[WillPostForFood]

Machines aiding in farming is only a good thing, because it can maximize output and minimize input.

Machines aiding in art is only a good thing, because it can maximize output and minimize input?

Makes art cheaper, more accessible, allows more people to create?

It is like how digital filmmaking has cracked the Hollywood monopoly on content.

[wormer]

I think that this doesn't really help artists as much as just do it for them. Art, the way I see it, requires a human to do because it is something that requires emotion, something a robot could replicate but not feel. For example, a gut wrenching image of innocents being beat by police is gut wrenching because it's something that exists in the real world, and the artist and the subjects are real and their emotion is real. But a computer generated image only has a likeness; it doesn't have actual emotion.

I aldo don't think that it makes it "cheaper, more accessible, and allows more people to create". Digital art supplies being something readily available and relatively cheap to their classic counterparts is what makes things more accessible, and to make it more so would be to drive the cost down or something. Having the computer draw for you isn't exactly creating art.

And art isn't a commodity and I argue it shouldn't be a commodity. It's something, again, personal and special.

And this doesn't end at the visual arts, I think it applies too to writing. AI could write what's written in my journal word for word but my journal would have more value just by virtue of it being written by me.

[WillPostForFood]

Having the computer draw for you isn't exactly creating art.

I disagree. It is like using sampled music or an arpeggiator or drum track to compose music.

a gut wrenching image of innocents being beat by police is gut wrenching because it's something that exists in the real world

Can't a painting be gut wrenching? It doesn't exist in the real world.