Why imperfection in art matters in the age of AI

As artificial intelligence perfects the image, it also reveals our increasing desire for imperfection, authenticity and the subtle marks of human effort behind every piece of art. If it appears too perfect, it is probably a lie

In early printings of The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan is inconsistently described as having a child in one scene and as being more than a child in another, a continuity error that F Scott Fitzgerald never fully corrected. In his original bronzes, Auguste Rodin left his fingerprints in the clay, refusing to smooth away the evidence of his own touch. Even Vladimir Nabokov, a writer who engineered his sentences with the intricate, interlocking logic of a clockwork mechanism, allowed inconsistencies to stay unresolved in the world of Lolita.

The uncorrected has become the physical witness of the creator. These moments function as proofs of existence, fingerprints left behind to signal that a person was in the room. I have started noticing their value because in 2026, a crooked line or a slightly off colour serves as a reliable form of evidence, a physical verification that the work remains tethered to a human hand.

With generative tools doing much of the heavy lifting around us, the eye has learnt to flinch at anything too tidy. We have moved past the question of whether a piece of art is interesting. We now ask if it is real. Did a person actually make this, or did a machine smooth it out while no one was looking?

Even the masters of the past understood that perfection could function as a form of erasure. In Supper at Emmaus, Caravaggio painted the right hand of a disciple with a perspective so technically incorrect that it appears oversized, yet the drama of that distortion anchors the entire composition. Rembrandt frequently left rough, unresolved brushstrokes on his canvases, a practice that led some critics to doubt the authenticity of his late works.

They could not believe a master would allow such messiness to stand. But it is precisely in that mess that authorship survives.

I feel this every time I scroll, now that AI sits behind more and more creative attempts even by those who have done nothing to master the art. Images arrive perfectly lit and perfectly framed. They ask nothing of me as a viewer because they are finished before I have even had time to look. Instead of admiration, I feel suspicion. When something looks too complete, I start wondering what was removed to make it look that way. I look for the hesitation that was erased.

A pervasive fatigue has set in. The tricks are familiar now, and the shine no longer dazzles. When everything is optimised, nothing stands out. In a landscape of infinite, automated perfection, polish has become common, a form of new kitsch. In 2026, luxury resides in the one thing a machine cannot simulate: evidence of struggle. Grit is the new gold.

As artificial intelligence perfects the image, it also reveals our increasing desire for imperfection, authenticity and the subtle marks of human effort behind every piece of art. If it appears too perfect, it is probably a lie (Photo: Getty Images)

Above As artificial intelligence perfects the image, it also reveals our increasing desire for imperfection, authenticity and the subtle marks of human effort behind every piece of art. If it appears too perfect, it is probably a lie (Photo: Getty Images)

1 / 1

In the Philippines, art is shaped by the local environment. Materials here are defiant. Humidity stains surfaces, fabric sags and wood warps. To make art here is to inhabit interference. Smoothness rarely survives contact with the streets of Manila, where the golden, Amorsolo-resolved glow of the past has given way to a present thick with texture.

The deliberate shadow-play in The Godfather remains a masterclass in the power of the obscured. The cinematographer Gordon Willis famously ignored the studio’s demand for clarity, allowing darkness to swallow the frame and trusting that an underexposed face held more truth than a perfectly lit one. This same visceral humidity defines Peque Gallaga’s Oro, Plata, Mata. Shifting light and grainy textures feel more truthful than any digital restoration. To “fix” the grain is to erase the sweat and the physical reality the story depends on.

There is a shared defiance in a line that refuses to stay put. It connects the frantic scribbles of Cy Twombly to the way a BenCab figure might bleed past its own boundary. In both, the “error” of the bleed is the signature. In Geraldine Javier’s Batangas garden, the process remains visible. The work is allowed to happen slowly. For her January exhibition, Breathe, Sigh..., the shift from acrylic to ecoprinting is chemical and unpredictable. Leaves from the Batangas flora stain fabric unevenly. Colours bleed. Patterns misalign. Obsession and decay sit alongside beauty. Nothing is corrected after the fact.

That visibility extends to Poklong Anading’s series Lumalalim sa Kababawan, Lumulutang sa Kalaliman. Built from ghost nets recovered from the Davao Gulf, the sculptures openly carry their damage. Salt stains remain. Barnacles cling. Failure is not fixed. It is carried forward. The same resistance appears in the installations of Ged Merino, who takes the humble kulambo and turns it into a sagging, weighted archive of objects and dust.

The board game Stakeholding by Lyra Garcellano forces viewers to remain inside the physical strain of a flawed system. It assigns participants unequal capital at random. Frustration is built into its mechanics. The body slows. Tempers surface. Strains become visible. These works recall the Parthenon in Athens, where almost no line is perfectly straight. Its architects introduced subtle distortions to counter optical illusion, knowing that mathematical perfection would read as collapse. They used the imperfect logic of human perception to arrive at a truer structure.

There is a sudden, involuntary halt in front of these works. They command a level of attention that the digital stream cannot sustain. Against a backdrop of images designed for the quick scroll, art that insists on its own physical limitation feels honest.

The marks left behind record the history of the work. I see it in the typo that slipped through, the uneven edge or the moment where a decision did not quite land but was allowed to remain. These are the traces of a choice painstakingly made and defended. Even the Mona Lisa carries the shadows of earlier hand positions beneath its surface, revealed through underdrawings and revisions that Leonardo da Vinci chose to leave in the architecture of the painting.

This insistence feels grounded in the Philippines. Reality here does not cooperate with optimisation. Floods interrupt routines. Infrastructure breaks down. Art that mirrors this instability feels truthful. Art that ignores it feels ornamental.

Now I look particularly for the grit of persistence. Polish is a closed door, but a work that carries the marks of its own making remains open. I find truth in a surface that has been weathered by the process, where the history of the artist remains visible in the grain.

If the father of our national consciousness could allow Ibarra to forget the very details that fuelled his revenge, it may be because José Rizal understood that a perfect character is a puppet, while a flawed one remains recognisably human. In a world of algorithmic gloss, the smudge is the clearest evidence of a human pulse, that someone wrestled with the material, and that the work is real.

NOW READ

Step inside Scavolini’s new Rockwell showroom, where Italian craftsmanship is infused with Filipino flair

HerStory: Admiral Hotel general manager Janine Taylor leads with gentle purpose

Celebrate International Women’s Month through the experiences of these 4 powerful women

Why imperfection matters in art today: ‘If it appears too perfect, it is probably a lie’