|
|
|
|
|
by timacles
977 days ago
|
|
You're confusing art with pretty pictures. AI "art" is not art, they are just pictures. It has no meaning, it has no context, it is not inspired by anything. Art has depth, art has emotion. Theres no AI pieces that someone "loves", theres nothing beyond, oh this is a cool image, it just doesnt exist. |
|
But significant portions of those qualities are imputed by the viewer! The artist has their own intent and experience during the creation of the art, but that only inheres in the art insofar as another mind can later recover some of that feeling upon viewing. Huge parts of the meaning of ancient (and more recent) art are lost forever because they depended on never-recorded cultural or personal understandings, and our emotional appreciation of them today largely hinges on how they make us imagine the past or our relationship to it. I think it's incredibly short-sighted to be certain that nobody does or will love any AI artwork when so much of appreciation is contingent on the mind of the of the beholder, which is not necessarily responding to real information about the work's creator, even when human.