[kelseyfrog]

Art is a framing device largely independent of the content. It's how we get Fountain[1], Piss Christ[2], Comedian[3], Mother![4], 4’33”[5], and Seedbed[6] to name a few among countless others. To claim that AI content is incapable of being framed as art is nonsense when we have example after example of the diversity of what art can be. Let's remember, bad art is still art.

1. Marcel Duchamp. 1917

2. Andres Serrano. 1987

3. Maurizio Cattelan. 2019

4. Darren Aronofsky. 2017

5. John Cage. 1952

6. Vito Acconci. 1972

[fruitworks]

If that was true, then the development of a new urinal factory would have the same impact on art as the development of a new AI art models.

The framing is dependent on the content

[kelseyfrog]

Framings require creators; they don't arise spontaneously. Someone could turn a urinal factory into art, but art doesn't validate itself. Belief alone in artistic essentialism doesn’t make it so.

[fruitworks]

That's such a great pile of bullcrap, you could frame it and hang it up in a museum!

The point I'm making is that a unique framing only results in a single piece of worthwhile conceptual art. You can't have an infinite factory of ducamp's fountain. What makes the piece worthwhile is that it was an original idea.

Conceptual art is different from decorational art in this sense. The AI music is a largely a homogenous synthesis of existing works. The AI "art" is decorational, not conceptual art. You could make an arrangement of AI art that is conceptual, but how many arrangements can you make that are actually worthwhile conceptually if AI art is generally homogenous?

It's like asking how many worthwhile works of conceptual art can you produce with a urinal factory that makes identical clones of the same urinal? 0 to 1.

And besides, it's not nessisarially true that all framings have creators. Nature is an example of a system that cultivates and curates a certain type of life without any rational process.

[kelseyfrog]

I don't disagree that being novel has it's place in framing art, and I still believe that a Fountain Factory could certainly be framed as art.

To your other point, sorry, but artistic/aesthetic essentialism hasn't been serious position for at least a hundred years.

As long as there is a perceiver, there is a frame.

The idea that nature is intrinsically beautiful is a frame. It's fine to hold that but it shouldn't be confused with not having a frame.

[recursive]

There's a difference between a factory that is art vs a factory that produces art.

There's only one factory, and the concept works only once.

[kelseyfrog]

Mass-produced art is still art as long as people frame it as such and all indication suggests that they do.

[janalsncm]

The point of Fountain was to say that whether something is art should depend on the content and its absurd that a urinal could be considered art.

But the art isn’t in the content, it was in the statement it was making about the absurdity surrounding the fact you could pay to put anything in an art exhibition. Swap out the white urinal for a blue one, it’s the same point.

[janalsncm]

My favorite was David Datuna eating the $120k banana duct taped to the wall in 2019. A banana doesn’t transubstantiate into capital A “Art” just because someone paid a lot of money for it. In fact eating the banana was more Art than the original duct taping imo.

It is reminiscent of Fountain. Not sure if there was an intentional connection.