2 ms·

It's semantics, but I take your point. I'm trying to give a new definition of art that you disagree with, and by that definition nature would be beautiful but n

It's semantics, but I take your point. I'm trying to give a new definition of art that you disagree with, and by that definition nature would be beautiful but not art. I could be wrong. I agree that AI will create breath-taking images, though I'm not sure how far that will go. Would we care about the David if it was made by a robot? Would we appreciate Tender is the Night if Fitzgerald wasn't giving his human perspective? Personally, I wouldn't; not for more than a moment. On the last point: I would prefer to pay artists creating beautiful works by hand instead of via machine. So it does matter from my perspective. I would like to know who is who.

smoldesu 4y ago
All that is fine, but it's extremely subjective and relies on other people sharing your subjective opinion on art. You're likely to find a lot of artists who sympathize with you, but the general public would probably side with whichever creation is more evocative. In that sense, I'd argue that unconscious media has been the status-quo since the late 90s. It's the meta for the current "creator class" that seeks audience on TikTok and Twitter. Artists will always exist, but the mechanical process of creating art is currently being sublimated. That's more-or-less what AI synthesis is doing in all fields.
- georgex7 4y ago
  Perhaps. I think the general public would lose interest if they knew that a great work of art (i.e. the David, or the Sistine Chapel, or an emotional novel) came from a computer. I think HOW something is made is part of what makes it evocative. But I agree with you about unconscious media being the status-quo.
Fricken 4y ago
The problem is that if I don't recognize something from the pre-ai art era, then my knee-jerk assumption is that it's probably ai generated. So now all art is as worthless as the AI generated stuff.

smoldesu 4y ago

All that is fine, but it's extremely subjective and relies on other people sharing your subjective opinion on art. You're likely to find a lot of artists who sympathize with you, but the general public would probably side with whichever creation is more evocative. In that sense, I'd argue that unconscious media has been the status-quo since the late 90s. It's the meta for the current "creator class" that seeks audience on TikTok and Twitter. Artists will always exist, but the mechanical process of creating art is currently being sublimated. That's more-or-less what AI synthesis is doing in all fields.

georgex7 4y ago
Perhaps. I think the general public would lose interest if they knew that a great work of art (i.e. the David, or the Sistine Chapel, or an emotional novel) came from a computer. I think HOW something is made is part of what makes it evocative. But I agree with you about unconscious media being the status-quo.

Fricken 4y ago

The problem is that if I don't recognize something from the pre-ai art era, then my knee-jerk assumption is that it's probably ai generated. So now all art is as worthless as the AI generated stuff.