Are Viral Artists Changing the Definition of Art?

Do you ever see a trending video of an art piece and think: would this artwork be just as successful if you only saw the finished piece? 

Increasingly, people aren’t consuming the artwork itself. They’re consuming the creation of the artwork.

Platforms reward inane filler material like satisfying paint pours or paint splatter canvases. Giant canvases and unusual tools tend to catch the eye more. Color-mixing videos have been a trend for a while, but it’s been popularized to the point where even AI is doing it now. The point isn’t that these things are necessarily bad. It’s that the process becomes the product. Sometimes the final painting is almost secondary to watching it being made. The AI-generated color-mixing videos are fascinating despite producing no physical artwork at all. This illustrates that the appeal often lies in the visual experience rather than the artistic outcome.

Algorithms tend to reward content that is immediately understandable, visually surprising, and emotionally satisfying within seconds. But many forms of art don’t work like that. Some artwork can reveal themselves slowly or require context. Some even reward repeated viewing and still other works ask difficult questions that can’t be summed up in a one minute reel. Algorithms aren’t judging artistic quality, they’re judging attention.

This isn’t to say that virality is inherently bad. Many talented artists have found audiences they never could have reached before. Social media has democratized exposure, allowed artists to build careers independently, and connected collectors and creators worldwide.

Perhaps the question isn’t whether viral art is good or bad. It's whether we’re evaluating the artwork – or the experience of watching it being made.