Most of what you believe about the world comes from Art whether it's syllogisms and parables, geometry and architecture, symbols and the integrity of rituals, o

Most of what you believe about the world comes from Art whether it's syllogisms and parables, geometry and architecture, symbols and the integrity of rituals, or even the consequences of war, these are all Art. AI really is different, as if it's made of language, we're going to be able to simulate it. A lot of what we called art is ceasing to cohere meaning when we can generate it as a representation for nothing. the question to me is, if art is a way for people to scratch out a bit of dignity and meaning in this life by finding and expressing something essential, what is it about AI that is so obviously in opposition to that value? we don't like to talk about dignity because it shows some materialist beliefs as hollow artifacts of narrative that we can now simulate with some python scripts- but it's becoming suddenly urgent. What is still Art in an age of AI will likely form the map of what is still essential human dignity and experience vs. simulated experiences. It sounds handwavy, but consider that if AI persuades people nothing is essential, then nothing is true or actually means anything, then there is no ethical backstop against atrocities and "state of nature," stuff. "Real Art" is the canary for that, imo. I'm not against AI or anything, but I do think it is suddenly on artists to get their shit together and demonstrate some essential humanity, or they will just be consumed by those with the reins of AI who would seek to deprive us all of it.