3 ms·

This is clearly the death of art as we know it. By removing any and all skill from the process of creation, it inevitably renders the creation worthless.

dagw 4y ago
We've been through "the death of art as we know it" so many times throughout history already and art has always continued to grow and flourish. I fail to see why this time should be any different.
PeterisP 4y ago
Obviously the creation was not worthless for many people, they enjoyed the picture very much. Perhaps it's an indication (or a reminder!) that for most people the worth of a piece of art does not depend on the skill or the process of creation, but mostly on the esthetics of the outcome; it's the death of a specific aspect of art which is the focus of art critics and some of the artists, but can be ignored by the 'art consumers'.
- taylorius 4y ago
  >it's the death of a specific aspect of art which is the focus of art critics and some of the artists, but can be ignored by the 'art consumers'. Fair enough, I'd agree with that - but I think there is no-one left but "art consumers". One could imagine a version of instagram, where the user could scroll through pages of images, all of which were generated by AI. Is that user of Instagram then an artist if they pick a favourite? If I scroll through real instagram and pick a favourite, am I now an artist?
fleddr 4y ago
No, it doesn't. Output is value, not input. When you look at a high-end photo that you like, one of perhaps hundreds that you see in a day, do you do a detailed background check on the input? Explore the "life experience" of the photographer? Try to guess some deeper meaning? Study the technical approach and gear used, in order to come to the ultimate appreciation of how this outcome came to be? No, you don't. You look at it for 2 secs, go "nice picture" and move on.
- taylorius 4y ago
  >No, you don't. You look at it for 2 secs, go "nice picture" and move on. That sounds like a commodity to me, not a work of art.

dagw 4y ago

We've been through "the death of art as we know it" so many times throughout history already and art has always continued to grow and flourish. I fail to see why this time should be any different.

PeterisP 4y ago

Obviously the creation was not worthless for many people, they enjoyed the picture very much. Perhaps it's an indication (or a reminder!) that for most people the worth of a piece of art does not depend on the skill or the process of creation, but mostly on the esthetics of the outcome; it's the death of a specific aspect of art which is the focus of art critics and some of the artists, but can be ignored by the 'art consumers'.

taylorius 4y ago
>it's the death of a specific aspect of art which is the focus of art critics and some of the artists, but can be ignored by the 'art consumers'. Fair enough, I'd agree with that - but I think there is no-one left but "art consumers". One could imagine a version of instagram, where the user could scroll through pages of images, all of which were generated by AI. Is that user of Instagram then an artist if they pick a favourite? If I scroll through real instagram and pick a favourite, am I now an artist?

fleddr 4y ago

No, it doesn't. Output is value, not input. When you look at a high-end photo that you like, one of perhaps hundreds that you see in a day, do you do a detailed background check on the input? Explore the "life experience" of the photographer? Try to guess some deeper meaning? Study the technical approach and gear used, in order to come to the ultimate appreciation of how this outcome came to be? No, you don't. You look at it for 2 secs, go "nice picture" and move on.

taylorius 4y ago
>No, you don't. You look at it for 2 secs, go "nice picture" and move on. That sounds like a commodity to me, not a work of art.