• And, yet, I’ve been to an exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Fine Art that consist of an installation that included a toilet, among other similarly inspired works of great art.

    On a less absurd note, I don’t have much admiration for Pollock, either, but people pay absurd amounts of oof for his stuff, too.

    An art history class I once took posed the question: if you find a clearing in a wood with a really interesting pile of rocks that look suspiciously man-made, but you don’t know if a person put it together or if it was just a random act of nature… is it art? Say you’re convinced a person created it and so you call it art, but then discover it was an accident of nature, does it stop being art?

    I fail to see any great difference. AI created art is artificial, created with the intention of producing art; is it only not art because it wasn’t drawn by a human?

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you’re talking about

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

      that’s a seminal work of avant guard art. You are still talking about it 100 years later. It’s obviously great art.

      Art is a work of visual, auditory, or written media that makes you feel emotion. That’s it. Does this pile of rocks make you feel happy or sad or anything? Then it’s art.

      AI makes pictures like a camera does. It doesn’t make it art unless you make something that evokes emotion.