I don’t give a fuck about those factors even of famous artists. Who the fuck cares what the artist thinks or their worldview is.
Author intent is about as useful as a glass of sand in the desert.
Art is what makes me think, what makes me self reflect. Art is what gives the viewer pause.
Ai art is sitting here making 100s of people argue like school children. It’s making us debate and come together to consider and philosophize. That IS art. The ability to move people emotionally to action.
Ai art IS art. Author intent is a fucking tool.of gatekeeping snobs who need to get off their high horses and touch some damnable grass.
the only pause it gives me is when i notice nonsensical details blending into each other, the only emotion it moves in me is then disgust and foolishness as i just spent time on slop that was not an expression of something, but an intentionless imitation of one. and it sure as hell doesn’t make me self reflect as it manages to be both shallow and hollow
it’s not AI “art” itself that sparked a conversation, no singular piece stands out as something people talk about (a piece that is more than just a more seamless version of the pervious attempts, something memorable even after it stops being the best at imitation). The talk is not about AI “art” itself it’s about the idea of it. Nobody points to a single thing AI made and claims that is proof it’s not art, because it’s not individual pieces that “make us think” – it’s the concept of an intentionless thing being fed human art and then making misshapen copies of it at the whims of people who can’t be bothered to engage with art at all.
sure it does make you think, but only if you - knowingly or not - treat the entire emergence of AI slop as a kind of performance art itself, any individual piece of slop is not the topic here
I don’t give a fuck about those factors even of famous artists. Who the fuck cares what the artist thinks or their worldview is.
Author intent is about as useful as a glass of sand in the desert.
Art is what makes me think, what makes me self reflect. Art is what gives the viewer pause.
Ai art is sitting here making 100s of people argue like school children. It’s making us debate and come together to consider and philosophize. That IS art. The ability to move people emotionally to action.
Ai art IS art. Author intent is a fucking tool.of gatekeeping snobs who need to get off their high horses and touch some damnable grass.
the only pause it gives me is when i notice nonsensical details blending into each other, the only emotion it moves in me is then disgust and foolishness as i just spent time on slop that was not an expression of something, but an intentionless imitation of one. and it sure as hell doesn’t make me self reflect as it manages to be both shallow and hollow
it’s not AI “art” itself that sparked a conversation, no singular piece stands out as something people talk about (a piece that is more than just a more seamless version of the pervious attempts, something memorable even after it stops being the best at imitation). The talk is not about AI “art” itself it’s about the idea of it. Nobody points to a single thing AI made and claims that is proof it’s not art, because it’s not individual pieces that “make us think” – it’s the concept of an intentionless thing being fed human art and then making misshapen copies of it at the whims of people who can’t be bothered to engage with art at all.
sure it does make you think, but only if you - knowingly or not - treat the entire emergence of AI slop as a kind of performance art itself, any individual piece of slop is not the topic here