Do you think AI can generate IGOR by Tyler, The Creator? By The Time I Get to Phoenix by Injury Reserve? Everywhere At The End Of Time by The Caretaker? Everything Everywhere All At Once? Into/Across The Spider-Verse? Love, Death & Robots? Utopia? A Picasso painting? A Zdzisław Beksiński painting? Can it write Animal Farm by George Orwell? Watership Down by Richard Adams? I don’t think it can. Art is made by humans to connect with other humans, to make us feel, think, and more. Human art understands humans. AI art only understands what it is fed. It can generate a generic picture but yet can’t generate a hand properly, one of the earliest pieces of art ever made were handprints and a computer can’t understand it enough to generate it right. I think that says a lot about the difference between human and AI art. AI and tech bros don’t understand this about art, they never will and even if they did or do they don’t care, they see art merely as a product, a commodity with no other value than the price tag slapped on it. “How much can we charge a subscription to access this art for?” is the only thought that crosses the minds of people who champion this kind of soulless, emotionless “art”.
comments (single view)
If our “art” is something like what I remember hearing about - carré blanc sur fond blanc? then AI is absolutely able to replicate this “art”.
Yes, because in my opinion modern art is generally a scam where people label their expensive sh*t as deep and make a load of cash off of it
the monetization of art is sorta bullshit (altho paradoxically necessary for artists which sucks) but modern art shows the progression of art and the innovations that were made. like in the early 20th century in western art (as well as music) there was a focus on moving away from traditional ideas (ik it was the case for music and I believe it was the same for art), and so these blank canvases were more a statement rejecting the traditional ideas of art; rather than a quick cash grab
What I don’t like the most is probably how people make money from making a bracelet out of cardboard (yes, there’s one in a vault in a museum in London) while my little brother could make one and even make it look prettier and nobody would buy it.
thats probly just pretentious bozos then lol, art shouldnt be created for the purpose of making money, that isnt art
You’re somewhat missing the point. To have good art you must have bad art too. Bad art is still art. For as bad as it is, Dream’s song Mask is art, not good art, but art nonetheless. The issue you’re getting onto with popular modern art pieces is more to do with how we value art. For example, I hear all the time that popular music today is bad, but most people are getting that popular via sources like the radio in their car, in the store, etc. Those stations are paid by labels to play certain artists, so cooler stuff struggles to get into that place. But with the internet we have reached a place where anyone can share any kind of art for free on places like SoundCloud, Tumblr, etc. There is so much beautiful music, paintings, and more that you can find if you just look for it. Art galleries are like record labels, they are controlled by curators and whatnot who choose what goes there, whatever gets the most visitors, etc. But there is so much cool being made everywhere all the time all at once, and you can find it if you want too. Just because AI can generate a modern art piece that’s just some shapes doesn’t make it good. My post’s point is that all the art I mentioned are one of a kind, they are unique, endlessly creative and not something a computer could just spit out from being fed millions of generic pictures it doesn’t actually understand. Having a mentality where there is a floor that must be met for art to be considered art just means more AI slop being peddled imo.
If bad art is still art, then AI art should still be considered art.