Employing the concept of Baroque art to break down whether Artificial Intelligence can really produce art

By TARA ROMERO — tcrome@ucdavis.edu

With the rising amount of Artificial Intelligence (AI) “art” appearing on our X timelines, we are facing the beginning of a new era in the art world — whether we want to or not. With AI’s rapid spread throughout the art industry, the question on everyone’s minds is: Can we consider the images that AI produces to be art?

Essentially, AI art takes artwork which has already been created and folds together a number of artists’ techniques and styles to produce a “new” piece — a piece that plagiarizes an infinite amount of artists within the AI’s database. 

One art historian, Gilles Deleuze, wrote a book titled “The Fold” in 1988, where he defines Baroque art in a way that is surprisingly similar to how AI art programs operate. 

“[Baroque is an] operative function [where] it endlessly creates folds,” the opening text reads. “It does not invent the thing […] but it twists and turns the folds, tak[ing] them to infinity.” 

To understand where Deleuze’s claim is coming from, we first need a bit of background on what Baroque art is and where it came from.

The Baroque era in European history is notoriously difficult to describe. Different art historians make contrasting claims about how to define it, and are even conflicted about when the Baroque period begins and ends. Some art historians claim that Baroque never even existed. 

However, the Baroque period is generally considered to roughly date between 1550 and 1750, spanning all across Europe and parts of the Americas at the start of European colonization. 

Most notably for Deleuze’s argument, the Baroque period is thought to be the successor of the Renaissance. During their era, Renaissance artists referenced Greek and Roman antiquity for inspiration, contributing to many artistic developments that centered on perspective, symmetry and balance. 

The term “Baroque” itself etymologically comes from the Portuguese word for an “irregular pearl” — referring to something beautiful that is distorted. Using this word to describe Baroque art was intentional. Baroque artists were trained in Renaissance techniques but morphed them for artistic and emotional effect. For example, Baroque artist Gian Lorenzo Bernini would use the Renaissance’s “divine proportions” as a base for his works, but he then played with these proportions to create the sensation of movement within his art.

Before Heinrich Wölfflin’s analysis of “Renaissance and Baroque,” the art history scene reduced Baroque art to a cheap copy and accentuation of the Renaissance. However, Wölfflin redefined this era by comparing Baroque works to those of the Renaissance, giving credit to the techniques through which Baroque artists created movement and a unique sensational experience for the viewer — unlike anything seen before in European art. 

With this understanding, let’s return to Deleuze’s argument. He views Baroque as an idea, rather than strictly the artistic period. While the Baroque art period serves as the basis of his argument, Deleuze centers more on the philosophical meaning of the Baroque. For something to be Baroque, an artist takes what has already been made and folds it, morphing it into something new.

Deleuze’s redefinition of Baroque challenges how we view artistic inspiration. So, where would Deleuze’s definition place AI art?

Even though Deleuze believes that Baroque “does not invent the thing,” that does not mean that Baroque art is inherently plagiarism, either. One look at a Baroque piece and you will see it looks completely different from a Renaissance piece — from the use of light to the composition, you can tell they are vastly different. Baroque art does take inspiration from the Renaissance, but it feels nothing like a copy. 

Unlike the Baroque artists who used the Renaissance as inspiration, AI is not intentional in its “inspiration.” The only “intention” that goes into AI art is the three seconds that it takes a human being to type in the prompt. 

Creating a work of art is an intimate process filled with thousands of decisions that are strategically and thoughtfully taken by the artist. Baroque artists played with and distorted Renaissance artistic ideals with purpose. Every fold and twist in a piece that makes something Baroque was placed meticulously by a human being — each fold is intentional. 

The ability to create art is inherently human. Since our very inception, humans have created art as a way to express ourselves and the world around us — our creativity is limitless. To claim that AI programs produce real art is not only disrespectful to artists, but to humanity’s endless capacity for creativity as a whole. While an AI program which folds upon an infinite source of artists’ works might be Baroque, it certainly cannot be considered art.

Written by: Tara Romero— tcrome@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The pressures of accomplishing certain life milestones “on time” is overwhelming 

By JHANA RHODES—jsrho@ucdavis.edu

          When I was younger, I always told myself that I would meet my future husband by the age of 20, marry him by 27 and have kids by 30. I am nearing 25 years of age and have made no progress in my goals. In the words of Jane Austen — “I’ve no money and no prospects.” 

Nowadays, it seems like everyone has figured out life, except for me. While most people my age already have college degrees, their first salaried job and have been in a long-term relationship with their high school sweetheart — I have none of those things. Instead, I’m sitting at my desk complaining about my life in an opinion essay. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still at a young age where I can accomplish many things before I reach my midlife crisis. However, I can’t help but feel like I’m falling behind. And, unfortunately, I know that I’m not the only one that feels this way.

          This feeling of falling behind stems from a much bigger problem in our society. Unrealistic social pressures create strict timelines that dictate how and when we should accomplish life goals. When this happens, it fosters a sense of competitiveness and comparison within our society, where the ones who are “on track” get the praise and those who are “falling behind” are condemned. 

It’s during the holidays when I come face to face with these demands most often. 

          “Do you have a boyfriend?”

          “What about marriage? You should hurry if you want to have kids.” 

          “My daughter is your age, and she’s engaged!”

          From the outside, these questions appear harmless — but they are, in fact, the complete opposite. There have been so many times when I declined family get-togethers just so I could avoid being interrogated. The few times that Thanksgiving dinner was hosted at my house, I’d stay in my room all night just to avoid “harmless” discourse. If these questions were meant to encourage me, then why do I feel so bad?

When external and internal influences pressure you to reach certain milestones, it can be extremely discouraging when you haven’t reached them. No matter how hard I wish I could be thrifty, flirty and thriving with a high-paying job, a mega-mansion and the paycheck to prove it, I’m just not there (yet).

          Reaching significant milestones, whether they are related to a career, marriage or having children, is a considerable accomplishment that should be celebrated. However, because of everyone’s diverse goals, aspirations and lifestyles, everyone’s journey will differ. No matter how old you are or where you are, no amount of time can determine when life will fall into place. Some of us start university late, some may not want to have kids and some don’t plan on getting married. It’s important to know that you aren’t “falling behind” — you are just going at your own pace.

          So, the next time you’re at a family get-together and they decide to set up a mock trial — make sure to set boundaries with them and yourself. Although it is imperative to work hard in every aspect of your life, don’t place unrealistic expectations on yourself. No matter how much of your life you have lived, when it comes down to accomplishing milestones, no time is correct if you aren’t ready to take that next step. Take your time and live your life the way you want to. 

Written by: Jhana Rhodes— jsrho@ucdavis.edu 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Using your defeat as a tool for improvement

By VIOLET ZANZOT— vmzanzot@ucdavis.edu

So, you failed. You let yourself down, got a failing grade in class, got broken up with or felt like the world might end, all because you messed up. I don’t actually know if you have experienced these things, but I can tell you for a fact that I certainly have. It was not pretty, fun or cute, and I definitely felt like I had failed — yet, here I stand.

 Failure as an action includes conditions we all seem to have signed on to. For instance, failure is measurable. This means that there is an alternative to failure: there could have been success. It also means that there is a standard, a determining factor that dictates whether some action is a failure or not. 

Too often, that determining factor is society, and too often, the thing we use as a measuring stick is other people. The alternative isn’t so great, either: We also use ourselves as the measuring stick. Either way, comparing our actions to other actions is futile. Yet, this comparison, which leads to inevitable failure, is everywhere — and it’s getting worse. 

“The phenomenon of personal failure has grown exponentially over recent decades,”  author Michael White said in an article by Informit. “Never before has the sense of being a failure to be an adequate person been so freely available to people, and never before has it been so willingly and routinely dispensed.”

Things are getting harder. We compare ourselves more often because we have become hyper-socialized and grown overly accustomed to living in a competitive environment. We reside in an anxious society that often feels divided between winners and losers, or those who succeed and those who fail. 

I’m almost certain that I’m not the first to say it, but as a society, we need to take a deep breath and get comfortable with failure. At its worst, it is a means of comparison by which we deem ourselves to be lesser. Comparison is nothing if not “the thief of joy.” I think that, if we need failure to be something, it can serve as an answer to one of our internal questions.

How often in life do we actually get any real answers, especially to those philosophical questions we ask ourselves? Is our idea of failure just a way for us to reconcile with a truth we might be afraid of? However, if we settle on the idea that we are simply not good enough at something, that is a definitive answer. 

So, congratulations, you have failed at something. What that means is that you have an answer to a question. Are you good enough to be in the National Basketball Association (NBA)? Maybe not. Should you be afraid to try out for your community basketball team? Also, maybe not. Because in order to get the answer to the question, we have to try. 

I think when I set out to write about failure, I intended to bash on comparison. To damn the word “should” to oblivion because it has just become another metric people use to compare things. Now that I’m nearing the end, I realize that I failed in condemning comparison.

 Failure is a way to get an answer, and trying is a way to ask a question. I certainly don’t think there are many better things than being inquisitive, except maybe just being kind. My point is, while on a personal scale it might feel like you’re failing, or maybe in the socio-political atmosphere it feels as though we are collectively failing, maybe that’s just an answer to a question. Your next question should be: How can we try harder? Or, better yet — what can we do differently?

Written by: Violet Zanzot— vmzanzot@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Balancing necessity and the temptation of overreach

By NEVAEH KARRAKER— nakarraker@ucdavis.edu

Imagine one day the name for “sushi” is suddenly altered to “fish-rice burritos” throughout all restaurants. An eruption of repulsion and anger rises — no one likes it. It neglects Japan’s influential and unique culture.

Similarly, President Donald Trump signed executive orders to legally rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and the Alaskan peak Denali to Mount McKinley. The Interior Department stands by the president’s expeditious orders claiming that the process of retitling preserves American heritage, reintroduces patriotism and honors former President William McKinley — the peak was referred to as McKinley until former President Barack Obama issued the name change to Denali. As far as the Gulf of America, there is an incentive to enforce a rigid, straight-line border across this large body of water.

However, it is doubtful that this change will be internationally accepted or even accepted within the United States. Alaskan senators have fought to recognize the indigenous cultural history of the mountain for years, as Denali has been a historical landmark cherished by the Alaskan people. Unfortunately, sometimes promoting one culture means rejecting another.

Additionally, declaring a national emergency on the southern border has sparked conflict across America. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has swiftly detained thousands of suspected undocumented immigrants, sending the nation into a frenzy of terror. This fear was only amplified when Trump announced plans for a mass detention camp. He then endeavored to freeze federal funding of grants and loans to remove remnants of the “woke ideologies” embedded within the system.

After a federal judge temporarily intercepted this bold stance, the White House rescinded the freeze. However, one thing has been made clear — executive orders are driven by preferences. This seems obvious, considering that the Republican and Democratic parties will institute opposing policies aligning with their political beliefs, but there’s another layer to it — traces of bias.

When this bias is introduced, the term democracy becomes very convoluted, and we have to remember that an election is a time for the people to vote for a representative. Regardless of the party, administered policies will possess a certain percentage of this quality. While federal actions like increasing job opportunities, improving the economy and protecting culture have favorable outcomes for all, oftentimes the integrity of the methods employed is controversial.

Hence, this is where we might perceive exploitation of power or, to a greater extreme, possible dictatorship. To prevent this, the simple solution seems to be to completely do away with executive orders. That way, all future presidents won’t inherit unbalanced amounts of authority.

Yet, getting rid of executive orders would be undoing a whole governmental system. The executive branch would lose an incredible amount of power. Some may prefer that, but the consequences of this implication should not be taken lightly.

The purpose of executive orders is to direct the federal government to help mitigate national emergencies, like delegating wars and refining policies. Without it, the government would be at a severe disadvantage, as the branch would have no way of enforcing rapid legislation.

It is important to keep in mind that there are upstanding examples of executive orders. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation, the desegregation of the military and the formation of public schools were all executive orders issued by former presidents.

While there have been more than a few unethical resolutions passed, such as the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans and banning the LGBTQ+ community from the workforce, the process itself was intended to be virtuous. 

Ultimately, there needs to be balance. Maybe the concern isn’t who is in power, but how they wield it. Executive orders have resulted in the documentation of both groundbreaking advancements and also controversy, revealing whether the decisions were based on personal or public preferences and whether they alienated entire communities or united them. 

Trump’s authority is certainly characterized by a hint of excessiveness strikingly similar to Elle Woods from “Legally Blonde,” yet there is much more than pink frills and spirited speeches in his current administration — although it would surely be humorous if a legislature were passed for officials to wear more bright colors. A lack of executive orders weakens the executive branch, but unrestrained authority could lead to unwanted and harmful changes for the American people.

In the end, perhaps there should be a little less “main character energy” and a little more collaboration, such that executive orders refrain from being a mockery of political statements to advance one’s career.

Written by: Nevaeh Karraker—nakarraker@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.