Concept Craft | Part 2: Poetics and Aesthetics

A Poetics of AI Art

Michael Filimowicz, PhD

Published in

Higher Neurons

41 min readFeb 2, 2024

This article series is the open access version of my eBook Concept Craft: a Poetics of AI Art.

Chapter 1

This book is a Poetics, not an Aesthetics. In this first chapter, I delve into the differences between these terms. Historically, ‘poetics’ has often been used to refer to discourses on literary or ‘mind-addressing’ art forms, whereas ‘aesthetics’ referred to discourses on art forms that address the senses (before reaching the mind!), such as the visual or musical arts.

This bifurcation in terms is related to important precedents such as Aristototle’s Poetics which treated literary forms, though interestingly (as discussed below) the founding text of modern aesthetics, Baumgarten’s Aesthetica, also dealt largely with literary examples.

Aesthetics is related to the Greek word ‘aisthesis’ which refers to sensation and perception and so its usage has tended to be applied to the nonliterary arts. Poetics is rooted in the Greek word ‘poesis’ which refers to making things. Heidegger’s philosophy reinvigorated this conception of poesis to bring its theorization beyond associations with poetry and to align it with techne, or craft.

In the context of art, philosophers have made distinctions and explored the relationship between the Greek words ‘techne’ and ‘poesis.’ While both terms refer to creative activities, they carry distinct connotations and have been understood differently by various philosophers throughout history.

Techne refers to the practical knowledge and skill involved in the creation of artifacts or the performance of a task. It emphasizes the idea of art as a craft or skillful practice. In ancient Greece, techne was associated with disciplines such as carpentry, metalworking, and medicine, where the focus was on the mastery of techniques and procedures. Techne emphasizes the technical aspects, efficiency, and instrumental rationality involved in producing a desired outcome.

Poesis, on the other hand, emphasizes the act of creative making or artistic expression. It encompasses a broader sense of art, including poetry, drama, music, and visual arts. Poesis is concerned with the transformative power of art to bring forth something new and meaningful. It highlights the creative process, imagination, and the ability to evoke emotions and communicate profound ideas. Poesis is often associated with the realm of beauty, aesthetics, and the pursuit of artistic excellence.

Aristotle, in his philosophical works, made a notable distinction between techne and poesis. He considered techne as a practical art aimed at producing something useful, while poesis was associated with the creation of something beautiful and expressive. However, Aristotle also recognized a unifying aspect between the two. He argued that both techne and poesis involve the use of rationality and the application of knowledge and skills. He emphasized the role of craftsmanship and technique in the creative process, highlighting that skillful execution enhances the artistic outcome.

In the 20th century, Martin Heidegger provided a distinctive interpretation of techne and poesis within his philosophical framework. Heidegger understood techne as a mode of revealing or bringing forth, where the focus is on the production and manipulation of objects. Poesis, on the other hand, is seen as a mode of poietic revealing, emphasizing the generative and transformative power of art. Heidegger viewed techne as more mechanistic and calculative, while poesis was associated with a deeper sense of creative intuition and inspiration.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, influenced by Heidegger, explored the fusion of techne and poesis within a hermeneutic framework. He argued that both techne and poesis involve interpretation and understanding. Techne requires a level of creative interpretation and adaptation of established techniques, while poesis involves the interpretation of the artist’s creative intention by the audience. Gadamer emphasized that art is not solely a product of technical mastery but also an open-ended dialogue between the artist, the artwork, and the viewer.

Contemporary philosophers and theorists continue to engage with the distinctions and relationships between techne and poesis in the context of art. Some argue for the interconnectedness of the two, highlighting how techne can enhance the creative process and the artistic expression of poesis. Others emphasize the unique qualities of each term, pointing out the different intentions, objectives, and aesthetics associated with techne and poesis.

The distinction and relationship between techne and poesis in the context of art have been explored by philosophers throughout history. Philosophers have offered different interpretations, ranging from Aristotle’s recognition of their interconnectedness to Heidegger’s differentiation based on modes of revealing. Contemporary perspectives continue to examine the interplay and mutual enrichment between techne and poesis, underscoring the diverse dimensions and complexities of artistic creation.

In the context of creating art with AI platforms, the exact same poetics — let us briefly call it, for now, ‘prompt writing’ (this book argues that it should be called ‘concept craft’ as per its title) can produce wildly varying aesthetics. Through prompt writing/concept craft, one can generate an infinity of aesthetic effects. We could also say that poetics is the input, and aesthetics is the output, which is a useful way to relate these terms because it joins them pragmatically rather than posits them as abstract conceptual binaries.

Background on Poetics and Aesthetics

Throughout history, the fields of aesthetics and poetics have played pivotal roles in the examination and appreciation of artistic expressions. As mentioned, these two disciplines and discourses have been traditionally associated with different realms of art, with aesthetics being primarily linked to the visual arts and poetics being associated with the literary arts.

The origin of this distinction can be traced back to the Greek origins of the terms ‘aesthesis’ and ‘Poetics,’ which emerged as separate branches of inquiry under the influence of philosophers and theorists. Here we will delve into the historical development of aesthetics and poetics, exploring their unique characteristics and their association with visual and literary arts.

The historical distinction between aesthetics and poetics emerges from their respective associations with the visual and literary arts. Aesthetics, rooted in the Greek concept of ‘aesthesis,’ focuses on sensory perception and the evaluation of beauty primarily within the visual arts. On the other hand, poetics, derived from poesis and Aristotle’s work Poetics, delves into the analysis and understanding of literary art forms, particularly poetry, drama, and storytelling.

While these disciplines have distinctive historical origins, they both contribute to our understanding and appreciation of the diverse forms of artistic expression. The association between aesthetics and the visual arts, and poetics and the literary arts, highlights the multifaceted nature of human creativity.

The term “aesthetics,” derived from the Greek word ‘aesthesis,’ refers to the sensory experience and perception of beauty. In its broader sense, aesthetics encompasses the study of the nature of beauty and its evaluation. However, over time, aesthetics has come to be predominantly associated with the visual arts, including painting, sculpture, architecture, and design. This association can be attributed to the emphasis on sensory perception and visual beauty in these art forms.

The foundations of aesthetic philosophy can be traced back to ancient Greece, where philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle explored the nature of beauty and its connection to the arts. Plato’s theory of Forms postulated an ideal realm of eternal and unchanging beauty, influencing subsequent aesthetic thought.

Aristotle, on the other hand, developed a more pragmatic approach in his Poetics, which analyzed the principles of Greek tragedy. While the Poetics primarily focused on the literary arts, it laid the groundwork for the systematic examination of aesthetics in relation to art forms beyond literature.

During the Renaissance, aesthetics underwent significant development as artists and philosophers sought to understand and articulate the principles of beauty. Figures such as Leon Battista Alberti and Immanuel Kant explored the nature of aesthetic experience, shifting the focus towards the subjective interpretation of beauty. The emergence of movements such as Romanticism and Impressionism further expanded the scope of aesthetics, highlighting the emotional and sensory aspects of art.

Aesthetics’ association with the visual arts stems from its emphasis on sensory perception and visual beauty. Visual arts, including painting, sculpture, and architecture, are inherently concerned with the creation of visual forms and their effects on the viewer.

Aesthetic theories and frameworks provide a lens through which artists and audiences can appreciate and interpret the visual elements and compositions of these art forms. Aristotle’s Poetics focused on analyzing the structure, characters, and themes of dramatic works, setting the foundation for the study of literature and the dramatic arts.

The Poetics has had a profound influence on literary theory and criticism throughout history. It provided a systematic framework for analyzing the structure, plot, characters, and themes of dramatic works. Aristotle’s ideas on plot development, catharsis, and the role of imitation in literature have shaped the way we approach and appreciate the literary arts.

Poetics remains closely associated with the literary arts due to its origins in Aristotle’s work. The analysis of narrative structure, character development, and thematic exploration are central to the study of literature. Poetics provides a framework for understanding the artistic choices made by authors, the impact of language and rhetoric, and the aesthetic experience created through written expression.

Stemming from the idea of creating artistic artifacts, poetics encompasses the theory and understanding of the creative process. It represented the transformative power of art to bring forth something new and meaningful. Poesis encompassed various artistic endeavors, including poetry, drama, music, and visual arts, emphasizing the act of artistic creation rather than the end product.

Martin Heidegger explored the concept of poesis within his philosophical framework. Heidegger’s understanding of poetics evolved from his investigation into the nature of being, known as his philosophy of ontology. He argued that the essence of being is closely intertwined with the creative process and the act of poesis.

For Heidegger, the artwork plays a crucial role in revealing the world and disclosing the essence of being. In his seminal work “The Origin of the Work of Art,” Heidegger suggests that the artwork is not simply a static object but an event that brings forth a world. The artist, through the act of poesis, creates a work that allows us to experience and engage with the world in a new and profound way. The artwork becomes a site where being reveals itself and invites us to participate in its unfolding.

Within Heidegger’s framework, the artwork has the power to bring together and reconcile the fourfold: earth, sky, mortals, and divinities. Earth represents the materiality and physicality of existence, while sky signifies the transcendent and spiritual dimension.

Mortals, as human beings, are the bridge between earth and sky, engaging with both realms. Divinities refer to the mysterious forces and entities that dwell beyond the human realm. The artwork, through poesis, creates a harmonious relationship among these elements, offering a glimpse into the profound interconnectedness of being.

In Heidegger’s philosophy, truth is not merely a correspondence between statements and facts but an act of revealing. Heidegger employs the Greek term ‘aletheia’ to emphasize the notion of unconcealment. The artwork, as an event of poesis, unveils truths about existence, inviting us to engage with the world in a more authentic and meaningful way. Through the act of creation, the artist allows truths to emerge and be experienced by the viewer, enabling a deeper understanding of being.

Heidegger also reflects on the influence of technology on the concept of poesis. He argues that the dominance of technology in the modern world has caused a shift in our understanding of art and the creative process. Technology, driven by efficiency and instrumental rationality, reduces poesis to mere production and consumption, obscuring its transformative power. Heidegger urges us to reclaim the essence of poesis by cultivating a deeper appreciation for the creative act and its ability to reveal truth.

For Heidegger, engaging in poesis is not limited to professional artists but is a fundamental aspect of authentic existence. The act of creation, whether through art, craftsmanship, or even everyday activities, allows individuals to connect with their own potentiality and contribute to the unfolding of being. Embracing poesis enables individuals to transcend the alienating forces of the modern world and establish a more profound and meaningful relationship with the world and their own existence.

Heidegger’s exploration of poesis sheds light on the transformative power of artistic creation and its role in shaping our understanding of being. By engaging in poesis, individuals participate in the revealing and unconcealment of truth, allowing for a deeper connection with the world and the essence of existence. In a world increasingly dominated by technology and efficiency, Heidegger’s philosophy reminds us of the significance of poesis as a means of reclaiming authenticity and reconnecting with the transformative potential of the creative act.

Thinking as a Handicraft

Heidegger discussed the concept of thinking as a handicraft in several of his works, most notably in his essay “The Question Concerning Technology” (1954) and his lectures on Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Friedrich Nietzsche. To understand Heidegger’s notion of thinking as a handicraft, it is necessary to delve into his broader philosophical framework and his exploration of the nature of technology.

For Heidegger, thinking is not merely a cognitive process or the application of rationality, but a fundamental mode of human existence. He sought to uncover the essence of being and the way in which human beings relate to the world. Heidegger believed that in the modern age, human beings have lost touch with their essence and have become enmeshed in a technological mode of existence. According to him, technology, in its essence, is not simply a means to an end, but a way of revealing the world to us and shaping our understanding of reality.

In “The Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger introduced the term “enframing” (Gestell) to describe the essence of modern technology. Enframing is the way in which technology frames our understanding of the world as a standing-reserve of resources to be exploited and controlled. He argued that this technological mode of existence reduces everything, including human beings, to mere resources within a framework of efficiency and calculability, or what he called ‘calculative representations.’

Within this context, Heidegger described philosophical thinking as a handicraft. By using the term “handicraft,” he emphasized the idea that thinking is an active and skillful engagement with the world, rather than a detached, abstract process. In traditional handicrafts, such as woodworking or pottery, the craftsman actively engages with the materials, shaping and revealing their potential. Similarly, thinking, for Heidegger, involves actively engaging with the world and disclosing its hidden meanings and possibilities.

Heidegger contrasted handicraft thinking with the instrumental thinking that characterizes the technological mode of existence. Instrumental thinking seeks to control and manipulate the world for predetermined ends. It reduces things to mere resources to be exploited and consumes beings in the process. In contrast, handicraft thinking is an open and receptive mode of engagement that allows things to reveal themselves in their own terms. It involves dwelling in a state of contemplation, attentive to the world’s hidden meanings and possibilities.

In Heidegger’s view, reclaiming handicraft thinking is essential for reestablishing a more authentic relationship with the world and recovering our sense of being. By engaging in handicraft thinking, we can move beyond the narrow framework of calculative, resource-exploitive enframing and experience a more profound understanding of our existence and our place within the world. The concept of thinking as a handicraft reflects his broader concern with the impact of technology on human existence and his call for a more authentic engagement with the world.

Thinking as Handicraft and Prompt Writing

Heidegger’s concept of thinking as a handicraft can be applied to the process of using prompts to create AI-generated art, as it sheds light on the relationship between thought, creativity, and craftsmanship.

When using prompts to generate AI-generated art, the process involves a collaboration between human input and machine learning algorithms. The prompt serves as the initial spark of inspiration, much like the raw material that a craftsman uses to create a work of art. It represents a thought, an idea, or a conceptual direction that guides the generation process.

Heidegger’s notion of thinking as a handicraft emphasizes the active and skillful engagement with materials and the world. Similarly, when working with prompts, the human artist or designer engages actively with the generative system, shaping and revealing its potential. They bring their own creative interpretation, intention, and aesthetic sensibility to the process.

In traditional visual crafts, such as painting or sculpture, the artist’s interaction with the materials is an essential aspect of the creative act. The artist works with their hands, manipulating and transforming the medium to bring forth a tangible and meaningful artwork. In the case of AI-generated art, the craftsmanship lies in the skillful selection and curation of prompts, as well as the interpretation and refinement of the generated outputs.

Heidegger’s concept of thinking as a handicraft also emphasizes the receptive and contemplative aspect of craftsmanship. In the context of AI-generated art, this relates to the artist’s engagement with the generative system’s outputs. Rather than merely accepting the results at face value, the artist adopts a contemplative stance, carefully evaluating, and reflecting upon the generated artwork.

Through this contemplation, the artist discerns the hidden meanings, aesthetic qualities, and conceptual implications of the AI-generated outputs. They exercise their judgment, taste, and artistic sensibilities to discern which results resonate with their vision and align with their understanding of art as a craft. This results in a web of feedback loops, where system output informs refining of prompts as input which in turn refines the image output and so on, in a cybernetic pattern.

Using the image output of a generative AI system to refine the prompts used at its input can be described as cybernetic due to its iterative and feedback-driven nature. Cybernetics is the study of control and communication in systems, and it encompasses the idea of feedback loops to achieve self-regulation and adaptation.

In this context, the generative AI system acts as a cybernetic system. Initially, the system takes a prompt as input and generates an image as output. The generated image is then evaluated by humans or an external system to determine its quality or adherence to a specific objective. This evaluation serves as feedback, providing information about the strengths and weaknesses of the generated image.

The next step involves refining the prompt based on the feedback received. By analyzing the image output and the associated evaluation, adjustments can be made to the prompt to improve the desired outcomes in subsequent iterations. This refined prompt is then fed back into the AI system, restarting the process.

This iterative feedback loop creates a cybernetic pattern, as the AI system continually adapts and improves its output based on the information it receives from the evaluation of its previous output. The system learns from its own generated images and refines the prompts to guide its future generations, aiming to achieve better results over time.

This process demonstrates the cybernetic principle of self-regulation through feedback loops, where the output of the system influences the input, leading to an ongoing refinement of the generative AI system’s performance.

Heidegger’s emphasis on dwelling and attunement to the world can be applied to this process of using prompts for AI-generated art. Artists engage in a dialogue with the generative system, attuning themselves to its capabilities and limitations. They develop an intuitive understanding of how the system responds to different prompts and learn to navigate its creative potential.

In this process, the artist not only crafts individual artworks but also participates in the broader tradition and discourse of art. Just as traditional craftsmen are situated within a historical and cultural context, the AI-generated artist operates within a rich artistic tradition, drawing inspiration from past works, engaging with contemporary art practices, and contributing to the ongoing evolution of artistic expression.

Heidegger’s philosophy primarily concerns human existence and the nature of being, and it does not explicitly address AI-generated art or similar technological advancements. Therefore, applying his concepts to this context requires interpretation and extrapolation. However, the concept of thinking as a handicraft can serve as a framework for understanding the active, contemplative, and skillful engagement involved in using prompts to create AI-generated art and the integration of human creativity and machine algorithms in the artistic process.

Language Languages

Heidegger’s concept of “language languages” (Sprachen der Sprache) is primarily discussed in his seminal work Being and Time (1927). In this work, Heidegger explores the nature of human existence, the understanding of being, and the role of language in shaping our experience of the world.

For Heidegger, language is not simply a tool for communication or a system of signs and symbols. Instead, he sees language as the house of being, the medium through which we relate to the world and make sense of our existence. He argues that language is intimately tied to our understanding of being and that it has a profound impact on our perception and interpretation of reality.

The concept of “language languages” refers to the plurality of languages within language itself. Heidegger contends that language is not a monolithic entity but rather a collection of various linguistic frameworks, patterns, and modes of expression that shape our understanding of the world. Each language within this plurality has its own unique way of revealing and concealing aspects of reality.

Heidegger argues that our everyday use of language tends to be immersed in a specific language-language, which he calls the “they-self” (das Man). The “they-self” is a mode of existence in which individuals conform to social norms, conventions, and expectations, and lose sight of their own authentic existence. Within this mode of being, language becomes a tool for conforming to the collective and engaging in superficial, everyday communication.

Heidegger contrasts the “they-self” with what he calls the “authentic self” (eigentliches Selbst). The authentic self is characterized by a deeper engagement with language, a critical reflection on the linguistic frameworks that shape our understanding, and a commitment to uncovering the hidden meanings and possibilities of being. In this mode of being, language becomes a means of uncovering truth and disclosing the world in a more profound and authentic way.

The concept of “language languages” is closely tied to Heidegger’s broader philosophical project, which seeks to recover the original, pre-theoretical understanding of being. Heidegger argues that our immersion in everyday language and the “they-self” obscures our access to a more primordial relationship with language and the world.

Heidegger approached language not merely as a means of communication, but as a fundamental aspect of human existence. He believed that language is the primary vehicle through which we make sense of the world and engage with our surroundings. Language is not a neutral tool that we use to describe pre-existing things or ideas; rather, it plays an active role in shaping our perception and interpretation of reality.

According to Heidegger, language is not a single, monolithic entity. Instead, he argued that language encompasses a plurality of languages that reveal different aspects and dimensions of the world. Each language represents a specific historical, cultural, and linguistic context, with its own unique patterns of meaning, symbols, and ways of expressing and understanding the world. For example, Heidegger highlighted the difference between everyday language (Alltägliche Sprache) and technical or scientific language (Wissenschaftliche Sprache). Everyday language is the language we use in our daily interactions, which is embedded in our cultural practices, norms, and shared understandings. It reflects our everyday concerns, emotions, and experiences.

On the other hand, technical or scientific language operates within specific disciplines and specialized domains of knowledge. It employs precise terminology, concepts, and methodologies to describe and analyze particular aspects of reality. Technical language languages are developed within specific communities of experts and often employ highly specialized jargon.

Heidegger argued that different languages shape our understanding of the world in distinct ways. They reveal different perspectives, emphasize different aspects of reality, and establish different horizons of meaning. Each language provides a particular framework through which we interpret and make sense of our experiences.

Heidegger’s exploration of language emerged from his broader philosophical project of understanding the nature of being and human existence. He believed that language is intimately intertwined with our mode of being and that our understanding of being is rooted in our linguistic practices.

Heidegger’s emphasis on language also served as a critique of traditional metaphysics and its reliance on abstract, universal concepts. He argued that traditional metaphysics, by seeking fixed and timeless definitions, neglects the concrete and historically situated nature of language and its role in shaping our understanding of being.

In his later works, Heidegger further delved into the ontological significance of language, exploring its relation to truth, poetic expression, and the disclosure of being. He contended that language not only reveals but also conceals aspects of reality, and that engaging with language in a thoughtful and critical manner is crucial for accessing a deeper understanding of being.

Heidegger’s concept of “language languages” is applicable to prompt writing for AI-generated art, as it involves the interplay between the language world of the artist and the language world of the AI system. This interplay opens up possibilities for transcending the impersonal “they-self” and establishing a more original, personal, existential, and primordial relationship between the artist and language itself.

When an artist engages in prompt writing for AI-generated art, they bring their own language world to the creative process. Their language world encompasses their unique experiences, cultural background, artistic sensibilities, and personal interpretations of the world. The prompts they choose or create reflect their intentions, desires, and creative vision.

The AI system, on the other hand, embodies its own language world. It has been trained on vast amounts of data, acquiring its own patterns, associations, and meanings within language. The system’s language world is shaped by the texts it has been exposed to, the patterns it has learned, and the linguistic biases inherent in the training data.

In this context, the concept of ‘language languages’ becomes relevant. The artist’s language world and the AI system’s language world represent distinct historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts, each with its own unique patterns of meaning and ways of expressing and understanding the world.

The artist’s prompts serve as a bridge between these language worlds. Through the choice of prompts, the artist navigates and negotiates the interaction between their own language world and the language world of the AI system. The prompts can draw from personal experiences, cultural references, specific themes, or conceptual directions that resonate with the artist’s creative vision.

The act of prompt writing allows the artist to shape and infuse their personal language world into the generative process. By selecting or composing prompts that reflect their individual perspective, the artist exercises agency in determining the creative direction and imbuing the AI-generated art with their own existential and primordial relationship to language.

In this way, prompt writing for AI-generated art can transcend the impersonal “they-self” that Heidegger criticizes, where individuals conform to societal norms and expectations, and instead, enable a more authentic and personal engagement with language. The prompts act as a means of reclaiming one’s individuality and unique relationship to language.

Furthermore, by engaging in prompt writing and utilizing the generative capabilities of AI, the artist has the opportunity to explore new possibilities and expand their language world. The AI system’s language world, with its trained patterns and associations, can introduce novel perspectives, unexpected combinations, and alternative interpretations. This interaction between the artist’s language world and the AI system’s language world creates a dynamic interplay that can inspire the artist and generate new insights and aesthetic possibilities.

While Heidegger did not specifically address AI-generated art or similar technological advancements, his emphasis on language provides a framework for understanding the interplay between the artist’s language world and the language world of the AI system. It highlights the potential for transcending the impersonal “they-self” and establishing a more original and personal relationship with language in the context of prompt writing for AI-generated art.

Medium Specificity

The concept of ‘medium specificity’ presents an interesting restatement of the is/ought crisis of Enlightenment reason, namely that what art ought to be should be based on what it is — its medium. This collapse of the is and ought relation is also a collapse of poetics and aesthetics into each other, since medium specificity proposes that the making of a work– its poesis– should flow from the medium, and thus the experience of the work– its aesthetics– is likewise the medium. The medium is the actuality of the work of art, which permeates its virtual meaning-making dimensions.

The distinction between the actual and the virtual has been explored by philosophers in various contexts, including art. In the context of art, the actual refers to the material aspects of the artwork, encompassing the physical properties, tools, and processes involved in its creation. On the other hand, the virtual pertains to the imaginative, interpretive, and meaning-producing aspects of artistic experience, which may transcend the physical manifestation of the artwork itself.

The philosopher Gilles Deleuze extensively discussed the distinction between the actual and the virtual in relation to art. Deleuze proposed that the virtual is not merely the opposite of the actual but rather an autonomous realm of potentiality. According to Deleuze, the virtual is a field of forces, intensities, and possibilities that underlie and give rise to actual manifestations.

In the realm of art, the actual corresponds to the concrete and tangible elements of an artwork. It includes the physical materials employed, such as paint, canvas, or sculptural mediums, as well as the tools and techniques used by the artist. The actual encompasses the sensory qualities, spatial arrangements, and formal characteristics of the artwork. For instance, in painting, the actual would involve the brushstrokes, color palette, composition, and the physical presence of the painting itself.

Conversely, the virtual in art relates to the imaginative and interpretive dimensions of the artistic experience. It encompasses the subjective responses, emotions, and meanings that emerge when engaging with an artwork. The virtual is concerned with the potentiality for multiple interpretations, the evocation of sensations, and the generation of ideas and concepts. It involves the symbolic, metaphorical, and narrative aspects that extend beyond the physical artwork.

The virtual in art is inherently open-ended, allowing for diverse and personal engagements with the artwork. It invites viewers to bring their own experiences, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds into the interpretation process, thereby creating unique and subjective meanings. The virtual dimension of art is where the artist’s intention intersects with the viewer’s response, resulting in a dynamic and interactive exchange of ideas and emotions.

This distinction between the actual and the virtual in art highlights that the material aspects of an artwork provide the foundation for its interpretation and meaning. The actual serves as the tangible medium through which the virtual is expressed and communicated.

The virtual realm expands the possibilities of engagement with art, fostering rich and complex experiences that transcend the materiality of the artwork itself. This conceptual framework allows for a deeper understanding of the relationship between the materiality of art and its potential to evoke imagination, interpretation, and meaning.

Medium specificity proposes that the virtualities of art should be composed of its actualities, collapsing this difference. The concept of “medium specificity” in art theory refers to the idea that the choice of artistic medium significantly influences the content, meaning, and form of an artwork.

It suggests that the material qualities and characteristics of a medium should be considered integral to the artistic expression and interpretation. When examining how medium specificity operates, it becomes apparent that it can be seen as collapsing the distinction between the actual and the virtual in art.

Medium specificity argues that the materiality of an artwork, including its physical properties, techniques, and processes, should play a crucial role in shaping its content. The focus on the material medium emphasizes its unique attributes, limitations, and potentialities, which in turn contribute to the overall meaning and interpretation of the artwork. By foregrounding the material aspects, medium specificity aligns with the actual realm of art.

In this context, the collapse of the distinction between the actual and the virtual occurs because the material medium is understood to be more than just a physical aspect of the artwork. The medium itself becomes a carrier of meaning, imbued with symbolic, historical, cultural, and aesthetic connotations. The physical properties of the medium can evoke emotional responses, generate conceptual associations, and communicate ideas beyond the tangible surface.

By emphasizing the material medium, medium specificity rejects the notion that art is solely concerned with representation or depiction. Instead, it underscores the intrinsic qualities of the medium that contribute to the unique artistic experience. The virtual realm, which encompasses imaginative, interpretive, and meaning-producing aspects, merges with the actual through the medium-specific characteristics and possibilities.

For example, in painting, the use of oil paints and the specific techniques associated with the medium, such as layering, blending, or brushwork, contribute to the visual texture, color effects, and expressive qualities of the artwork. The choice of medium influences the artist’s decision-making process and affects the viewers’ perception, eliciting emotional and intellectual responses that go beyond the mere visual representation.

Medium specificity, therefore, collapses the distinction between the actual and the virtual by asserting that the material medium is not merely a vehicle for artistic expression but an active participant in shaping the content and meaning of the artwork. It acknowledges the inseparable relationship between the materiality of the artwork and the subjective, interpretive realm of artistic experience.

However, it’s important to note that while medium specificity highlights the significance of the material medium, it does not completely exclude the potential for the virtual realm to emerge. The interplay between the actual and the virtual remains dynamic and open, as viewers actively engage with the artwork, bringing their own interpretations, experiences, and associations to the encounter.

The crisis between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ in Enlightenment reason refers to a philosophical dilemma that emerged during the Enlightenment period, particularly in the realm of moral and political philosophy. It centers around the tension between describing how the world is (the realm of facts and empirical observation) and how it ought to be (the realm of values, norms, and ethical considerations). The crisis arises from the difficulty of bridging the gap between descriptive statements about the world and normative statements about how things should be.

David Hume is often credited with highlighting the is-ought problem in his work. Hume argued that there is a fundamental distinction between statements that describe facts or states of affairs (“is”) and statements that prescribe moral or normative judgments (“ought”). He contended that it is not logically valid to derive an ethical or prescriptive claim from purely descriptive premises.

The crisis between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ poses a challenge for Enlightenment reason, which was heavily influenced by empirical observation and rational inquiry. On one hand, Enlightenment thinkers sought to base their moral and political theories on reason and objective observation of the world. They aimed to derive ethical principles from an understanding of human nature and the empirical study of society. However, they struggled to bridge the gap between factual observations about the world and normative judgments about what should be done.

The is-ought problem is often associated with the naturalistic fallacy, which refers to the error of inferring normative claims solely from descriptive or natural facts. This fallacy arises when someone assumes that what is natural or what currently exists in the world is inherently good or morally right. In other words, it is a mistake to derive an ethical prescription solely from a factual observation.

The Enlightenment era witnessed the rise of both empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism emphasized the importance of sensory experience and observation as the basis for knowledge, while rationalism placed greater emphasis on reason and innate ideas. These philosophical perspectives influenced the approaches taken by thinkers in grappling with the is-ought problem.

Immanuel Kant sought to address the is-ought problem through his ethical framework. Kant argued that moral judgments are grounded in reason and the categorical imperative, rather than being derived from empirical observation alone. According to Kant, moral principles are universal and necessary, applying to all rational beings regardless of the contingencies of the world. Thus, for Kant, the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ can be bridged by appealing to reason and universal moral principles.

The is-ought problem and the tension between descriptive and normative claims have continued to be subjects of debate and criticism within moral and political philosophy. Some philosophers argue that ethical principles can be derived from empirical observation through a more nuanced understanding of human nature, social relations, and consequences. Others maintain that the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ is insurmountable and that ethics and normative claims should be understood as distinct from descriptive claims about the world.

The crisis between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ in Enlightenment reason highlights the challenges faced by philosophers and thinkers in reconciling factual descriptions of the world with normative claims about how things should be. The is-ought problem continues to stimulate philosophical inquiry and debate, with various attempts made to bridge the gap between descriptive and normative statements. Resolving this crisis remains a complex task, requiring a nuanced understanding of reason, human nature, ethical principles, and the relationship between facts and values.

The concept of medium specificity in art can be described as an is-ought problem because it involves moving from descriptive statements about what art is (based on its medium) to prescriptive statements about how art ought to be produced. In philosophy, the is-ought problem highlights the difficulty of deriving normative or prescriptive statements from descriptive or factual statements. It recognizes that one cannot logically infer moral or evaluative judgments solely from statements about how things are.

Applying this to medium specificity in art, we can see that the concept describes the inherent characteristics and qualities of different artistic mediums and argues that these qualities should heavily influence the content and production of art. It identifies a descriptive relationship between medium and content, stating that certain artistic outcomes are more suitable or meaningful when aligned with the unique attributes of a specific medium.

However, the is-ought problem arises when medium specificity attempts to prescribe or dictate how art should be produced solely based on its medium. It moves from descriptive statements about the relationship between medium and content to prescriptive statements about what artists ought to create.

For example, if a medium-specific approach asserts that painting should primarily focus on the visual qualities of paint, texture, and brushwork, it implies that artists ought to adhere to these characteristics and prioritize them in their work. This prescriptive aspect implies a normative judgment about how art ought to be produced, based on the descriptive analysis of the medium’s properties. This way of thinking about painting informed movements such as Abstract Expressionism and other nonfigurative approaches in art.

Critics of medium specificity argue that this prescriptive aspect can be limiting and restrictive to artistic expression. They contend that it fails to account for the diversity of artistic practices and the multiplicity of meanings that can be generated through experimentation and hybridization across mediums.

Moreover, the is-ought problem suggests that there is a gap between descriptive statements about the medium and normative claims about artistic production. It reminds us that just because certain characteristics or qualities are inherent to a medium does not necessarily mean that artists ought to adhere to them exclusively or prioritize them above other considerations.

In short, the concept of medium specificity in art can be seen as an is-ought problem because it attempts to derive prescriptive directives about artistic production from descriptive statements about the inherent qualities of a medium. It highlights the challenge of moving from factual descriptions to normative judgments and raises questions about the potential limitations and restrictions imposed by such an approach.

Should artists really take their cue and directives from the stuff they work with? Can a medium dictate in the manner of an actant, telling its other actant– the artist or creator– what to do, under the banner of the poetics or aesthetics of medium specificity?

Noel Carroll (Theorizing the Moving Image, 1996) produced a virtuosic demolishing of the concept of medium specificity. To recount the major moves of his argument:

1) There is typically not “the” medium to talk about. A painting has pigment, canvas and frame, or a film has celluloid, lighting, costume and sound. There is no “the” medium, as media are complex hybrids.

2) Art that proclaims media specificity are usually aping other arts which proclaim medium specificity rather than being specific to their medium. E.g. if painters declare medium specificity as their aesthetic, then filmmakers follow suit, only they are following the rhetorical lead of painters, not being somehow more “true” to the materiality of film. Filmmakers may speak of the film’s “surface,” imitating painters, when film in fact has no “surface” being projected light onto a screen.

3) Media often overlap in their media. E.g. light and shadow pertain equally to painting and photography, just as words can pertain to music, literature, theater and films. There is no sensible way to sanitize media of all possible overlaps with other media, and thus media cannot be isolated from other media in a way that foregrounds their supposed specificity.

4) Medium specificity pretends to prescribe articulating what a medium “does best compared to other media” (p.8). All media can do what they do, and it makes no sense to say that a medium shouldn’t do what it cannot do, since that would be impossible anyway. There is nothing about the medium itself which declares what it is best at, which is a subjective judgment, not a capability of the medium, which affords whatever it happens to afford.

Moreover, it makes no sense to say that this prescription suggests doing what is easiest to do with a medium, since the notion of medium’s ease versus difficulty is not a component of media but of human effort and will. One cannot go “against the grain” (p. 11) because there is no way to tell what the grain actually is.

5) There is no necessary relationship between the materiality of a medium and what it can represent. E.g. nothing follows from the chemistry of celluloid what one should depict with it.

6) “Conflicting aesthetic programs…may be equally grounded in the complex of possibilities afforded by the medium.” (p. 13). There is nothing about media that dictates or “ordains” style. The medium has no power to direct its usage and no power to direct us, its makers and audiences.

7) The aesthetic of medium specificity declares a proper way to use a medium, but “use” itself is not a property of any medium.

8) “Medium specificity theory maximizes purity instead of excellence” (p.16). The skill of the statement or craft with the medium takes second place to a pure use of the material, which is absurd.

9) There is implicit a kind of “division of labor” concept (p. 16) by which different media are said to be best at producing specific kinds of effects. However, there is no issue of “efficient use of scarce resources” (Ibid.) that applies to art which would require such a division of labor in the first place.

10) Medium specificity theorists proclaim variations of their being some kind of “grand plan” (p.18) which organizes all of the many arts according to various schemes of their specific differences, whereas any such plan can only be a human invention and linked to particular historical theses, not to any media.

11) There is no way to “neatly demarcate each artform from all the other arts.” (Ibid.).

12) Medium specificity often turns out to be a guise for recommending particular styles, genres, ideologies and movements rather than promoting the medium itself.

Poetics “vs” Aesthetics

As shown above, the concepts of Poetics and Aesthetics delineate themselves along a production/experiential faultline. Other terms such as ‘form,’ ‘medium,’ ‘structure’ and ‘material’ are intermediary to what can either skew toward the act of making an artifact or the experience of it.

I will ground this distinction in a concrete example, the Academic Quadrangle building at Simon Fraser University. Its architect, Arthur Erickson, intended the quadrangle to represent the various academic disciplines ‘facing each other’ since the building is arrayed as the outline of a square, with a large interior courtyard space, and with office windows of academics in various disciplines facing each other.

This concept is an aspect of the structure’s poetics, an intention that motivates the design and construction, the production and making, of the quadrangle building. Once known about, it makes sense, and can become a new layer in the appreciation of the campus. However, I was unaware of this poetic motivation in my first eight years as faculty at SFU, and the idea that the building was supposed to either symbolize or facilitate interdisciplinarity never crossed my mind in countless experiences of the space.

The campus of course has grown much beyond its original design, with many new buildings added over the half century since the university’s founding, and campuses set up in addition in other regional cities. This central symbol and function of interdisciplinarity, as manifest in the architectural design of the original campus, was in no way apparent to perception or aesthetic experience.

The original aesthetics of the Quadrangle — its perceived and experiential dimensions — related to concrete, brutalism, material honesty, and a mountaintop setting. However, in more recent decades, an additional aesthetic layer has been provided by popular culture, since the Academic Quadrangle often serves as the film set and background of various government conspiracy plots of films and TV series shot in Vancouver.

Aesthetically in the world of film and television, the Quadrangle represents government-alien conspiracies in the X-Files, and was blown up by other aliens in the video game direct-to-video movie Halo, based on the popular video game, where the campus was portrayed as a futuristic military cadet training facility. The Quadrangle has come to represent, in much filmic popular culture, general governmental bureaucracy and militarism, despite the utopian leanings of brutalism or the integration of scenic mountain and inlet views which aim for an integration with aesthetic appreciation of nature.

This is a clear distinction that can be made between poetics and aesthetics, or between motivations of making something and our embodied experienced perceptions, a distinction not based on the kind of empty binaries frequently posed and attacked in poststructuralist discourses, but one that holds up in the encounter with many kinds of works. At the same time, sometimes there may be instances where the distinction between poetics and aesthetics is not too clear. In the interpretation of works, it is often not apparent whether what is being described in a discourse is the makers’ intention or the critics’ interpretations.

As a writer discursively unfolds the logic of a film, piece of music, building or novel for example, s/he may uncover connections and forms that structure the work, and these structures– being discovered through inquiry– are not identical to immediate embodied experience, but rather have undergone temporal and reflective mediations through critical writing. The revelations of inquiry may say much about how something is made, and thus what an experience of it is like, while not necessarily making a formal conceptual distinction between aesthetic and poetic aspects of a work.

Thus in discourse poetics sometimes divides itself between a how and a why, and a critic may discover much of the how– e.g. the formal patterns of a work– which may be other than the motivated intentions, or the why, that went into the original production. Poetics and aesthetics are not a binary separated by a conceptual chasm, but are mediated by the artifact itself, and determined by the position of meaning making discourse.

This is of course to accept, in the first place, the application of poetics to non-literary domains, which has a certain awkwardness to it in that poetics is traditionally associated with literature in a continuum from Aristotle’s founding work to today’s literary theory. Aristotle gave a kind of ontology of certain literary arts, focusing at length on tragedy but also including epic and lyric poetry as well as comedy and the satyr play. Aristotle conducted an inquiry into literary form, with a general aim of defining its most important elements and operations.

The Poetics is not presented as a how-to manual for writers to follow, in the manner of many writing books today, but as a definition of literary arts it does not preclude this use. Throughout the text, Aristotle shows a strong concern with ranking the literary forms in terms of which are “higher” and “lower” than the others, which demonstrates a decisive critical bent toward judgment as his nquiry is designed to support critical judgments of better and worse literary works, as well as higher and lower forms.

The Poetics is also partly a philosophical response to Plato’s characterization of poetry in The Republic, and thus serves a general rhetorical function of continuing an argument begun earlier in philosophy. Also, while The Poetics is mostly devoted to analyzing literary form, some attention is paid to the experience of literary arts which is more properly aesthetic, as in his famous account of catharsis or emotional purging, which one will admit cannot be found in the work itself, in any of its parts, modes, or structures, but only in the experience of the spectator.

The application of poetics to material arts is a more recent historical development based largely on Heidegger’s etymological investigations in which making in general was foregrounded rather than remaining bound strictly to literary products, since poiesis in this larger sense of making has a particular association with his philosophy, in which it is contrasted against something like a ‘mere willful productive capacity’ in the sense of techne’s ‘degeneration’ (a it is characterized) into technical and practical action.

Aesthetics has something of an opposite discursive effect, in that it is traditionally associated with non-linguistic creative production, e.g. sculpture, painting, music, dance, and architecture. Much of the occasional overlap in these two terms, poetics and aesthetics, is confoundingly due to this material distinction between artworks and words, so that what is aesthetic in a painting might well be poetics in a poem!

Since aesthetics has a classical history of being associated with experience and perception, in the Enlightenment era it was extended to include theories of judgment, taste, feeling and value. My usage of these terms attempts to avoid this perceptual-literary bifurcation and instead locates them in either a logic of production (poetics) or a logic of experience (aesthetics), where of course the artifact itself is the crossover point between these two discursive domains.

It is somewhat remarkable that in the long march of time, one can discern only three epochs in the general concept of art. In the first epoch art was techne, undistinguished from crafts and other mechanical arts, and only distinguished against the literary forms. Epic or tragedy were not considered to be techne, while bridge building, weapon making, sculpture and architecture were of a kind.

In contrast to the other “arts,” poetry (and literature in general) was not regarded as a craft since inspiration and genius was required for creating poetry, whereas the crafts demanded scientific and practical knowledge (Åhlberg, 2003, p.134).

An exception to this general rule was that in some ancient and medieval schemes, rhetoric, as a verbal art of persuasion, was classified under the heading of techne, since it was clearly associated as a means (verbal art) toward an end (winning an argument).

In the Middle Ages there developed a distinction between the liberal and the mechanical arts, and most of what would come under the heading techne instead became ‘mechanical.’ The liberal arts were divided into the trivium (rhetoric, logic and grammar) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy), which is roughly equivalent to the contemporary distinction between qualitative and quantitative inquiry.

Notable here of course is music’s inclusion in the quadrivium, due to its capacity of being representable by number. The Enlightenment period gave us the third epoch, whereby the mechanical arts were subdivided into the useful and the pleasurable arts. The arts of pleasure were considered “fine” as in “final” because they were ends in themselves (rather than being ‘fine’ like delicate China dishware), whereas the useful arts were means aimed at other ends.

Today art still largely operates within this mid-18th century epochal distinction and history of categorizations, institutionalized in education along these axes with occasional experiments and exceptions to transcend these distinctions. While an academy may comprise “art and design” in its name, for instance, internally the academic units will typically divide along these lines originally established by the Encyclopedists who set up the Modern System of the Arts, with the new categorization initially developed in Abbé Les beaux arts reduits à un même principe of 1746.

The relatively new modern philosophy of aesthetics was based on this new categorization of the pleasurable as opposed to the useful arts. “As Paul Oskar Kristeller points out, the development of a systematic philosophy of art presupposes a consistent categorization of certain human activities and artifacts as art” (Åhlberg, 2003, p.135).

The fine arts, which were to imitate nature (and in this conception clearly runs straight back to Aristotle’s Poetics with its emphasis on mimesis) included “poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and dance” (Ibid.) while “rhetoric and architecture” were considered to be “mixed arts’’ combining pleasure with utility (Ibid.). This initial classification became more entrenched and codified with D’Alembert’s Discours préliminaire to the Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers of 1751.

Aesthetics as philosophy, however, was not originally the philosophy of art, but rather a philosophy aimed at showing continuity between perception and abstract cognitions. In this context, art was taken as providing exemplary experiences to found this new discourse of perception. It is also notable that Baumgarten, in his Aesthetica (1735) relied heavily on the literary arts as providers of “sensate cognitions,” thus ignoring the traditional (since the ancient era) scheme of dividing the literary from material arts.

Baumgarten’s text, which pre-dates the art classification schemes noted above and which inaugurates contemporary aesthetics as a discipline, is rather more preoccupied with addressing Enlightenment conceptualizations of rationality than in creating a discourse about works of art. The specific philosophical scheme Baumgarten takes aim at is the hierarchical model of cognitions ranging from vague and perceptually obscure to clear and distinct conceptualizations. Hammermeister summarizes as follows:

Leibniz distinguishes on a first level between cognitions that are obscure and those that are clear. Obscure cognitions are such that do not become fully conscious and of which we therefore have no concept. They are so-called petites perceptions, too obscure to allow for the recognition of their object. Leibniz mentions the noise of the ocean as an example, since we cannot attribute the overall noise to the breaking of the individual waves.
Clear cognition, however, is conscious and allows for the recognition of the object. But clear cognition subsumes under it a whole spectrum of cognitive achievements that become ever more complete. The lowest level of clear cognition divides itself into confused and distinct cognitive insight. We call a cognition clear and confused if the object possess a multitude of (sensible) features, but we cannot list them separately.
We do know they exist, but we would fail in an attempt to list them one by one. In opposition to this level, a clear and distinct cognition is able to enumerate all features of the object and give a complete definition of it. Leibniz splits the distinct cognition again into adequate and inadequate, as well as into symbolic and intuitive.
Somewhat simplified, we can take him to say that these higher levels of cognition are purely rational, most of them are rare achievements for human beings, and the very highest level, adequate and intuitive knowledge, is reserved for God who possess a complete and instantaneous knowledge of all features of the object (2002, p.5).

Against this division of cognition into distinct kinds or zones, Baumgarten endeavors to re-establish the overall continuity of consciousness. Rather than split or carved up into hierarchical zones which privileges rational conceptions above all others, cognition is reconceived as joined in all of its aspects such that even perceptions have a kind of rationality that pertains to them. In this new scheme, poetry can be said to be “a perfect sensate discourse” (Åhlberg, 2002, p.147). Aesthetics is to be “the science of perception” (Ibid.) drawing out the rationality of the senses, which Baumgarten terms the “analogon rationis” (p.148) or “thinking in analogy with reason” (Ibid.).

Baumgarten’s Aesthetica opens with the statement, “Aesthetics (as the theory of the liberal arts, as inferior cognition, as the art of beautiful thinking and as the art of thinking analogous to reason) is the science of sensual cognition” (cited in Hammermeister, p. 7). It is this analogical power that allows for a “bridge between the sensible and the intelligible worlds” (Åhlberg, p.150).

It will be clear that Baumgarten does not strive to undo the hierarchical scheme of Leibniz but rather in the main accepts it, taking as his task the role of unifying cognitions into a continuity through demonstrating the role of analogy as the connective tissue between perceptions and abstract ideas.

Despite its emphasis on the senses and their cognitive value, Baumgarten’s aesthetics must not be regarded as an intentional break with, or even an intentional critique of, the rationalist metaphysics of Leibniz and Wolff. Its primary interest seems to be the strengthening of the rationalist system by including neglected elements that should ultimately serve to further the cause of rational cognition (Hammermeister, p.7).

There is also a kind of “loss recovery” component for Baumgarten, because each layer of abstraction in cognition comes at the loss of finer grained detail.

I believe that it should be completely evident to philosophers that all the specific formal perfection contained in cognition and logical truth had to be bought dearly by a great and significant loss of material perfection. For what else is abstraction than a loss?” (cited in Kaiser, 2011, p. 1).
Much like Nietzsche, Baumgarten regards logical truth to be an impoverished abstraction, that is, a movement from concrete instances to a general concept. The multitude of concrete sensual experiences carries with it a sense of fullness, vibrancy, and liveliness that gets lost in abstraction. (Hammermeister, p. 10)

Perception is to be regarded as a form of “sensate thinking” (Ibid.) rather than as a non-thinking, as an “independent faculty” and “a specific achievement of the soul” (Hammermeister, p.9). “The founding principle which Baumgarten elaborated between 1737 and 1750 was continuity– between sensibility and reason, intuition and concept, sensate and rational perfection” (Howard Caygill, cited in Kaiser p. 7).

We can see in Baumgarten’s own reference to his science of the “liberal arts’’ a reference to the earlier scholastic scheme or second epoch of art that in his time was only beginning to be replaced by the scheme of the Encyclopedists who inaugurated the third epoch that still strongly defines our contemporary era. At the same time, there is perhaps something new in the way that he includes the literary arts within the scope of aisthesis or perception, as since the Greeks the literary was distinguished against the forms of techne.

In his writings a few years later, Moses Mendelssohn would take up the theme of pleasure in the arts and thus show a dependency on the Encyclopedist’s new system of art (Hammermeister, p. 10) which I have called its third epoch, whereas Baumgarten is more interested in the sensual’s role in overall cognition.

Aesthetics is thus inaugurated as an independent discipline at the end of one epoch and the start of a new one, and within the short number of years between Baumgarten Aesthetica of 1735 and Mendelssohn’s writings of 1755 (Letters on Sensation), 1757 (On the main principles of the beaux and liberal arts) and 1758 (On the sublime and naive in the liberal arts), aesthetics had transformed itself from a theory of sensual cognition into its more recognizable form as theory associated with works of art.

Recall that Batteux’s and D’Alembert’s publications, noted above, which articulated the new categorization of the arts, were in 1746 and 1751, respectively. While it is outside the scope here to consider Baumgarten’s use by the French thinkers, it is clear that his new conceptualization of perceptual cognition played a critical role in this transition between the epochs of art.

Today the discourse on perceptual cognition has continued along other lines of development, associated, for example, with fields such as phenomenology, semiotics and experimental psychology. Our two contrasting words, poetics and aesthetics, grounded in the discourses of Aristotle and Baumgarten respectively (with some inflection by Heidegger via his etymological take on the Greek word poiesis), is operationalized here, which is to say, constructed, defined and put to work in ways that support AI art-making.

Given the deep history of these words, replete with many contrasting accounts, I have summarized what I take to be the essential highlights of the concepts in light of their historicity and major moments.

Poetics as Input, Aesthetics as Output

“digital art portrait of a peasant taking a selfie with their hand held high with a mobile phone in the style of Rembrandt” AI art

“digital art portrait of a peasant taking a selfie with their hand held high with a mobile phone in the style of ancient Egyptian art” AI art

References

Åhlberg, L.O. (2003). The Invention of Modern Aesthetics: From Leibniz to Kant. Historicni seminar 4 (2001–2003), ISSN 961–6358–84–7, pp. 133–153. Retrieved from: http://hs.zrc-sazu.si/Portals/0/sp/hs4/13-HS_4_web_Ahlberg.pdf

Aristotle. (1996). Poetics (trans. Malcolm Heath). Penguin Classics.

Baumgarten, A. G. (1750). Aesthetica Philosophica. Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.

Carroll, N. (1996). Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy? Columbia University Press, New York.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2015). A Thousand Plateaus. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Hammermeister, K. (2002). The German Aesthetic Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002073480.pdf

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. (trans. A. V. Miller). Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1971). “The Origin of the Work of Art.” In Poetry, Language, Thought (trans. A. Hofstadter), Harper Perennial.

Heidegger, M. (1993). “The Thing.” In Poetry, Language, Thought (trans. A. Hofstadter), Harper Perennial.

Heidegger, M. (2010). Contributions to Philosophy (trans. P. Emad and K. Maly). Indiana University Press.

Heidegger, M. (2001). “Building, Dwelling, Thinking.” In Poetry, Language, Thought (trans. A. Hofstadter), Harper Perennial.

Kaiser, B.M.. (2011). On aesthetics, aisthetics and sensation — reading Baumgarten with Leibniz with Deleuze, Igitur Archief — Utrecht Publishing and Archiving Service. Retrieved at June 8, 2012, from the website temoa : Open Educational Resources (OER) Portal at http://www.temoa.info/node/325860

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.

Rosch, E. (1978). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 73–98). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.