zlacker

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?

>>throwa+(OP)
I mean, context changing how we see art seems natural enough. Would anyone care about analyzing this painting[1] if wasn't created by Hitler? Would anyone care about this child's drawings[2] if it wasn't 800 years old? Would people care about a stained glass depiction of the Crucifixion of Jesus if it wasn't a central event in Christianity?

Personally, I think in a lot of cases, people want to feel some sort of emotional connection with the artist through their creation, which doesn't work if you know it's AI created.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_Der_Alt...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onfim