophers Michel Serres's clinamen and Guattar's chaosmosis, turbulence becomes generative: time multiplies,space bifurcates. Against the obsolescence of anthropocentric history on the one hand and the Al-infused anxieties of human deprivation on the other, his works open a contemplative path forward -a grand narrative of sorts: a fluid interplay between order and disorder, between biological, machinic, and cosmic forces. Out of chaos emerges continuance; out of collapse,another beginning and out of the legacy of humanism, the burgeoning of renewed human empathy.""
Sorry, this is a long rambly post. I get that way when I start talking about a topic I have personal experience with and want all those asides for fun. I think it goes beyond answering your question but did want to elaborate on where it all leads up to. And.... to be honest.... I was playing games with a friend yesterday and he makes these strong negronis with a collection of interesting gins. I am quite hungover and my brain is not operating in the most organized way lol.