zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
>We imagine artists spending their working hours pushing the limits of expression. But the median artist isn’t producing gallery pieces. They produce on brief: turning out competent illustrations and compositions for magazine covers, museum displays, motion graphics, and game assets.

One of the more eye-opening aspects of this technology is finding out how many of my peers seemingly have no understanding or respect for the concept of art.

>>slg+F9
How do you mean?

>>simonw+Ic
Whole libraries have been written over millennia about the importance and purpose of art, and that specific quote reduced it all down to nothing more than the creation of a product with a specific and mundane function as part of some other product. I genuinely feel bad for people with that mindset towards art.

>>slg+kf
I think that quote is talking about commercial art and there being a market willing to pay a large number of artists to do relatively mundane artworks. It does not exclude the possibility of artists doing art for art's sake as a hobby or a few elite artists doing paid high culture art. It's like when photography became a thing and there was a lot less paid work available to painters.

>>jowea+6K
I don't see that as a distinction worth making. Commercial art is still art.

Music, for example, is an incredibly commercialized art. Replacing every song or album I have ever purchased with AI generated facsimiles is also an incredibly depressing thought. And let me tell you, my tastes aren't "a few elite artists doing paid high culture art".

I would hope people still find value in painting, especially in a world with photography. That is even ignoring the strained nature of this analogy. The context of the original quote was in a discussion of the inherent plagiarism of AI. Photography wasn't invited by stealing painters work.

>>slg+qP
There will be people who see something created by AI, are told it was made by a human, and have an emotional reaction as if it were. That alone challenges the idea that emotional impact depends on human authorship.

Does knowing a human made something automatically make it more valuable? Should it? Shouldn't the work speak for itself, rather than rely on the cult of personality around its creator?

These discussions always seem to focus on form as if that is what defines art. But in many cases concept is more important. Duchamp didn't craft the urinal. The idea was the art. If a piece moves someone, and that reaction changes based on who or what made it, what does that really say about how we judge art?