THE threat posed by the alarming development of artificial intelligence (AI) has not subsided for some weeks now, as can be observed on social media and attested by major industry players. The mere thought of possible disruptions once AI becomes unrestrained causes anxiety for many. Some describe this technology as a work in progress toward superintelligence. It is undeniable that the power and reach of this technology are becoming colossal in scale and far beyond what humanity needs.
It is alarming to also realize how AI is affecting art in all its forms, a field within the humanities that has not been spared from the technology’s disruptive presence. But hope is not lost, as long as we remain grounded in our desire for the authentic over the artificial.
A few weeks ago, an international initiative brought together universities from around the globe to form the Catholic Universities Art Triennial, a project dedicated to exploring how art can address the most relevant issues today. As news reports said, “Catholic universities offer art as a way of addressing today’s problems.” Over the coming months, these universities will host exhibitions, commissions, publications and public programs. This major event is promoted by the Dicastery for Culture and Education of the Holy See.
One may ask: “Can art really help solve today’s problems?” The answer is yes, provided that the issue of AI-generated art is addressed first. As the Art Triennial highlights, the primary role of art in higher education is “to promote human relationships and the concept of empathy,” in which AI is devoid of having and doing.
Saving art from AI requires returning to the experience of life’s deeper meaning: the power of inspiration, appreciation, and the freedom to create. These may be considered the fundamentals of human existence.
Tackling this issue is more crucial than ever, especially now that AI is increasingly encroaching upon the domain of art.
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical “Magnifica Humanitas” (Magnificent Humanity) points out that AI systems “may simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.”
In contrast to AI-generated works, human art is supposed to transform universities into educational communities that strengthen our capacity to create — to generate new ideas, connect what was previously divided, and imagine new versions of the world. As the Art Triennial emphasizes, artworks “should be seen as invitations to join in an act of ‘co-creation’ instead of simply a technical exercise in repetition.”
Pope Leo has a term for a human process in the act of creating: a divine “spark.” This is found exclusively in human endeavor, not in high technological complexity. Human creation is the locus of inspiration; it touches the soul directly and amplifies a capacity for creativity that no machine possesses.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that contemporary philosophical thought can also deepen our understanding of genuine art, as opposed to AI-generated outputs.
For instance, the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, a disciple of the phenomenologist Martin Heidegger, explains in his magnum opus, “Truth and Method: Elements of Philosophical Hermeneutics”: “Hermeneutical aesthetics regards aesthetic appearance not as a distraction from the real but as the vehicle through which real subject matters reveal themselves. It overturns the notion that artworks are at one remove from reality.”
An artwork is not a passive object merely installed in a museum; its true existence as a reflection of reality unfolds when it is performed, viewed, or read.
No matter how elegantly generated an AI piece may be, it remains a shadow of the real art. AI can never present the essence of reality as clearly as a human immersed in the lived experience of everyday life. For example, a masterful portrait does not merely replicate a person’s face; it reveals the intrinsic truth of who that person is and his web of experiences in the world.
Maintaining skepticism toward AI-generated art may feel like a repetitive exercise during these times, but it is necessary in this age of artificial intelligence, where distinguishing human art from machine output has become urgent.
Thus, following Gadamer’s thought, one should ask when standing before a work of art: Does it possess an inner necessity and truth to convey, or is it merely a technical simulation of style?
If AI-produced art functions merely as a prompt-and-output generator for rapid and mass consumption, it risks bypassing the sublime process of internalization that aesthetic truth requires.
While there are distinct nuances between the Thomistic understanding of truth and essence and that of Heidegger and Gadamer, that is a topic for a separate discussion. What matters here is that both frameworks ground art in the ontological reality of human existence — a dimension entirely absent from AI and its “works” of art.
Fr. Jesus “Jay” Miranda Jr., OP, is an organization and leadership studies resource person. He teaches at the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School and the Department of Educational Leadership and Management of the Bro. Andrew Gonzalez, FSC, College of Education of De La Salle University, Manila.
jaymiranda.op@ust.edu.ph
jmmiranda@letranbataan.edu.ph