3 ms·

This disagreement seems to hinge on is art solely a commodity, and the obvious answer to me is no. In my experience, the more that the artists care about how m

This disagreement seems to hinge on is art solely a commodity, and the obvious answer to me is no. In my experience, the more that the artists care about how much currency they are going to reap from a work, the less likely it is to be compelling or have any kind of long term emotional value. Judging this entire scenario only by the economic value of art is why I found what they wrote to be nihilistic. Put aside the economics of this transition for a second and think hard about how the generative pieces really make you FEEL, which artworks you have found the most compelling in your life, and why that was.

imbnwa 4y ago
>In my experience, the more that the artists care about how much currency they are going to reap from a work, the less likely it is to be compelling or have any kind of long term emotional value. The problem I'm pointing out isn't one's drive, so much as the second-order effects of presumed improvement in generative art. We presume that hand-made art will increase in value but we don't have reason to assume that without first knowing the ceiling of generative art, which I am presuming we have not reached, so appeals to immediate affectation aren't a limit. The threat is that art will just be something people do out of exuberance, as children do. Its not about motivation, but the ceiling for social registration. People desire to be recognized before we even start talking about renumeration. So returning to your original analogy and my criticism of it, we're facing a bifurcation of economies, an official economy of automated production and an underground of human artifact and these may or may not interact save for the purposes of 'training'. Even with the over-saturation of artistic production we live in without generative art, we at least don't have this complete bifurcation, things can still cross . Adults, as children do, will create out of exuberance, but that may also be all there is to it. That's my fear. Perhaps its overstated.

imbnwa 4y ago

>In my experience, the more that the artists care about how much currency they are going to reap from a work, the less likely it is to be compelling or have any kind of long term emotional value. The problem I'm pointing out isn't one's drive, so much as the second-order effects of presumed improvement in generative art. We presume that hand-made art will increase in value but we don't have reason to assume that without first knowing the ceiling of generative art, which I am presuming we have not reached, so appeals to immediate affectation aren't a limit. The threat is that art will just be something people do out of exuberance, as children do. Its not about motivation, but the ceiling for social registration. People desire to be recognized before we even start talking about renumeration. So returning to your original analogy and my criticism of it, we're facing a bifurcation of economies, an official economy of automated production and an underground of human artifact and these may or may not interact save for the purposes of 'training'. Even with the over-saturation of artistic production we live in without generative art, we at least don't have this complete bifurcation, things can still cross . Adults, as children do, will create out of exuberance, but that may also be all there is to it. That's my fear. Perhaps its overstated.