RE: My opinion about AI art and a thought on society.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I'm so glad I clicked on your post. I'm so sad that I'm so far, the only one to come and want to leave a comment.
Your post gave me some serious flashbacks to reading the work of Roland Barthes and Baudrilard.
It is an intuitive principle, both from the point of view of the human brain and the evolution in general."Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."
Art, just like matter, is made up of tiny portions of everything else that came before it. I love this eloquent viewpoint you've put together, it explains it better than I ever could.
We're just seeing the democratisation of Art at this period of history. Just as Paul Delaroche, upon the invention of photography said that "painting was dead", his works still hang in galleries and are still valued for his skill and the stories he depicted.
Finally you were not the only one ehe :)
I'm glad you liked my thesis. I've not read Baudrilard yet but but it is planned:)
You're right for the democratisation and it is an important point.
I've seen a lot of people critizing AI art in a way that it seemed like they were more defending their status in the field than a real debate about the art itself.
Thanks for your comment and have a nice day :)
Unlike the dramatic statements of Paul Delaroche on the invention of photography:
His work still sits in galleries and is still considered masterful today.
Absolutely !
The "democratisation of Art" is code for I want the praise and rewards others receive for their years of hard work and discipline, but not put in the same effort to achieve it.
Claiming the "democratisation of Art" is the same as claiming to be a great sprinter like Usain Bolt, but you cross the finish line as a passenger in Ferrari.
We do not taunt the painter or the illustrator for not manufacturing their own brushes or pencils. We don't taunt a photographer for not manufacturing their own lenses and camera sensors.
Upon the invention of photography, Paul Delaroche said that painting was dead. It is far from dead. His work still sits in galleries because it has narrative strength.
The elements of representation can be learned, as can draughtsmanship, and it is a constant improvement process for the lifelong student. I'd love to resurrect a few cultural theorists like Walter Benjamin or Roland Barthes and ask them what they think of generative art.
As a trained artist myself, it is easy to see the shallow-depth of a generated image. While there is symbolism, composition, lighting, and other elements of art on display; it remains rather unsophisticated if exposed to any serious critique.
As a result, generated art is of a lesser quality, but much like the scores of people that produce derivative, unsophisticated work which doesn't contribute to the history of representation in any meaningful way, generated art and AI allows these people on the fringes to explore some level of creativity.
It is a tool. A gun can be used to cull a wild beast, or to kill another man. A hammer can be used to drive a nail, or kill a man. If Visual Art is about intention and representation; then is not the use of a tool, much like a brush, camera, kiln, pencil or pen, that delivers us that outcome?
The tool is not the artwork, nor the artist, nor the outcome.
What makes the artist is the mastery of the technique, tools, materials and self.
The value of the outcome (artwork) is dependent upon the creator and the process.
A hand crafted item is worth far more than that of an automated product.
AI "art" is just that, automated product and not worthy of the title art. It is disposable like anything available from a vending machine.