> I would really like an objective explanation of why this attitude "that the whole point of art is the process of making it" is anything but pretentiousness in it's purest form.
i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why
> And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration
i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless
> Surely the actual artifact itself has some value?
genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?
> genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?
Oh, man, absolutely. Few examples:
- My daughter and I created a song about our cat with Udio. It took some trials and errors, but the result is awesome and it made us laugh many times since.
- Some early AI poems and stories that we generated are memes already for us
- I generate a lot of music and created tooling around it so I can curate and iterate upon them in quantities. Out of many thousands attempts there is a few dozen of songs that I absolutely love.
The thing is AI art is rarely 100% AI. But even if it was, I wouldn't feel ashamed if I liked it.
> i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself
I agree. The enjoyment I get out of a good piece of art isn’t just the piece of art itself, it’s that experiencing the art is a way to kind of connect your mind with the human that made it. If part of the art resonates with me, it’s nice to know that there was another person that felt the same way. If the art is a technical marvel, so can think about the genius and skill of the creator.
AI art doesn’t have any of that and I have to conclude that people who talk about enjoying AI art to the same level as human-made art just never bothered to connect with human art on that deeper level
Is the deeper connection to art just about the fact that there was another person who felt something, or is it about what the art is communicating/representing? I would argue that the real value is in what feeling or information is actually being communicated, not what person or process was on the other end.
Okay but can you parse my question a little more carefully? Because I said "the whole point".
Also you're talking about the context of the art and it's meaning. That does not depend on any actual person being involved or any long drawn out process of creating the art. In fact, if you really dig into the capabilities of AI tools today and think about it, they dramatically accelerate the ability for some artists to create lots of meaningful work that is very contextual. Or to make more carefully refined works that they have iterated on and carefully curated.
i think that's a problem - i am no philosopher or art historian, but i truly can't think of "objective" truths of any kind when i think about art, the process of making art, or the process of engaging with art. it's nice to make art. i play around with synthesizers and it... makes me feel more like a human being, i guess? when i record music or do amateur photography i've actualized myself somehow. something that wouldn't have existed otherwise now exists because of my actions, and that's enjoyable to experience. i imagine one could argue "you still created something that wouldn't have existed when you prompt an AI!" but it just doesn't feel the same, and i struggle to explain why
> And even if one supposes that a key part of the value is self-exploration
i think a lot of value is the context of the art itself - picasso going insane, the protests leading up to the tank man photo, aphex twin's cheetah, jesse krimes being in prison, whatever. maybe this is just me, but when i go to museums the extra information in the labels or audio descriptions is where i find most of the joy and fascination that makes the artworks meaningful to me. AI art feels contextless
> Surely the actual artifact itself has some value?
genuinely - have you encountered AI-generated art that you find valuable? that you tell other people about or have kept a copy of for yourself somehow?