3 ms·
The thing is that, for most of society, art exists to serve a utilitarian purpose (make us feel good/bad/inspired/destroyed/whatever other influence). Essential
by EMIRELADERO 2y ago
The thing is that, for most of society, art exists to serve a utilitarian purpose (make us feel good/bad/inspired/destroyed/whatever other influence). Essentially just to induce a "vibe". Anything other than what most people intuitively feel after consuming it is secondary and, frankly, unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
- freejazz 2y agoYet Walt Whitman exists...
- lukev 2y agoThat may be how most people see art, but it is not how artists see art. Neither side is "right" or has a monopoly on the definition of art. You can't tell someone else how to think or feel about something.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago> That may be how most people see art ...which is all that matters in this specific context as we're discussing generative AI's impact on society and what could happen in the future.
- lukev 2y agoExcept that the direction of art is usually influenced by the artists, without too much calibration to what the uninformed public wants. It’s actually a really interesting question if this affects the market, at all. Because if AI can generate “art” which satisfies the public, but not artists, will the public just go for that, instead? Or is it the case that the public never really cared for or consumes that art form, and that the entire market for art is to people who (to at least some degree) specialize in that form?