Bots faking it as people is a fact of modern life - but is it art?

Computer says "This is not art; no beauty, no skill, no emotional depth, it is merely a statement devoid of any artistic merit...no!"

by Rob Corbidge

Published: 12:29, 26 September 2024

Criticism, or in the less biting modern parlance, reviewing, is one of those areas of media competence that still pulls in the eyeballs. 

One of my earliest memorable tasks in media did not involve learning how to report, but instead using my young legs and best suit to act an usher at the funeral of Dilys Powell, film critic for The Sunday Times, who wrote for the newspaper for 50 years. 

She was held in such great esteem by both the newspaper and the wider cultural community that her funeral was attended by many of the great and good, and as a testament to a life well lived it was a lesson for me.

Yet as well as bringing fresh ideas, attitude and even language to the world of film criticism, Powell also clearly made a contribution to that all-important item - the newspaper's bottom line. The same could be said of fellow film critic Pauline Kael, on the other side of the Atlantic. 

A good critic, skilled in their delivery, confident in their cultural authority and with clear and well articulated ideas, remains a draw for audiences across many a milieu. 

One of the most obvious developments in the contemporary period is how the number of public relations operatives has increased while the number of journalists shrunk, leading to those who must navigate these publicity gatekeepers being branded "access media" by those who don't engage with them and who instead use the democratising nature of the technology platforms to disseminate their own critical reviews.  

Whatever the case, criticism remains a popular content form across numerous areas of human cultural endeavour, from music to food.

This week then brought the unexpected news that AI is being utilised to bring one of Britain's most famous art critics back to life. Brian Sewell wrote for the London Evening Standard for many decades, and was known for his unforgiving views on many artists and their work.

He was "a man intent on keeping his Christmas card list nice and short" as one contemporary put it. Yet, as infuriating as many found his views, at least an equal number revelled in them, and enjoyed his intelligent and engaging writing, as well as his carefully modulated spoken persona on broadcast media.

He is to be brought back for another, single appearance, despite having died in 2015. The Evening Standard has confirmed that "A.I. Sewell" is to review The National Gallery’s latest Vincent van Gogh exhibition, Van Gogh: Poets and Lovers, as the once-daily publication relaunches as a weekly this week. According to the Standard's chief executive Paul Kanareck, the idea is "a one-off intended to provoke discussion about AI and journalism". 

So it is, of course, a stunt being undertaken for the publicity, an aim which we have clearly fulfilled by writing about it.

The reaction to the news that a dead person is doing journalism among such people that hear "AI" and "job losses" in the same thought is understandable, given what we are told, ad nauseam, about the capabilities of the technology. 

Many too questioned the legality of it, though the Standard's quick assertion that "the estate are delighted" shows they have done their homework: the recent EU AI Act - not enforced yet but likely to become a model for others bringing their own legislation to fruit - does not allow writers to be 'cloned' without their personal approval, or in cases where the author is dead, of their estate. 

I feel however that such a reaction is missing a more important point.

There's no doubt that a model trained on the words of Brian Sewell will be able to produce writing that is a fairly close simulacrum of his work. It will be working on fairly safe ground with a Van Gogh exhibition: although Sewell liked to look forwards as much as back, he admired the Dutch artist.

Yet, other than cramming the ideas "journalism" and "AI" into the same content can and bashing the lid shut with a heavy production hammer, this project adds nothing to the canon of Sewell's work, and nothing to the volumes of work written about Van Gogh.

It isn't Sewell, it's a generic pattern of Sewell, of interest in the same way an impressionist is for how similar to their subject they might sound, and can add no value to the brand that was the man. It has value only as a gimmick, and really isn't much of a showcase for AI. This is not a path for the longevity of our industry.

If you take a read of Pauline Kale's wiki entry, you'll learn that she started on the path to critical fame after a magazine owner "overheard Kael arguing about films in a coffee shop with a friend".

There's another Sewell out there for sure waiting to be found by one means or another, we really don't need to reanimate the dead one, as amusing as he would have probably found it.