“Sometimes I Sits and Thinks …

… and sometimes I just sits…”

A while ago, I had been pondering about ideas on the value of art, aesthetics and the like, and talking to Michael who, in one of his pieces, asked: “I wonder what would JMW Turner would have done if he had a smartphone when The Fighting Temeraire sailed in for its last voyage to the breakers yard?” And also,  “How would Gauguin have captured When Will You Marry in Tahiti if he had had an Apple phone in his haversack?”

In today’s world, it clearly would be to take photographs on their smartphones  – and probably work in the comfort of their studios!

Thus, thinking about writing about it for fun – when is it not so? –  in theCafé, I naturally  wondered what the real meaning of ‘art’ is at the end of the 1^st quarter of the 21^st Century?  I ask myself how in this age of technology, software manipulation and AI, and the context of changing values, ‘protocols’ and of social media, do such considerations impact, if at all, upon the creative process, the ‘ownership’ or the possession of art and/or the way it is enjoyed?

Even looking at images of the travels and reactions of some in one’s own family, it is immediately apparent that great scenes, vistas, and the art of history along with perspectives of the natural world, all appear to have become rather trivialised backgrounds for ’selfies’ that are placed on social media to be seen by millions around the world: ‘This is me at … the Taj Mahal’ etc.

As technology further ‘empowers’ us ordinary folk, so we find that the ability to ‘capture the moment’ is being overtaken, even corrupted, by the ability to ‘construct a scene’ that will attract ‘clicks and views’. The passions of children, animals and other humans have been reduced to ‘click bait’ and, frequently, to staged events – leaving some feeling ‘empowered’ as ‘stars’ promenading for the on-line community. Andy Warhol certainly appears to have had it right when he said: “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes”.

Against this backdrop, it remains true that varied cohorts of ‘authority’ often seek to limit and otherwise restrain ‘freedom of expression’. From the likes of the Nazi’s with their ideas of “Degenerate Art” to today’s censorship of modern masters like Picasso, Kandinsky, and Munch.  There is nothing new in this: censorship has occurred throughout human history for reasons of religious, political, or moral offence, even including Francisco de Goya’s “The Two Majas“.  Even in ‘Trump’s America’, the so-called ‘land of the free’ we see modern performance art receiving threats, or government funding being cut due to prejudice over content.

Whilst in the UK, in 2025, we have Banksy painting his protests about Gaza and the Palestinians on the Walls of the Pharaoh’s High Court (the Royal Courts of Justice) – who promptly sent out their own ‘philistines’ that, finding no lamb’s blood on the doors,  proceeded to wipe out his ‘message’ the night before the ‘Gaza Plasticine’ protests began.

I have been privileged to stand in awe before Michelangelo’s David and to be absorbed by Hockney’s ‘the Splash’. Since childhood, I have been in love with Dickens and Byron, and the poetic hymns and chants of the ten Sikh Gurus, of Rabindranath Tagore and Kabir, of Wordworth and Thomas Grey:  all conveying the meaning of life and its challenges for all humankind.

But what of the future if we listen to talents like Kai-Fu Lee, with his AI Superpowers?

‘Access’ is another feature for consideration. One of my favourite places on the planet is a remote valley in the Himalayas, Kulu Valley, which I visited frequently during my childhood and teenage years with my family.  Just married and on our first visit there, my husband and I undertook the road journey of 10 hours in a borrowed Fiat (the doors opened backwards!).  Yet today, I have ‘re-visited’ it with a mere two-words and a click!  Likewise with the Edge of the World in Saudi Arabia, which we reached in a jeep being driven for half a day by two ex-SAS guys : be my guest – see the wonder of it!

What does it mean for the existence and future of ‘art’ (or creativity, if you prefer) when one can have an idea, put it onto social media and use AI, which then clones ‘your voice’ (in every sense)  and ideas, turning them and all into text or images?  Will ‘permanence’ and ‘longevity‘ continue to matter – a piece of art to hold?  Or will art that is a display ‘in passing’ be sufficient?   Will the very rich (or otherwise powerful) continue to view art and creativity as an investment – an expression, or even proof, of their status, power and individuality?

Will AI simply insert other peoples’ ideas into yours – modify what you meant to say, or do, or think?  Shall the need for creating ‘art objects’ vanish and be replaced by images?  No more statues, pottery, paintings.

What if ‘commerce’ drives art to become useful simply in calendars, cards and posters, especially if, singly or together, they might be better used to take art ‘to the masses’?  Or, put another way, doesn’t it help millions to enjoy ‘creativity’ and the outputs thereof?  Some even now welcome the idea of widening the ability of more people to experience copies of ‘art’ on their own walls – without having to pay homage in hushed halls to relics of the past – even if such relics are beautiful and remind us of different times.  Is the ‘setting’ of art of greater importance than the art objects and access to these –  or is it ‘just a part of the experience’?

What if ‘what it looks like’ becomes more important than ‘what it says’?  Or if ‘what it says’ can be rendered ever more personalised and ‘relevant’ even?

As Phil Dartnell discussed in his recent piece: what used to be unique and treasured photographs of weddings and births have become part of a day-diary to be shared on social media with thousands (if not millions) around the world, in a matter of moments.  What used to be a treasured photo on the wall in the family’s living room has now become, not ‘an image’ in memory of the experience, but a recording of the entire day.   When an actual image of a beloved pet, or a family member’s success on a particular day, or a loved one who died, can be recorded over a period of hours (to entire lifetimes) and shared globally for eternity – what, then, is the value of a painted or photograph portrait on one’s wall?

Yet increasingly, technology can ‘empower’ creative individuals and, in the process, enrich the lives and minds of millions who would have otherwise either not seen it or not thought about it:  to think, perhaps wonder, or to take courage from it, perhaps that we are not always so different?

Every time Michael opens his email inbox, he gets masses of invites to use AI and other tools to ‘take his ideas’ and turn them into a book. Some even offer to record his voice and make his written books into an audiobook. And, he related how, when he checked in to the Cardiac Ward t’other day, the lady at the desk listened, stared at him, turned and asked a colleague to come over and asked him to repeat what he’d just said for them.  Which he did – and when he asked: “What is going on?”, she exclaimed “It’s your voice! “  So, there it is.  If Michael’s uses his voice and AI to create audio books from his novels – will his voice remain his property?  Or will AI clone and make it available to whomsoever desires to use it?!

Thus, I thought it might be interesting to contemplate what ‘change’ might mean, in the course of a few articles.  And not only in terms of display and possession, mounting and framing, editing – but also of galleries, exhibitions, publishers, agents, and the other professional services, lawyers, and accountants?

Both painting and writing are often a challenge for me, I am all too aware.  The effort required is painful, sometimes; but it is equally true that I do deeply value  ‘having a voice’ : of being able to express what is inside my mind, even if it is a small contribution and my work has little relevance or resonance for others. But what about those others who, for whatever reason, need help to say / articulate in some form – what is inside their minds?  And what if, whatever that is, might be important to others or, even, if it changed things for just one other someone on the planet – Warhol’s  “everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes“.

I wonder, is the true value of ‘creativity’ that which I want to say, or is it how I say it, or, even, is what matters – if at all – what it says to, or does, for others? Or, perhaps Jeremy Irons had it right: ‘it’s just money’.