3 ms·
Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed
by iliane5 4y ago
Sure, I didn't word it in the best way.
What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing.
My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.
- int_19h 4y agoI would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well. But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?
- iliane5 4y agoMost would say it's art, which is why these models are so interesting and have had such quick adoption. If you were to reveal that it's AI-made, some would also change their mind or say that it's art but not exactly in the same sense that human-made art is art. I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary. The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.