4 ms·
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 sy
by 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 agoPerhaps. 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.