| >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. |
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.