What art is formulaic? What art is just the old stuff rehashed? What art is shallow or simplistic?
You must log in or register to comment.
Clip art/stock art.
That is, “art” that’s intended to be meaningless until someone else uses it in a context that supplies a meaning.
This is a very nuanced question, because art isn’t always about skill.
I remember I was one of those guys who thought modern art was stupid. My family took me to MoMA and I remember I was looking at a painting of a red square. It was a large 2 foot by 2 foot red square. I remember saying “but anyone could do this” to my aunt. She replied:
But nobody else did.
Stopped in my tracks and it clicked. The fact that they had done it, and we were there talking about it and discussing it, that right there proved it was art.
So it’s not just quality. I’m sure AI could spot out 1000 red squares, and some would consider that low effort, but no one would ever discuss them.
I mean, if a duct-taped banana can fetch millions
“But you didn’t” is such a powerful idea in art. The only reason European artists aren’t stuck in strict biblical representation with church-approved colours is that people pushed boundaries. The modernists rejected boundaries altogether and embraced pure creativity to such a degree that their own audience couldn’t recognise it as art. I’ve seen that same Malevich painting in the MoMA and that’s revolution. That’s a communist rebelling against centuries of only realistic paintings of idyllic landscapes and aristocratic portraits being taken seriously. He’s saying a red square is art for the sake of creative expression, an idea that would mature into “common people are alienated from art which is restrained to a professional class. Everyone should be entitled to its production and consumption” with proletarian art. He destroyed the idea of subject as a model of patronage as much as he did as a creative restraint.
Art should do that. It shouldn’t just have a message, but a call to some greater action that enables better art. We wouldn’t have modern music without Wagner violating the tonic as the most sacred principle of European music. Modern music, and especially classical music, is fucking beautiful in completely new ways because someone had the courage to reject centuries of what Serious Adults said was beautiful.
But nobody else did.
because it’s stupid.
you were bamboozled
Yet here we are talking about it.
you brought up a time you were bamboozled, that’s on you.
I brought up a story about a red square, of which you are, 15 years later, still trying to convince someone that it’s not art. Something that is still being debated on 15 years later is pretty interesting, especially for it being just a red square. The more we talk about it, the more it legitimizes it.
The more we talk about it, the more it legitimizes it.
no it doesn’t. i didn’t say it’s not art i said it was dumb. You were fooled into this false profundity.
Is it false? Even if it is dumb, here we are 15 years later talking about it. Still, after hours we’re still going back and forth about it.
i bet you’re going to love to hate this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome_painting 😂
because it’s stupid.
you were bamboozled
presumably you find value in some things that some other people think are stupid too; it’s OK
oh cool a bunch of people lied about their money laundering and/or cia shit.
Derivative.
I would imagine it would be in something you already have some interest and skill in. Art entirely created by AI is not that great.
Hybrid animal illustrations, abstract art, portraits, and world morph images where you illustrate something made out of an unusual material.
Art isnt created with AI. Just some visual slop with stolen assets.
The sloppiest fan fic
Ai art
If you’re talking about AGI, potentially any form of art would be at its grasp, maybe even some which may not necessarily look like art to us.
If you’re talking about the generative models of today, they are incapable of producing art, because they are incapable of emotional intent and expression.
Even Warhol was driven by disdain, and the ironically arty bit was how sort of stripped of art his art was as a result of his disdain.
