3 ms·
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 pur
by 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 agoI agree in a sense but that negative space is obscured in cases where your beholder has also knows the context of the created works.