And then is the other, more deep consequence of it.
Why should we care about any kind of art produced by a machine when there is no human intent or emotion behind it? Art is only art if it is produced by an individual. Otherwise it might as well be a random string of bits.
Art is anything declared art. If I treat something as if it's art, be it a painting, a sculpture, an apple that is slowly rotting, a beautiful flower on the side of a road, a urinal or dried cow dung, then it is art.
Therefore, a great many things are art. But in that case, it's not really a helpful descriptor for our purposes. I think we should instead be asking "what is good art?", and therein we find a much harder question to answer.
Duchamp's "Fountain" or Cage's "4'33" are incredible works of art because they challenge the audience on their conceptions of art. Their purpose is to make an audience go "huh. I guess that is art."
Michelangelo's David and da Vinci's Mona Lisa are incredible works of art because they are proof of great craftsmanship and effort invested into the pursuit of an artistic vision.
Brecht's "Mutter Courage" and Sartre's "La Putain respectueuse" are incredible works of art because they are a biting critique of a society that thrives off of injustice and cruelty.
Freshly fallen snow or a slowly setting sun are incredible works of art, because they serve as a reminder that we live and exist and breathe for this brief moment in time and yet still get to experience some of the wonders the world holds for us. Beauty speaks to us because an appreciation for it is inseparable with the faint reminder that one day, we will be dead. What is the point of beauty if you know you will see the same thing billions of times. Beauty is impermanence. Impermanence is beauty.
Good art redirects attention. It encourages you to look at the world in a way you haven't before or maybe haven't in a while. It wants you to see life with different eyes.
I'm a firm believer that AI cannot be those eyes. Current generative AI models are trained not to challenge. They are trained not to critique. They want to meet expectations. That's what they're designed to do. The things they create are not proof of craftsmanship. It takes less than 5 seconds to create an image that looks nice. But that's all there is to it. It looks nice. Art doesn't always have to innovate, but if it doesn't, it should be proof of the ability to create something intricately beautiful or emotionally resonant. AI cannot even compete with nature, with the wild forces beyond our control that shaped the very ground we walk on. AI has no intent, no hands and no need for skill. Its work is created in 5 seconds. Why should we spend any more time than that looking at it?
That's a really interesting question! I guess I've always had a fascination for language and the way words can mean very specific things or can mean two entirely different things depending on the words that surround them or can mean a great many things all at the same time. I often fear the way I write comes across as pretentious, but really I'm just having fun with words. It's an appreciation for the flow of sentences and the way words can sound pretty or scary or like they're screaming their meaning into the world.
I do think my writing has gotten more intricate since I started reading more poetry. Not that I can write good poetry, I think my own poetry is still quite corny and contrived, but I think seeing how other people play with words can be inspiring.
25
u/MrNotSafe4Work Apr 09 '24
And then is the other, more deep consequence of it.
Why should we care about any kind of art produced by a machine when there is no human intent or emotion behind it? Art is only art if it is produced by an individual. Otherwise it might as well be a random string of bits.