A Definition of ‘Post-Theory Art’ — Separating Human Theories from AI Theories in Art
Introduction and Definition
This brief article proposes a definition of Post-Theory in the context of art:
“Post-Theory Art” is about theories in art by humans only — distinct from Theory Art, which is about theories made not just by humans, but also artificial intelligence.”
“Theory” can be made by anyone or anything, including AI. But only humans can make a certain type of theory, one that is truly human. That is “Post-Theory.” In the context of art, that is “post-theory art.”
This paper proposes that such a definition — and distinction — is necessary because AI is now capable of generating theories in science, mathematics, philosophy — all parts of the human experience — including about art, and in art.
However, AI-generated theories do not arise from any one human’s lived experience — nor humanity’s collective lived experience, nor human interpretative reasoning, which includes the emotional — the heart, not just the head.
Such a definition of Post-Theory, as proposed here, not only recognizes Post-Theory theories through a definition — it also preserves human theories, including the act of human-theory-making. The use of a Post-Theory definition, and the post-theory distinction from regular theory, ensures that human theorization remains recognized as having intrinsic worth. A human-made theory matters.
Even if flawed, imperfect, or marred, human-made theories count.
This distinction, if valid, would also matter not just in human art, but also human philosophy, and even in the sciences. One reason for this assertion is this:
Isn’t it true that a human-made theory is not always intentional?
Some human theories just happen. We call it inspiration. Some call it sometime Divine Intervention. Or we say this: “It just came to me.”
This spontaneous burst, out of nowhere, that the human has, without even trying, without any intentional act at all. Sometimes even in our dreams.
So far, AI has not had a brilliant idea while walking in the woods, or laughing with a lover, or watching soccer somewhere in the world while drinking a cerveza.
Ultimately, human theory-making may be seen as both receptive and interpretative, and not always an intentional act of making.
Sometimes it just comes to us. Sometimes during acute pressure, acute lows, and acute highs.
AI theory-making, in contrast, is always planned — and only in the most boring of ways—a scheduled data extrapolation exercise.
Where’s the Divine Intervention in that?
