I went and saw Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025) with a friend, and the story in the film—and across the franchise itself—gave me some food-for-thought when it comes to art, creativity, and capitalism.
Can art be engineered? What happens when we try to engineer art and creativity?
In the film, within the InGen lab where mutant dinosaurs were being created there was a plaque on the wall ever so briefly in the shot that said: CREATIVITY IS KING. And I found this to be laden with symbolism and irony when there is zero creativity found in using data, statistics, and metrics to engineer a work of art—let alone a dinosaur.
Art is a living, breathing, organic organism created with—and through—the human spirit.
As Guillermo del Toro said: "...personality, knowledge, and emotion are the three things that need to exist [in art]."
Products are manufactured and sometimes are intentionally created to manipulate—whether that’s manipulating you out of your time, your money, or to manipulate your beliefs and behaviours.
So what happens when you try to manufacture art and turn it into a product?
What happens when you try to engineer and force what you think people want instead of allowing art and creativity to naturally—and organically—occur and unfold?
And what happens when you priortise money over ethics and morals with your art and creativity?
One example of this that I can't shake out of my head is the ethical monstrosity that is Etsy sellers creating and selling Alligator Alcatraz merchandise. And that the platform itself—a platform that once championed itself as a place to celebrate and champion real artists—is allowing these products to even exist let-alone be purchased.
I feel that the story within the Jurassic Park/World franchise can serve as a tale illustrating the commodification, perversion, and decay of the arts that is created by late stage capitalism; and what happens when one tries to engineer art and creativity.
We begin with Jurassic Park (1993) where scientists genetically engineered dinosaurs as a theme park attraction. These dinosaurs were meant to be as close to the original organism as possible and not necessarily genetic hybrids or mutants.
Ultimately, the film asks the moral and ethical question of:
Just because we can do it, is this something we should be doing?
We later have Jurassic World (2015) where they take the concept of a theme park centered around living, breathing dinosaurs. But instead of recreating solely the OG dinosaurs we know of, they began creating genetically engineered, hybrid dinosaurs that they felt would attract more customers to the luxury resort.
The film asks the question of:
What are we willing to do for the sake of financial profit?
This resulted in the creation of the Indominus Rex. The Indominus Rex was a grey, monstrous looking dinosaur whose purpose was to generate more revenue for the park and it’s owners/investors.
Later, in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) the technology and scientific advancements that were used to create the Indominus Rex were later used to engineer the Indoraptor—a dinosaur created not for entertainment purposes, but instead to serve as a weapon of war. And the film revolved around the idea that dinosaurs—and the science/technology used to birth them—can be used not only to serve as a commodity or tool for nefarious human affairs, but will also sell at an incredibly high price tag.
The end result is Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025) and the Distortus Rex and the Mutadon— severely deformed dinosaurs that look far more like vile, horrendous, monstrous mistakes that do not—and could not—serve any intentional, meaningful purpose or role within a natural environment or ecosystem.
They feel more like a cancer created as a result of an insatiable appetite for never-ending profit and power.
The abominations found in Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025) were literally engineered in a lab which made me reflect on how people, artists, and companies will try to engineer viral posts, the next hit artist, and popularity.
Instead of creating something that they genuinely want to birth into the world, people will focus on what will get them the most likes, the most attention, and the most money. And so basing your sense of creativity off of what’s popular at any given moment is akin to fast-fashion.
The art is flimsy, cheap, constructed hastily out of poor materials, and is just adding to the cultural landfill as one moves onto the next thing that's currently trending on social media instead of making work that genuinely resonates with one's spirit.
Furthermore, I believe that by trying to chase and take advantage of trends with the intention of boosting numbers—whether follows or financial—hinders one’s ability to grow and cultivate a unique, creative voice.
I think there’s also something to be said about trying to create art that can appeal to the masses.
You end up with art that no longer causes discomfort, evokes emotions, or inspires critical thinking.
You end up with art that no longer challenges anyone by having all of its teeth removed and sharp edges sanded down because god forbid someone has a non-cozy thought or feeling that inspires them to reflect on themselves and the world around them.
You end up with art that is boring; “safe”.
You cannot capture lightning in a bottle. Art that truly captivates people, and culture, cannot be manufactured in a lab or hap-hazardously Frankenstein’ed together by the hands of someone motivated solely by profit.
Art that genuinely touches and impacts people and human culture is made by the hands of people who have passion for art—for creating—because they have something to say; a story they need to share.
Real art is made with intention.
And now we’re entering an era where AI and machine "engineered" images are now polluting our culture. These machines are only capable of doing what they do because they were fed stolen art created by real, human artists. And this kind of technology is being forced onto us by people whose sole motivation is to make more money for themselves (and/or their investors) by scamming and exploiting the labour of others.
There is no intention or creativity behind the design decision making process by these AI tools—and the people who use them. They do not have the knowledge, experience, personality, or courage it takes to create real art. And much like the Distortus Rex, what comes out of these prompts and apps might pass as an image of some sort. But it is ultimately meaningless, degenerative, regressive, ugly refuse devoid of any kind of genuine purpose or authenticity.
It's trash. It's a cancer.
It can't—and never will—be art.