3 ms·

It occurred to me the other day that there are (at least) 3 different meanings when referring to the value of a work of art: * Aesthetically pleasing - often t

It occurred to me the other day that there are (at least) 3 different meanings when referring to the value of a work of art: * Aesthetically pleasing - often there is a traditionalist idea that only landscapes and portraits are 'real' art, and everything else is rubbish * Financially successful - the market sets the price of a work, and that is the value, no matter what your personal idea of it * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value Unfortunately, people using different definitions of value here will likely never agree when these values clash when considering a work of art. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I reckon some people have just defined generated images (or partly generated) as 'not Art' so will never accept them. I know I have changed how I think about some art/artists (such as single-colour painters like Rothko) from 'this is bad' to 'I don't care for this, I see that others do'.

lancesells 3y ago
> * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value I suppose I fall into this camp and why I find most AI generated images nothing even close to art. Art is truth, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer, good artists do things for their personal reasons. Generative AI is cold and unfeeling. If anything, artists that use AI should embrace that and stop trying to make so many airbrushed, Penthouse style renderings that try to mimic so much that has happened before. I mean you have the power of Gandalf, so why are you making images that look like something that's been done thousands of times over? Otherwise it's content and illustration, which both have their place in the world. Looking at the spiral image thumbnails used in the article look like something that an artist would have done 100 years ago. I don't see an artist there. I see a content creator. If they were painted by hand I would say the same thing, but be slightly more impressed by the craft of it.

lancesells 3y ago

> * Emotionally affecting - if the work is moving in some way, or you get something from it, then it has value I suppose I fall into this camp and why I find most AI generated images nothing even close to art. Art is truth, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer, good artists do things for their personal reasons. Generative AI is cold and unfeeling. If anything, artists that use AI should embrace that and stop trying to make so many airbrushed, Penthouse style renderings that try to mimic so much that has happened before. I mean you have the power of Gandalf, so why are you making images that look like something that's been done thousands of times over? Otherwise it's content and illustration, which both have their place in the world. Looking at the spiral image thumbnails used in the article look like something that an artist would have done 100 years ago. I don't see an artist there. I see a content creator. If they were painted by hand I would say the same thing, but be slightly more impressed by the craft of it.