Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten and Generative Art: A New Perspective

Deodato Salafia
Mar 30
5 min read

Today we talk about a lesser-known but extremely important philosopher in the debate between art, aesthetics, and authorship. What would he think today of generative art?

The Father of Aesthetics

Alexander Gottfried Baumgarten (1714–1762), a German philosopher trained in the rationalist Enlightenment environment, made a revolutionary move in the history of philosophy: he coined the term “aesthetics” (aesthetica) and established it as an autonomous philosophical discipline. Before him, reflection on beauty and art was fragmented, contained under other branches of philosophy or relegated to a marginal role.

Trained in the school of Christian Wolff, to whom we owe the term “ontology,” and immersed in the Leibnizian tradition, Baumgarten carried out a theoretical operation of great significance. In the philosophical context of his time—dominated by rationalism, which favored clear and distinct intellectual knowledge—he claimed the dignity and autonomy of sensible knowledge (cognitio sensitiva). With his major work, Aesthetica (1750–1758), Baumgarten defined aesthetics as the “science of sensible knowledge,” parallel but distinct from logic, which dealt with rational knowledge.

Baumgarten’s innovation was not merely terminological. He intuited that sensible knowledge, far from being an imperfect or confused form of intellectual knowledge (as Leibniz and Wolff argued), possessed its own perfection and completeness. In the rationalist tradition, aesthetic experience was considered inferior to logical-rational knowledge—a lower rung toward intellect. Baumgarten reversed this perspective.

In his philosophical system, beauty is defined as the “perfection of sensible knowledge” (perfectio cognitionis sensitivae). Aesthetic experience is therefore not an inferior step on the ladder of knowledge but a form of knowing with its own specificity and perfection. With this theoretical shift, Baumgarten legitimized the philosophical study of art and aesthetic experience, paving the way for key developments in later philosophy, especially in Kant and German Idealism.

Originality and Tradition: A Pre-Romantic Conception

However, to properly understand Baumgarten’s thought, it is essential to place it in its historical-philosophical context, prior to the Romantic revolution (Romanticism emphasized the importance of the individual, subjectivity, and emotions). In the 18th century, the idea of artistic originality differed substantially from our current understanding, strongly influenced by Romanticism and 20th-century avant-gardes.

Baumgarten worked in a cultural environment where artistic excellence did not primarily consist in creating totally new works, but rather in a creative dialogue with tradition. The artist was considered virtuous not so much for absolute originality, but for their ability to reinterpret and perfect exemplary models, especially classical ones.

In Baumgarten’s view, artistic creation involves a balance between two faculties: ingenium (natural talent, inspiration, individual creativity) and iudicium (refined judgment, knowledge of rules, technical mastery). Excellent art emerges from the productive tension between these two poles, not from mere spontaneous expression of individual genius.

This concept is reflected in his view of imitation (imitatio), which is not passive reproduction but creative re-elaboration. The artist studies exemplary models, assimilates their formal principles, and applies them personally. Originality, in this context, is not a radical break with tradition, but innovation within a historical-cultural continuum.

Today, we are very, very far from all of this. Today the artist can become radically conceptual, even to the point of taping a fruit to the wall.

What Would Baumgarten Say About Art Created by Artificial Intelligence?

If we bring Baumgarten’s thought into the contemporary debate on art created by artificial intelligence, we can imagine a philosophical perspective that is surprisingly current and enlightening.

Baumgarten would likely view generative AI systems as tools that embody, in technological form, the principle of creative imitation that has always characterized human art. These systems, trained on vast corpora of human-made works, represent an extended and enhanced form of that dialogue with tradition that Baumgarten saw as essential to artistic creation. The algorithm assimilates patterns, styles, and forms from previous works and recombines them in new directions—just as the human artist studies the masters to develop their expressive language.

From Baumgarten’s perspective, the crucial element would not be the mechanical or human origin of the work, but its ability to achieve that “perfection of sensible knowledge” which constitutes beauty. If a work generated by AI produces in the viewer an authentic aesthetic experience—illuminating the senses and enriching perception—then it fulfills the fundamental purpose of art according to Baumgarten.

The German philosopher, far removed from today’s obsession with authenticity and absolute originality, would likely evaluate generative art based on its aesthetic effectiveness, not its creation process. The central question would not be “Was it created by a human mind?” but “Does it perfect our sensible knowledge?”

Particularly intriguing would be his analysis of the relationship between rational and sensory aspects in generative art. Baumgarten, who sought to establish a balance between reason and sensibility, might see AI systems as a fascinating convergence point: on the one hand, they embody maximum algorithmic rationality; on the other, they aim to produce meaningful sensory experiences. Generative art might thus tend toward a novel synthesis between the domains of logic and aesthetics, which Baumgarten had theorized as parallel but distinct.

The philosopher would also likely recognize the collaborative nature of generative art, where the algorithm operates in tandem with human intentionality expressed through prompts and selections. This collaboration mirrors that dialogue between ingenium and iudicium which, for Baumgarten, characterized excellent artistic creation.

An Unpredictable Conclusion

Alexander Gottfried Baumgarten, with his revolutionary conception of aesthetics as an autonomous science of sensible knowledge, offers conceptual tools that are surprisingly apt for interpreting contemporary phenomena like AI generative art.

His pre-Romantic vision of artistic originality, based on creative dialogue with tradition rather than radical rupture, allows us to understand generative art not as a historical anomaly but as a technological evolution of fundamental artistic processes: learning from previous models, creative recombination of traditional elements, and the productive tension between rules and expression.

More deeply, Baumgarten’s insistence on the specificity and value of sensible knowledge invites us to evaluate generative art not based on the origin of its creative process, but based on the quality of the aesthetic experience it produces. If an algorithmically generated work enriches and perfects our sensory perception, then it fulfills, in Baumgarten’s view, the very essence of art.

In an era where technology continuously challenges our traditional categories, Baumgarten’s pioneering thought reminds us that the essence of aesthetic experience lies in the encounter between the work and human sensitivity, regardless of the tools used to generate that work.

Primary Works by Baumgarten

Baumgarten, A.G. (1735/1954). Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus. Eng. trans. Reflections on Poetry. Palermo: Aesthetica edizioni.Baumgarten, A.G. (1750–1758/2000). Aesthetica. Eng. trans. Aesthetics. Palermo: Aesthetica edizioni.Baumgarten, A.G. (1739/1963). Metaphysica. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

Critical Studies on Baumgarten and Aesthetics

Buchenau, S. (2013). The Founding of Aesthetics in the German Enlightenment: The Art of Invention and the Invention of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tedesco, S. (2008). L’estetica di Baumgarten. Palermo: Centro Internazionale Studi di Estetica.Guyer, P. (2014). A History of Modern Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aesthetics and Digital/Generative Art

Zeki, S. (1999). Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: Les Presses du Réel.Boden, M.A. & Edmonds, E.A. (2019). From Fingers to Digits: An Artificial Aesthetic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Poltronieri, F.A. & Hérubel, J. (2017). Digital Art, Aesthetic Creation: The Birth of a Medium. London: Routledge.

Artificial Intelligence and Aesthetics

Hertzmann, A. (2018). “Can Computers Create Art?” Arts, 7(2), 18.Miller, A.I. (2019). The Artist in the Machine: The World of AI-Powered Creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Crawford, K. & Joler, V. (2018). Anatomy of an AI System. AI Now Institute and Share Lab.du Sautoy, M. (2019). The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Manovich, L. (2020). Cultural Analytics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.