I’m not gonna lie, in a post-capitalist world, I would have absolutely no issue with AI that isn’t “AI art”. Art is the product of human creative decisions and human creative expressions. Removing the human source of said art (in my view) strips it of being art.
This is an interesting topic to me. If I paint a landscape, I think most people would say that’s art. What if I close my eyes and splash random paints at a canvas? What if I encourage my cat to track paint over the canvas with its paws? What if it’s a robotic toy instead of a cat? If I create a program like Minecraft to produce aesthetically-pleasing vistas, is that art? Is a swallow’s nest art? What if I physically do the painting, but I allow a random number generator to dictate my actions?
e: Elephants that paint recognizable objects were trained to do so by their handlers. When given access to paint and a canvas, elephants will happily smear the paint around with no apparent logic behind it. No non-human animal has been recorded reproducing an object visually of their own compulsion. Are the random paint smears of the elephant art? If I teach an elephant to paint a house, is that painting art? Who is the artist?
The viewpoint you’re responding to also disregards all the art made by elephants.
People are so desperate to hate on AI art that they will justify it a billion ways, but as an artist, let me tell you that art exists in nature. Art exists in a vacuum. Art can be found anywhere, made of anything, and it’s not just the creator who imbues it with meaning. Ultimately, the lens through which the consumer is engaging the art is the final measure of it’s meaning.
I wholly subscribe to the idea that it doesn’t matter if an artist or an author or a musician meant to evoke a feeling- whatever feeling invoked is valid.
It’s one thing for a bunch of people to say that AI art is meaningless because it’s same-y or because it elicits no feeling in them or whatever. To dismiss the entirety of it because it had no connection to something as ephemeral as a human soul during it’s creation is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, the kind of close-minded nonsense I’d expect from reactionaries who have no actual artistic experience.
To take it a step further- if a person has a reaction, any kind of reaction, to AI art, their feelings are not invalidated because of who or what generated that art.
It only becomes art once a mind observes it and appreciates it. If AI generates a picture but no one sees it, it’s not art. Generated images become art when observed, because that’s when it gains value. They don’t even have to like it, per se, but someone needs to experience it.
I’m not gonna lie, in a post-capitalist world, I would have absolutely no issue with AI that isn’t “AI art”. Art is the product of human creative decisions and human creative expressions. Removing the human source of said art (in my view) strips it of being art.
This is an interesting topic to me. If I paint a landscape, I think most people would say that’s art. What if I close my eyes and splash random paints at a canvas? What if I encourage my cat to track paint over the canvas with its paws? What if it’s a robotic toy instead of a cat? If I create a program like Minecraft to produce aesthetically-pleasing vistas, is that art? Is a swallow’s nest art? What if I physically do the painting, but I allow a random number generator to dictate my actions?
e: Elephants that paint recognizable objects were trained to do so by their handlers. When given access to paint and a canvas, elephants will happily smear the paint around with no apparent logic behind it. No non-human animal has been recorded reproducing an object visually of their own compulsion. Are the random paint smears of the elephant art? If I teach an elephant to paint a house, is that painting art? Who is the artist?
The viewpoint you’re responding to also disregards all the art made by elephants.
People are so desperate to hate on AI art that they will justify it a billion ways, but as an artist, let me tell you that art exists in nature. Art exists in a vacuum. Art can be found anywhere, made of anything, and it’s not just the creator who imbues it with meaning. Ultimately, the lens through which the consumer is engaging the art is the final measure of it’s meaning.
I wholly subscribe to the idea that it doesn’t matter if an artist or an author or a musician meant to evoke a feeling- whatever feeling invoked is valid.
It’s one thing for a bunch of people to say that AI art is meaningless because it’s same-y or because it elicits no feeling in them or whatever. To dismiss the entirety of it because it had no connection to something as ephemeral as a human soul during it’s creation is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, the kind of close-minded nonsense I’d expect from reactionaries who have no actual artistic experience.
To take it a step further- if a person has a reaction, any kind of reaction, to AI art, their feelings are not invalidated because of who or what generated that art.
It only becomes art once a mind observes it and appreciates it. If AI generates a picture but no one sees it, it’s not art. Generated images become art when observed, because that’s when it gains value. They don’t even have to like it, per se, but someone needs to experience it.
Value still comes from labor.