(on real art)

the diminished status of art in occulture has only gotten worse in the age of AI

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
- Ecclesiastes 9:4-12

I’ve been talking about how art is extremely devalued within public occulture for well over a decade now. I’ve been thinking about this a lot more recently in light of AI. I posted this on facebook the other day:

about 10 years ago or so I remember posting on twitter about how bizarre it was to me that art was so devalued in public occulture over writing and that only people who wrote books were taken seriously. but it’s always been clear that the reason for this is that the majority of online occultists are actually armchair magicians who would rather just think about magic than actually do it. this has taken on a new dimension in the age of AI where the prevailing sentiment among occultists seems to be that AI “art” is perfectly fine to use but not writing. It says a lot to me about how little people value artists and the creation of art (an actual magical act) over the intellectualization of ideas (important but separate from actual practice.) And imho that’s because the latter is the only one armchair magicians can relate to.

To be clear, I don’t actually think there is anything wrong with being an armchair magician. I don’t work every grimoire I read. I consume plenty of media centered around magic purely as infotainment. I think magic is cool and interesting. It’s my autistic special interest, you could say. I just don’t think that people who don’t actually practice or have direct experience of things should be the spokespeople for them.

There’s already been much said about the ethics of AI use by much better writers than myself. It’s problematic on many levels I’m sure you are aware of that I won’t get into here. What I wanted to address here specifically is my beef with it that is, for obvious reasons, discussed much less often than its ethical implications:

It’s fucking ugly.

I have not seen a single piece of AI “art” that didn’t look like utter, soulless dogshit. It’s sterile and hollow. The vibes are terrible. I actively feel bad looking at it.

It’s dead.

I know a lot of people with differing opinions on this. Plenty of occultists have gleefully adopted its use, despite being on their high horses about ethics around theft of work and originality for years. Many are passing off AI art and writing as their own work (though the tells are always there if you know how to look). Others see art as simply window dressing for their brilliant ideas (the REAL work), so who cares where it comes from. Here’s the thing, though:

I’ve never seen a person who likes or uses AI art who has good taste or a sense of style that I remotely admire in any way.

It’s become popular to dismiss much of the magical practice seen online as empty aesthetics, and while that is often the case, this has led to a popularization of the idea that aesthetics do not matter at all to the practice of magic. I vehemently disagree. They are not the only thing that matters, and emergency or on-the-fly workings are often crude and visually unappealing, but if magic is a means of ordering the universe according to our will, how can we say that aesthetics are meaningless? When it comes to magic, everything matters. Consider what you are feeding it and representing it with. And consider the implications of outsourcing your creativity, which is the most divine part of yourself.

Real art and real magic are, and always will be, the spoils of ordeal. True artists know this. True magicians know this. You don’t have to suffer to make good art, but you do have to struggle. It’s not really fire if you didn’t have to steal it from the gods. Know the difference, and support those who still find the distinction meaningful.

Prometheus Carrying Fire - Jan Cossiers (1600-1671) - Prado Museum