4 ms·

I don't agree with this. The Lascaux cave paintings, for example, are moving pieces of art and yet we know nothing about the artist or artists. How many artis

I don't agree with this. The Lascaux cave paintings, for example, are moving pieces of art and yet we know nothing about the artist or artists. How many artists were there? What was the intent of each individual drawing? Were the artists homo sapiens or Neanderthals? What makes them art is that we, the perceivers, make an imagined connection to the artist through the work. But that connection is entirely one-sided and based on our perceptions and knowledge and our _model_ of the artist and his or her intent. Humans have no problem reifying an artist where none exists and being just as moved as if the art were "authentically human-sourced".

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
The entire import of the Lascaux paintings is that they are made by humans 10000s of years ago and seem to serve something more than mere marks. We know humans (or at least individuals with agency) created them and so there is something awe-inspiring and fascinating about the connections between ourselves and these prehistoric works, and yet they are ultimately still something of a mystery for precisely the reasons you say. > But that connection is entirely one-sided and based on our perceptions and knowledge and our _model_ of the artist and his or her intent. Humans have no problem reifying an artist where none exists and being just as moved as if the art were "authentically human-sourced". You're over-emphasizing how one-sided looking at something like the Lascaux paintings are. Their value is not the same as beautiful natural phenomenon, like a fascinating stalagmite like seems to be a sculpture, it is precisely the human agency we understand in them (even if we cannot explicitly understand the use of them, that is, their meaning) and connect with that makes them so important and profound as a means of connecting --- tenuous it might seem --- to prehistory. We've been making "stick people" and finger painting for 10s of thousands of years. You're right that we don't know who the artists were in any explicit sense, but we do understand that they were human, and in quite fundamental ways, us as well. Generative AI art is really more like a beautiful natural landscape. Lacking agency, it nonetheless appeals to our aesthetic sensibilities without being misconceived as art from an artist. It is output, not imaginative creation.
- mwigdahl 4y ago
  If artistic value is not one-sided and tied to the transformations in the observer's mind, you get into situations where you invalidate the experiences of thousands of people because the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery, or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. "How sad, it wasn't _really_ art though." You can define art that way, but you end up with an immaterial, axiomatic essentialism that seems practically useful only to in drawing a circle and placing certain desirable artifacts inside and other indistinguishable artifacts outside.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. No, you shift the attribution. The art is not from the fictional sculptor, but from the archaeologist: the artefact is not the stone, but the articles. > Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. This isn't unique to this situation. If you risk your life paragliding over the ocean to drop a "bomb" far away from anyone it could hurt, and nearly drown making your way back, only to realise there was no bomb and it was just some briefcase? That's "retroactively cheapened" not just your experiences, but your actions. And yet, you were willing to risk your life in that way. > the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery, If they were inspired, how does the source of inspiration affect the validity or the meaning of what they were inspired to do? Sure, it might lessen it in some ways, but it doesn't obliterate it entirely. In fact, it can reveal new meaning.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
    Your mixing up a lot of concepts around art into one thing. Aboriginal art has nothing really to do with generative AI art at the level that I'm talking about (aboriginals are human after all, and we're talking about the distinction between human art and non-human objects that are aesthetically appealing), but I will address your points. > If artistic value is not one-sided and tied to the transformations in the observer's mind Art is public and need no relation to transformations in the observer's mind. Art is a public concept in language related to human behavior, manifesting and reflecting certain human behaviors and abilities, like imagination. > you get into situations where you invalidate the experiences of thousands of people because the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery This is pretty unclear, we have the concept of forgery and it is not a new concept, just because something was beautiful and inspiring doesn't mean it's art (think a beautiful and inspiring coastline). If thousands of people fell prey to a forgery...so? A forgery is in relation to the real, so why not show them the actual existent work art, or simply explain about where it came from and see what they say? History is rife with people realizing they were lied to. > or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. Sculpture has a long tradition and is often understood as art by communicating that tradition. That's aboriginal sculpture, which is understood and put into context by present day members of that aboriginal culture or by people who have studied it. The flip side is things like "talismanic" objects, which have often been later put into context as unworked stone or completely different objects. That's simply archeology. Some artistic traditions are "lost", we only know of them through existing records. That's just history. Some may be lost in a more explicit sense in which they are unknown unknowns, but then that is just hypothesizing. > Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. "How sad, it wasn't _really_ art though." I don't know why you come to that conclusion. My point is pretty clear. Art is understood through the context of human agency. If we have the context and ability to place and recognize that in a work, then amongst other elements (for the purpose of aesthetics for instance), we generally refer to it as a work of art. There is a more casual way of saying such and such is "a work of art" --- but that way of saying it just means "aesthetically pleasing". There is a difference between the work of art that is a painting or a sculpture or a dance, and the "work of art" that is a beautiful landscape, and that is largely human agency and the use of imagination. So when you say: > You can define art that way, but you end up with an immaterial, axiomatic essentialism that seems practically useful only to in drawing a circle and placing certain desirable artifacts inside and other indistinguishable artifacts outside. You're ignoring my point: it's not about desirability, it's about insisting on the distinguishable characteristic of human agency which is not there in generative AI art. The study of art is largely about putting things into their context and, if anything, is extremely welcoming of non-traditional practices (think much conceptual art), but the through-line throughout is still human agency. That difference still persists whether we find generative AI art beautiful or not, it is still generative AI "art" and not human art with all that entails.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

The entire import of the Lascaux paintings is that they are made by humans 10000s of years ago and seem to serve something more than mere marks. We know humans (or at least individuals with agency) created them and so there is something awe-inspiring and fascinating about the connections between ourselves and these prehistoric works, and yet they are ultimately still something of a mystery for precisely the reasons you say. > But that connection is entirely one-sided and based on our perceptions and knowledge and our _model_ of the artist and his or her intent. Humans have no problem reifying an artist where none exists and being just as moved as if the art were "authentically human-sourced". You're over-emphasizing how one-sided looking at something like the Lascaux paintings are. Their value is not the same as beautiful natural phenomenon, like a fascinating stalagmite like seems to be a sculpture, it is precisely the human agency we understand in them (even if we cannot explicitly understand the use of them, that is, their meaning) and connect with that makes them so important and profound as a means of connecting --- tenuous it might seem --- to prehistory. We've been making "stick people" and finger painting for 10s of thousands of years. You're right that we don't know who the artists were in any explicit sense, but we do understand that they were human, and in quite fundamental ways, us as well. Generative AI art is really more like a beautiful natural landscape. Lacking agency, it nonetheless appeals to our aesthetic sensibilities without being misconceived as art from an artist. It is output, not imaginative creation.

mwigdahl 4y ago
If artistic value is not one-sided and tied to the transformations in the observer's mind, you get into situations where you invalidate the experiences of thousands of people because the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery, or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. "How sad, it wasn't _really_ art though." You can define art that way, but you end up with an immaterial, axiomatic essentialism that seems practically useful only to in drawing a circle and placing certain desirable artifacts inside and other indistinguishable artifacts outside.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. No, you shift the attribution. The art is not from the fictional sculptor, but from the archaeologist: the artefact is not the stone, but the articles. > Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. This isn't unique to this situation. If you risk your life paragliding over the ocean to drop a "bomb" far away from anyone it could hurt, and nearly drown making your way back, only to realise there was no bomb and it was just some briefcase? That's "retroactively cheapened" not just your experiences, but your actions. And yet, you were willing to risk your life in that way. > the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery, If they were inspired, how does the source of inspiration affect the validity or the meaning of what they were inspired to do? Sure, it might lessen it in some ways, but it doesn't obliterate it entirely. In fact, it can reveal new meaning.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  Your mixing up a lot of concepts around art into one thing. Aboriginal art has nothing really to do with generative AI art at the level that I'm talking about (aboriginals are human after all, and we're talking about the distinction between human art and non-human objects that are aesthetically appealing), but I will address your points. > If artistic value is not one-sided and tied to the transformations in the observer's mind Art is public and need no relation to transformations in the observer's mind. Art is a public concept in language related to human behavior, manifesting and reflecting certain human behaviors and abilities, like imagination. > you get into situations where you invalidate the experiences of thousands of people because the "authentic human art" they were inspired by turns out to be a mechanical forgery This is pretty unclear, we have the concept of forgery and it is not a new concept, just because something was beautiful and inspiring doesn't mean it's art (think a beautiful and inspiring coastline). If thousands of people fell prey to a forgery...so? A forgery is in relation to the real, so why not show them the actual existent work art, or simply explain about where it came from and see what they say? History is rife with people realizing they were lied to. > or the aboriginal sculpture some archaeologist discovered, admired and wrote articles interpreting is discovered to be unworked stone. Sculpture has a long tradition and is often understood as art by communicating that tradition. That's aboriginal sculpture, which is understood and put into context by present day members of that aboriginal culture or by people who have studied it. The flip side is things like "talismanic" objects, which have often been later put into context as unworked stone or completely different objects. That's simply archeology. Some artistic traditions are "lost", we only know of them through existing records. That's just history. Some may be lost in a more explicit sense in which they are unknown unknowns, but then that is just hypothesizing. > Your position allows a dead person to have their experiences retroactively cheapened because of carbon dating and microstructural analysis. "How sad, it wasn't _really_ art though." I don't know why you come to that conclusion. My point is pretty clear. Art is understood through the context of human agency. If we have the context and ability to place and recognize that in a work, then amongst other elements (for the purpose of aesthetics for instance), we generally refer to it as a work of art. There is a more casual way of saying such and such is "a work of art" --- but that way of saying it just means "aesthetically pleasing". There is a difference between the work of art that is a painting or a sculpture or a dance, and the "work of art" that is a beautiful landscape, and that is largely human agency and the use of imagination. So when you say: > You can define art that way, but you end up with an immaterial, axiomatic essentialism that seems practically useful only to in drawing a circle and placing certain desirable artifacts inside and other indistinguishable artifacts outside. You're ignoring my point: it's not about desirability, it's about insisting on the distinguishable characteristic of human agency which is not there in generative AI art. The study of art is largely about putting things into their context and, if anything, is extremely welcoming of non-traditional practices (think much conceptual art), but the through-line throughout is still human agency. That difference still persists whether we find generative AI art beautiful or not, it is still generative AI "art" and not human art with all that entails.