4 ms·
>You're right that it removes some (honestly perhaps most) of the craftsmanship that comes with creating art. Perhaps art, going forward, is simply described a
by kingsuper20 5y ago
>You're right that it removes some (honestly perhaps most) of the craftsmanship that comes with creating art.
Perhaps art, going forward, is simply described as the process, not the result.
I don't doubt that a computer could (or will) produce a perfectly convincing Charlie Parker solo or Richard M. Powers painting. There really was less there than met the eye (or ear) and most of human output consists of cliches in any case.
My take is to become increasingly archaic and self-sufficient in interests. Greek red figure pottery looks like a good place to end up after the walls are filled with amateur art, but a kiln looks pricey.
- germinalphrase 5y ago‘Beautiful thing’ will indeed be massively available (as it is right now), but ‘beautiful thing touched by a human’ will always remain scarce. Only the latter will be truly considered an art object.
- kingsuper20 5y agoIn that case, the value of a thing is not it's physical reality but it's provenance. I guess it's no different than the high value given to a lot of 20th C. art, it's just another form of marketing. Maybe this bodes well for antique prices.