Juxtapositioning Munch with AI generated memes really points up that sentience isn't really about thinking so much as it is about feeling. A parrot or squirrel is more sentient than any AI chatbot ever will be.
Thank you Cathie... he is a quite fascinating study. 2 books that I read and recommend are - Edvard Munch, Sue Prideaux (a relative of Munch's) and Edvard Munch: An Inner Life by Oystein Ustvedt
Art that 'digs inside' demands a slow, intentional process from both creator and receiver. AI can still carry human intention (authorship remains possible), but does the medium's inherent speed dilute intention's potency? I often wonder: when creating becomes effortless, do we lose the resistance that once concentrated artistic purpose?
You are right that human intention is the ghost in the machine, authorship remains possible. The dilemma is not whether AI can be a tool, but what kind of tool it is and how it reshapes the user.
Your phrase, "do we lose the resistance that once concentrated artistic purpose?" is brilliant. I think of the physical resistance of a woodblock against a knife, or the slow, stubborn drying of oil paint. That friction isn't an obstacle to be overcome; it's a creative partner. It demands patience and forces intention into every mark. This is what I see in Munch's loops. Each version of The Sick Child wasn't an effortless iteration; it was a renewed struggle, a re-concentration of purpose against the resistance of memory and material.
So, yes, I believe the medium's inherent speed absolutely risks diluting intention's potency. It trades the friction that creates depth for a fluency that can often feel weightless. It's a question I'm still grappling with, and your comment provides a perfect lens through which to view it.
I reflect on this a lot too. Literally every "drop of sweat" an author invests in their work becomes a creative partner.
This is true for all of us when we create something. Through this process, we slowly develop a meta-knowledge of how our creative process works, based on our blind spots, our unresolved deep questions, and what really matters to us. If this construction phase is traded (partially or entirely) for a shortcut, does the creation still have a soul? Is evolution still possible?
I'm not categorically negative about using AI in general, but I think we need to be very conscious about what we can outsource and what we shouldn't if we value being true to ourselves.
Brilliant Gloria. You have articulated the inner world of the creator so beautifully. Yes, every "drop of sweat" waters the seeds of self-knowledge.
Your concept of "meta-knowledge" is the perfect lens for this. Creation is a journey, and the things we learn by getting lost, by facing our blind spots and wrestling with our questions, are more valuable than arriving at a destination effortlessly.
That’s why your question, "Is evolution still possible?" is so vital. If we are always given a perfect map, how do we develop our own sense of direction? How do we grow stronger? Your final point is the answer: we must be conscious map-readers, deciding when to follow the suggested path and when to venture into the wilderness ourselves. It's the only way to ensure we're not just creating things, but creating ourselves.
Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye... it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.” Oh, how this phrase appeals to my soul.
I had no idea Munch was a prolific artist and introspective writer. His style has never appealed to me. Yet, in your words, I feel the man beneath his paintings; it’s enlightened my viewing. I’ve viewed the linked paintings, and as a mother, the Sick Child, when viewed in solitude and quiet, slowly revealed the feeling one knows about the truth of death; there is an impossibility of mourning, fully. Grief never gives way, it ignores the passage of time, and each year, as that anniversary day arises, the feelings are as full as the moment in this painting. Thank you for this. You’ve unearthed that even painting styles that are less personally appealing can speak to my soul, if I allow myself the silence to move beyond my preferences. I yearn to view the original works of long dead artists, for a digital view can not unveil their depths.
Yet, these digital versions of human made masterpieces are eloquently filled with meaning in a way that no AI generative image can ever be. No AI can generate “ a moment when the ordinary lurches into the sublime.” No life lived means no Body + Soul fusing, no embedded emotions, subtlety conveyed, lived, endured . AI generated art is merely digital projections stripped of emotional depth. Human artists lived, and their unique life moments infuse their works. Both a human and a human soul are necessary for art that can entices us to pause, to remember that moments that moved our heart and soul are the essence of what makes us human.
I'm so glad that the piece could offer a new window into Munch's work for you. Hearing that you could "feel the man beneath his paintings" is truly the highest compliment. He was such a profound thinker, and that quote about the "inner pictures of the soul" feels like the key to his entire universe.
Your reflection on his painting The Sick Child is so vivid and beautifully articulated. Exactly right: "grief never gives way, it ignores the passage of time." That is the "impossibility of mourning" I feel he captured on that canvas, and to have that feeling affirmed by your own lived thoughts and experiences as a mother is profoundly meaningful. Thank you for sharing that.
And yes, you understand and match my perspective on why I felt compelled to add the thoughts on AI. Your phrase, "Body + Soul fusing," is the perfect description of what makes human art irreplaceable. That is the lived, endured residue that no algorithm can ever simulate.
This beautifully captures my thoughts, so stirringly written "Both a human and a human soul are necessary for art that can entices us to pause, to remember that moments that moved our heart and soul are the essence of what makes us human."
Thought provoking post. It should make everyone pause and contemplate. What are we really getting from AI? Is it improving the human condition or just increasing the throwaway culture?
Juxtapositioning Munch with AI generated memes really points up that sentience isn't really about thinking so much as it is about feeling. A parrot or squirrel is more sentient than any AI chatbot ever will be.
Yes, I sense that Munch would have put it that way too - it is about feeling!
Beautiful post.
“works vibrate with fear of loss, the fatigue of survival”…
“Munch did not wish to depict the world. He wished to endure within it.”
Edvard Munch’s life will now inform me as I see his
works through the lens of his deep personal loss.
Thank you Cathie... he is a quite fascinating study. 2 books that I read and recommend are - Edvard Munch, Sue Prideaux (a relative of Munch's) and Edvard Munch: An Inner Life by Oystein Ustvedt
Art that 'digs inside' demands a slow, intentional process from both creator and receiver. AI can still carry human intention (authorship remains possible), but does the medium's inherent speed dilute intention's potency? I often wonder: when creating becomes effortless, do we lose the resistance that once concentrated artistic purpose?
You are right that human intention is the ghost in the machine, authorship remains possible. The dilemma is not whether AI can be a tool, but what kind of tool it is and how it reshapes the user.
Your phrase, "do we lose the resistance that once concentrated artistic purpose?" is brilliant. I think of the physical resistance of a woodblock against a knife, or the slow, stubborn drying of oil paint. That friction isn't an obstacle to be overcome; it's a creative partner. It demands patience and forces intention into every mark. This is what I see in Munch's loops. Each version of The Sick Child wasn't an effortless iteration; it was a renewed struggle, a re-concentration of purpose against the resistance of memory and material.
So, yes, I believe the medium's inherent speed absolutely risks diluting intention's potency. It trades the friction that creates depth for a fluency that can often feel weightless. It's a question I'm still grappling with, and your comment provides a perfect lens through which to view it.
I reflect on this a lot too. Literally every "drop of sweat" an author invests in their work becomes a creative partner.
This is true for all of us when we create something. Through this process, we slowly develop a meta-knowledge of how our creative process works, based on our blind spots, our unresolved deep questions, and what really matters to us. If this construction phase is traded (partially or entirely) for a shortcut, does the creation still have a soul? Is evolution still possible?
I'm not categorically negative about using AI in general, but I think we need to be very conscious about what we can outsource and what we shouldn't if we value being true to ourselves.
Brilliant Gloria. You have articulated the inner world of the creator so beautifully. Yes, every "drop of sweat" waters the seeds of self-knowledge.
Your concept of "meta-knowledge" is the perfect lens for this. Creation is a journey, and the things we learn by getting lost, by facing our blind spots and wrestling with our questions, are more valuable than arriving at a destination effortlessly.
That’s why your question, "Is evolution still possible?" is so vital. If we are always given a perfect map, how do we develop our own sense of direction? How do we grow stronger? Your final point is the answer: we must be conscious map-readers, deciding when to follow the suggested path and when to venture into the wilderness ourselves. It's the only way to ensure we're not just creating things, but creating ourselves.
Fantastic article, Colin! Thanks.
Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye... it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.” Oh, how this phrase appeals to my soul.
I had no idea Munch was a prolific artist and introspective writer. His style has never appealed to me. Yet, in your words, I feel the man beneath his paintings; it’s enlightened my viewing. I’ve viewed the linked paintings, and as a mother, the Sick Child, when viewed in solitude and quiet, slowly revealed the feeling one knows about the truth of death; there is an impossibility of mourning, fully. Grief never gives way, it ignores the passage of time, and each year, as that anniversary day arises, the feelings are as full as the moment in this painting. Thank you for this. You’ve unearthed that even painting styles that are less personally appealing can speak to my soul, if I allow myself the silence to move beyond my preferences. I yearn to view the original works of long dead artists, for a digital view can not unveil their depths.
Yet, these digital versions of human made masterpieces are eloquently filled with meaning in a way that no AI generative image can ever be. No AI can generate “ a moment when the ordinary lurches into the sublime.” No life lived means no Body + Soul fusing, no embedded emotions, subtlety conveyed, lived, endured . AI generated art is merely digital projections stripped of emotional depth. Human artists lived, and their unique life moments infuse their works. Both a human and a human soul are necessary for art that can entices us to pause, to remember that moments that moved our heart and soul are the essence of what makes us human.
I'm so glad that the piece could offer a new window into Munch's work for you. Hearing that you could "feel the man beneath his paintings" is truly the highest compliment. He was such a profound thinker, and that quote about the "inner pictures of the soul" feels like the key to his entire universe.
Your reflection on his painting The Sick Child is so vivid and beautifully articulated. Exactly right: "grief never gives way, it ignores the passage of time." That is the "impossibility of mourning" I feel he captured on that canvas, and to have that feeling affirmed by your own lived thoughts and experiences as a mother is profoundly meaningful. Thank you for sharing that.
And yes, you understand and match my perspective on why I felt compelled to add the thoughts on AI. Your phrase, "Body + Soul fusing," is the perfect description of what makes human art irreplaceable. That is the lived, endured residue that no algorithm can ever simulate.
This beautifully captures my thoughts, so stirringly written "Both a human and a human soul are necessary for art that can entices us to pause, to remember that moments that moved our heart and soul are the essence of what makes us human."
Thought provoking post. It should make everyone pause and contemplate. What are we really getting from AI? Is it improving the human condition or just increasing the throwaway culture?
Thank you Jim. The majority of current AI generated output is for sure throwaway culture - well said!