|
|
|
|
|
|
by frereubu
647 days ago
|
|
|
I studied for a Fine Art BA, and I don't see an issue with generative AI in art per se. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that what matters is the outcome, not the process. If someone can produce something meaningful to other people - and it might well be something like a critique of AI using AI - then what's the issue? (That's a genuine question by the way, not rhetorical). There's a huge amount of art I find vacuous, much of it tradtional media like painting, no need for it to be AI generated. Be open to learning about it, and if you still don't like it then that's fine. Theres's a bunch of stuff that's non-traditional like Alvin Lucier, Gustav Metzger, Hans Haacke, as well as generative sound installations by people like Brian Eno. I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun! The only thing that does really get to me is the huge amount of dirty money sloshing around the art world, but that's more about ethics than aesthetics. |
|
|
I agree with you about half-way. The process of making the art isn't important. It's why songs that have amazed the world have taken anywhere between 7 hours and 7 years to produce. The outcome is informed by the life that produced it. To reiterate, the life that produced it is the most important. It's a connection to their humanity.
> I don't think gatekeeping art ever works - that's part of its fun!
You're also right, but this is primarily a dimension of taste. When I say AI has no place in art, what I am really getting at is it will have no place. I believe people will see it for what it is, and what it says about the people who use it.