Can AI Recommend Beauty and Convey Pathos?

The art world is now engaging with a new critical figure, one that is at once a curator and a consultant. We are talking about Artificial Intelligence, whose ability to analyze data and recognize patterns opens unprecedented possibilities in how art is presented to consumers and collectors. On one hand, we can imagine an AI capable of offering more “independent” and “informed” advice than human experts, drawing on vast historical-artistic information and free (in theory) from personal bias. On the other hand, there is a growing belief that the intrinsically human element of “pathos” – that emotional resonance and shared understanding – can only be conveyed by flesh-and-blood gallerists, curators, and critics. It is a debate that strikes at the very heart of how we experience and value art.

What is Pathos?

The term pathos (from the Greek πάθος, literally “suffering,” “passion,” or “emotion”) refers to the ability of a work of art, a speech, or a representation to evoke intense emotions, feelings, and empathetic engagement in the viewer.In formal contexts, the definition of pathos has its deepest roots in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. In Book II, Aristotle analyzes pathos as one of the three means of persuasion (along with logos, reason, and ethos, the character of the speaker). For Aristotle, pathos refers specifically to the speaker’s ability to arouse emotions in the audience (such as pity, fear, anger, joy) in order to influence their judgment and lead them toward the desired conclusion (Rhetoric, Book II, Chapters 2–11, 1378a–1388b). He provides a detailed analysis of various emotions and how they can be evoked through language and storytelling.Extending this concept beyond classical rhetoric into the fields of aesthetics and art theory, pathos refers to the intrinsic quality of a work that allows it to touch the emotional strings of the viewer. It is not simply about representing an emotion, but about transmitting it and about the work’s capacity to generate affective resonance. As emphasized by numerous art and literary theorists, pathos is crucial to the aesthetic experience, since art often seeks to move the soul, provoke reflection through feeling, and create a deep connection between the work and its beholder. For example, Gottfried Ephraim Lessing, in his Laocoön (1766), discusses the limits and methods by which visual arts and poetry can express pathos, showing how the representation of physical and moral suffering can move the observer.

For several decades now – and more so today – philosophers have been debating (with a fair amount of rhetoric) whether art is formally dead, especially following the advent of ready-mades, pop art, and finally, the use of art to express concepts while gradually depressing its form. We’ve covered this in a couple of referenced articles below. I believe this debate is actually linked to the ability – or necessity – of works to generate pathos.

AI: A Truly Independent and Knowledgeable Advisor?

AI-based artistic recommendation systems operate by analyzing vast amounts of data: artworks, user preferences, contextual information, and even biometric signals or facial expressions to infer emotional responses. These systems can identify connections and trends that would elude any single individual, offering a breadth of “knowledge” that, in terms of volume, appears superhuman. Recent studies have shown significant progress in AI’s ability to recognize emotions, with algorithms capable of identifying happiness, sadness, or anger with often greater accuracy than humans – and it’s only a matter of time before such accuracy becomes near-perfect.

Such a data-driven approach might appear to be a form of “independence,” able to bypass subjective tastes or commercial interests that may influence a human consultant. AI could analyze aesthetic features, detect patterns in collectors’ preferences, and offer suggestions based on sophisticated correlations – all with impressive speed and personalization capacity.

The Machine’s Limit: “Pathos” and Deep UnderstandingBut if the defining feature of art is to generate pathos, then art is much more than a set of styles, colors, and forms; it is a vehicle for emotions, narratives, and cultural expressions. This is where the argument for the irreplaceability of human experts gains traction. Pathos refers to the power of art to evoke a deep emotional response in the viewer, an experience that transcends mere data analysis. One might naturally think that, although AI can be trained to recognize and even imitate emotional expression in art, it lacks the ability to truly understand or experience these emotions, as it is devoid of lived experience, emotional depth, and the faculty of meaning-making – features proper to the human being. AI can identify statistical correlations, but its “aesthetic choices” would not stem from intentional reflection or reasons tied to subjective experience, as they do for a person. Its “knowledge,” however vast, is based on quantifiable elements and may fail to grasp the more subtle and intangible aspects that contribute to a work’s intrinsic meaning. But all of this, which may seem natural, is just one possibility.The other possibility is that what we call “human” is, after all, nothing more than biological computation – as I’ve discussed in many, perhaps too many, articles on this column. Without repeating myself, I recall the conclusion of previous episodes: either pathos is an overflow of God made for His child, or it is for all, machines included.

Art as Collaboration, Now Expanded

Gallerists, curators, and critics – through their experiences, culture, and empathetic sensitivity – would be the only true masters in interpreting and conveying this pathos. These professions contextualize artworks within historical, social, and personal narratives that enrich understanding and deepen the viewer’s connection. They can establish a dialogue, grasp subtle nuances, and personalize communication in a way that fosters a more intimate and profound engagement with art. Is this relational aspect (see From Classical Definitions to Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Relational Ontology of Art), grounded in the sharing of human experience, truly essential to convey that “pathos” which makes art so powerful and necessary?Rather than a confrontation scenario, the future of artistic consulting and curatorship likely lies in a fruitful synergy between Artificial Intelligence and human expertise. AI can become an extraordinarily powerful tool, capable of enhancing the capabilities of art professionals. It can help discover emerging artists, analyze market trends, or provide a first customized selection at scale.In this collaborative model, the role of the human expert would evolve: no longer merely a repository of knowledge, but a “conductor”, a guide who selects, interprets, and refines the outputs of AI, infusing that essential layer of meaning, context, and emotion. It would mean cultivating creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence, ensuring that the “human factor” remains central.

ConclusionIf art is ontologically relational, if pathos is generated by the artwork and the artist, while our role – as facilitators – is to point out paths, define boundaries, and bring forth what already exists through formal relationships of meaning, then I absolutely believe the answer to the question posed in the title is yes, AI can play a fundamental role in recommending beauty and conveying pathos.

BibliographyOnline Articles

Salafia, D. (2025). From Classical Definitions to Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Relational Ontology of Art. Artuu.Salafia, D. (2024). The End of Art: From Wittgenstein to AI, via Arthur Danto. Artuu.Salafia, D. (2025). Can AI Make Art? The Final Answer.

Sensemaking

“Sensemaking” is a term from organizational theory (Karl Weick) describing the process through which humans construct meaning from ambiguous events. Applied to AI, it raises the question of whether a machine can truly generate meaning, not just analyze patterns.

Floridi, L. (2011). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press.Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press.Dastin, M. (2023). AI Can’t Make Sense Like Humans Do, Reuters Tech Insight.

Philosophy and Theory of Art

Aristotle. (4th century B.C.). Rhetoric, Book II, Chapters 2–11, 1378a–1388b.Lessing, G. E. (1766). Laocoön, or On the Limits of Painting and Poetry. Italian ed. by M. Cometa, Palermo: Aesthetica, 1991.Danto, A. C. (1997). After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Milan: Bruno Mondadori.Belting, H. (2013). The End of the History of Art or the Freedom of Art. Turin: Einaudi.Bourriaud, N. (2010). Relational Aesthetics. Milan: Postmedia Books.

Artificial Intelligence and Emotions

Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion from Human Facial Movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68.Cowen, A. S., Keltner, D., Schroff, F., Jou, B., Adam, H., & Prasad, G. (2021). Sixteen Facial Expressions Occur in Similar Contexts Worldwide. Nature, 589(7841), 251–257.Li, S., & Deng, W. (2022). Deep Facial Expression Recognition: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13(3), 1195–1215.

AI and Art

Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating ‘Art’ by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068.Hertzmann, A. (2020). Visual Indeterminacy in GAN Art. Leonardo, 53(4), 424–428.Miller, A. I. (2019). The Artist in the Machine: The World of AI-Powered Creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424.

Art Criticism and Curatorship in the Digital Age

Bishop, C. (2018). Against Digital Art History. International Journal for Digital Art History, (3).Paul, C. (2015). Digital Art. London: Thames & Hudson.Grau, O. (Ed.). (2007). MediaArtHistories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Relational Ontology of Art

Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Danto, A.C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Rome-Bari: Laterza. Eco, U. (1962). The Open Work: Form and Indeterminacy in Contemporary Poetics. Milan: Bompiani.