On Aesthetic Progress

And where it is leading

I have recently been contemplating the question of whether there can be said to be aesthetic (or artistic) “progress”, or whether changes from era to era are a kind of “random walk” in response to changing tastes and attitudes from generation to generation [in this post I refer primarily to visual art, but we can imagine similar discussions on the matters of literature or music]. Would someone from the 12^th century walking through an art museum today see some things and say “wow, this is clearly better than anything from my time”, or would they think “hum, I don’t really see anything that appeals to my 12^th century artistic sensibilities”? At some level we can say that there is unarguably technical progress, in that the invention of perspective drawing and the chemistry and economics of modern paint colors (or digital screens) enable modern artists to depict things they never would have been able to prior to the advent of these mechanisms. But how does that square with the question of tastes and sensibilities?

To some extent this is a false binary, and a hybrid view might bring us closer to understanding the way things really work: while stylistic trends often evolve unpredictably, there is a discernible trajectory toward optimizing aesthetic effects for specific goals, an expansion of the possibility-space of art. Art is not a one-sided enterprise of the consumer, but a dualistic relationship between the audience and the artist. The artist seeks to respond to the desires of the audience, and as techniques and technology advance the artist can have a broader pallet of potential tools to meet (or shape) the demand of the audiences. The aesthetic preferences themselves may be a random walk, but the ability of artists to meet them undoubtedly progresses.

If we look at this trend throughout history, artists have always sought to influence their audiences—this is intrinsic to artistic practice, whether trying to induce a noble to give his patronage or to elicit a religious experience by a biblical scene. What has changed in the modern world is the level of precision with which aesthetic choices can now be tailored to achieve intended effects. Previously guided by the artist’s intuition and cultural precedent, aesthetic decisions are increasingly informed by empirical research in the realms of graphic design, marketing, advertising, and Hollywood productions. The integration of psychology, neuroscience, social network data and data analytics suggests that we are advancing toward a model of aesthetic engineering capable of systematically eliciting specific emotions, or reactions from average audiences (or specific audiences). Rather than relying solely on subjective artistic instinct, creators can now leverage measurable data on human perception and cognition to optimize engagement and emotional impact.

But where is this leading as technological progress begins to outrun human creativity? This leads to an important and dystopian question: does the increasing precision of aesthetic manipulation enhance artistic expression, or does it bleed into manipulation or outright control? While it seems evident that different personality types exhibit varying levels of susceptibility to algorithmic predictability (many people follow mass entertainment while others gravitate to niche ventures), suggesting that while the majority may be influenced by data-driven design strategies, there will always be outliers who resist standardized aesthetic appeals. However, the scope of algorithmic influence continues to expand. Psychology and neurology are very likely “solvable” problems that AGI or ASI may be able to use to decode human perception and cognition as systematically as current AI systems  are beginning to do with protein folding. If human psychological responses become fully mapped, aesthetic design may transcend broad statistical targeting and instead achieve personalized precision—where an artwork, advertisement, or political message is dynamically adapted in real time to maximize its impact on an individual’s neurological profile, or perhaps to force particular thoughts or actions. Can a human brain be subliminally “hacked” by extension of the same channels by which flashing lights can trigger an epileptic seizure in some individuals?

I have no answers to these questions, other than suspecting that the answer is probably “yes” to all of them. If we’re going to live in a world with a machine god, we should prepare for the numinous, miraculous, and infernal.