[xlii]

> But art is mostly about surfacing the inner world, and only in part about skill.

I always thought that art is all about emotions, both preserving and creating them. That’s why I find a banana on the wall art, popular music is still art.

(Might be school influence but I also tend to ask myself „why”)

This invention is definitely work of art, but its output - in my eyes - not. It’s like a cloud. It can make different shapes, and some are funny, some might remind me of my close ones, but it’s still averaged randomness.

However the idea to reflect reality to this digital randomness I find without doubt - art. And, well: while not visual or audible, there is software, hardware, code and design which are also art (and difficult to make so counterpoint to thesis in first paragraph ;)).

[khafra]

> I always thought that art is all about emotions, both preserving and creating them.

But this leaves the role of intention ambiguous. If I double-park a BMW across two handicap spaces because I'm angry and entitled, is that art? It certainly evokes emotion, and it's also produced by emotion.

[xlii]

An interesting viewpoint for sure.

I would dissect it though since it’s not pure anger - frustration maybe, a complex one and caused by additional input. E.g. anxiety (you took what could be mine) or internal discord (after observing act of injustice).

I’d argue that it’s an act of random (again, like a cloud) and wouldn’t treat it as art.

But, if you’d park it sideways in front of the mall entrance, blocking it considerably, I’d consider it art (in my imagination I can see the headlines about artist making a statement against the overconsumption).

Yet art is art, so everyone has their own definition. I’d prefer “positive” emotions, so awe, nostalgia, etc., but I don’t see reason why anger should be excluded.

<<proceeds to print “THIS IS AN ART INSTALLATION” message to put behind the windshield>>

[happymellon]

If you present it as art, sure.

But the best part about art is that other people don't have to consider what you do as art.

I would find it hard to believe you are presenting it as art though, as you'll want your BMW back after you've bought whatever crap at the store.

I don't have to believe your AI generated slop is art because it doesn't actually convey any emotion.

This generation of the picture itself is art, similar to other "experience" art pieces. Its referred to as immersive art.

[Lerc]

>If you present it as art, sure.

>But the best part about art is that other people don't have to consider what you do as art.

I often think of art in a way that is remarkably consistent with these statements.

My view was "Art is an invitation to consider" Sticking a banana to a wall becomes art when you do it to make people to engage or think about it.

Engagement is not compulsory, but I think the invitation might be. Sticking a banana to a wall to keep it away from ants is simple utility, not intended to be artistic expression.

>I don't have to believe your AI generated slop is art because it doesn't actually convey any emotion.

You don't have to engage, but choosing to denigrate is actively hostile engagement. There are plenty of people using AI for expression of ideas. There are also people doing a bunch of dumb things. Lowbrow art is still art in it's own way. Much of it may have very little to say, but I don't think there are very many people who have pretensions that low effort images are much more than a kind of doodling.

[happymellon]

> You don't have to engage, but choosing to denigrate is actively hostile engagement.

Apologies, that was not my intent, more to make people think because some people seemed to be confused about what is the art here.

Sticking a webcam through a filter to produce a pretty output isn't necessarily original, but that doesn't stop it being interactive art. Some folks here seem to think the image is art, whereas I see the whole as the art. A single static image that had been captured and run through the filter then presented doesn't really have very much to say. The installation can be interpreted in many ways and grows to be more than the sum of its parts.

Is it generating images?

Could it be co-adopted by people with vision or interpretation issues such as prosopagnosia?

Low effort/low brow art is still art.

Clicking on "create me an image" and having Bing generate a picture doesn't give the world anything as it enters zero effort, which ultimately reduces the creators investment, and therefore the viewers investment, into the piece.

[flir]

If I had to drag myself across a desert in order to press that Bing button, would it be art then? (I think, in that example, the act of pressing the button might be the art - a performance).

[happymellon]

Which aligns with this piece in the story.

Sticking a webcam shot through an AI filter is a pretty low bar. What makes it art that anyone other than the creator would care about is the real-time rendering. Thats the art that people are interested in discussing.

People do all sorts of walks as art. Whether thats Drag or a parade where the art is to make the walk interesting, or walking through the desert, laying on a bed of nails where the "walk" (or laying down) isn't necessarily interesting but the passion is.

Pressing the Bing button is unlikely to evoke any passion except from Bing product management.

[lofaszvanitt]

Art is something that grabs you and is also unique in the way it presents the subject. Also, there has to be skill involved, otherwise the whole thing goes up in smoke if it feels cheap or superficial.

A banana on the wall is not art, because it involves an everyday object in an everyday setting.

You might feel it's art, but if that's the case, then you haven't exposed yourself to true art enough to have a pool of experience or only seen so far superficial examples.

[skeaker]

> I always thought that art is all about emotions, both preserving and creating them.

Is that not what was meant by "surfacing the inner world?"