4 ms·

Most of this is recontextualisation, not appropriation. Even the Lichtenstein is covertly ironic. The creativity isn't just in the imagery and the technique, it

Most of this is recontextualisation, not appropriation. Even the Lichtenstein is covertly ironic. The creativity isn't just in the imagery and the technique, it's in making a statement about the surrounding culture. AI doesn't recontextualise, it reproduces cliches. You could argue that AI itself is an original artwork. But its output is backward- and inward-looking, not forward-looking. It tries to reproduce work from the past in a very literal way, mostly for users who are culturally naive and think art is about pictures, not about cultural, emotional, perceptual, and psychological insights.

looping8 3y ago
I would say only pop art is appropriation. Because it literally copies a different piece of art to exist. But it also adds a layer on top of it, changes its purpose, which means it starts with appropriation but then becomes interpretation. AI also doesn't put any meaning into its "art". People argue that an artist's intent is not the main factor in art, but when there is no intent, is it really art? I don't need to know what Warhol meant, but knowing that he did mean something makes it valuable.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  > when there is no intent, is it really art? I take the nihilist view: art is entirely in the eye of the beholder. The intent of its creator or the properties of the object have nothing to do with it.
  - cwmoore 3y ago
    I agree in a sense but that negative space is obscured in cases where your beholder has also knows the context of the created works.
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
I feel like the most legitimate use for AI art is illustration rather than strictly art: worldbuilders and other fiction writers who want to show you what a thing they made looks like in their head, but don't have the skillset to draw it, just to describe it. AI is a really useful tool for that. Unfortunately there's not a lot of profit in "this is what my OC looks like."

looping8 3y ago

I would say only pop art is appropriation. Because it literally copies a different piece of art to exist. But it also adds a layer on top of it, changes its purpose, which means it starts with appropriation but then becomes interpretation. AI also doesn't put any meaning into its "art". People argue that an artist's intent is not the main factor in art, but when there is no intent, is it really art? I don't need to know what Warhol meant, but knowing that he did mean something makes it valuable.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago
> when there is no intent, is it really art? I take the nihilist view: art is entirely in the eye of the beholder. The intent of its creator or the properties of the object have nothing to do with it.
- cwmoore 3y ago
  I agree in a sense but that negative space is obscured in cases where your beholder has also knows the context of the created works.

PhasmaFelis 3y ago

I feel like the most legitimate use for AI art is illustration rather than strictly art: worldbuilders and other fiction writers who want to show you what a thing they made looks like in their head, but don't have the skillset to draw it, just to describe it. AI is a really useful tool for that. Unfortunately there's not a lot of profit in "this is what my OC looks like."