You’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head, because nowhere did I say anything about AI art. You’re also again misunderstanding my point - and misunderstanding what creativity is. “Representative art” requires creativity, because a mountain is not two dimensional. Taking a photograph requires decision-making. Even once you’ve taken a pretty picture, though, loop back to my first point - beauty alone is not art.
Again, you’re arguing with a version of me that you’ve created in your head: yes, we use tools to make art. People use spellcheck when writing a play, people use knives when making woodcuts, we use ovens to blow glass. However, if I - without permission - take a photo of my neighbor’s watercolor and print it on T-shirts, do you think I created a work of art? That much is at least arguable. There’s expression, there’s creativity, and it could be aesthetically pleasing in the end. However, one of the main contentions people have with AI gen…do you find it ethical?
Pay close attention to what I’m saying here, please. You’ve been trampling on nuance, so don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m a scientist that kind of works in tech, and I have a lot of creative pursuits outside of my day job. I think there’s a lot of potential to LLMs and other tools out there, but I think we need to pay careful attention to ethics, and I do think words have meaning, even if definitions drift, and even when we’re talking about challenging subjects.
Keep trying really. It’s interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans.
I’m glad we agree on something! Yes, the definition of art hard to pin down. Subjectivity is the name of the game. I loathe a lot of modern art, because I think it’s disappeared up it’s own asshole, as Vonnegut would say. It’s strange though, because you seem to be certain that your definition of art is universally correct. Again, my initial point - you’re conflating beauty with art, because you claim a mountain itself is art. I think a mountain is beauty, and there’s beauty in our scientific understanding of why it looks like it does. But I don’t think that qualifies as art.
And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book.
What politics do you think I’m pushing? How do you think whatever politics you are pushing have impacted your view of what defines art?
Thanks for a thorough reply, there’s a lot to tackle, so apologies that I’m not responding to everything in it. You make good points, but it’s clear we have fundamentally different perspectives on this.
I tried to be explicit that permission is not required to make art - because I want to disentangle the two arguments. One of the biggest contentions I have with AI gen stuff is the ethics involved. No ethical consumption under capitalism, so I get arguments that the paint brushes I have were produced unethically to some degree, so pot meet kettle, but I think there’s degrees we can find some nuance in. But I don’t think it’s useful, either, to just shrug and toss the ethics aside. It must be acknowledged, and grappled with.
As for the rest of your comment about the artist copying preexisting emotions, tapping into things that are already there - or the infinite monkeys thing - I do think some amount of intentionality is required to call something art. That said, we all create derivative works to a degree: that’s just impossible to avoid. We’re only human, and we filter our environments through our brains and experiences, and that allows some unique (but again, derivative to a degree) works. If you ask ten people to paint a scary lion, we’re all drawing on some shared fear, and maybe a single photograph of a lion, but you’ll get different works as a result. The art, for me, is the product of the creative process. Art requires intentional action, IMHO. It’s a more narrow definition than yours, but I think being overbroad makes the word meaningless, and indistinguishable from…beauty, or (to include grotesque images, or other emotions), simply aesthetics. AI tools can make beautiful images, but this all circles back to my initial point (with some modified wording): aesthetics are not inherently art, art is not just aesthetic. If we get to AGI, I’ll buy the things it creates as being art. For now, it’s really impressive math. Doesn’t undermine the beauty in it, but it’s something different.
Again, this is my personal opinion. In my science career I’m more of a lumper than a splitter - when talking about evolution, you can “lump” together groups into species, or “split” them into subspecies (really for any clade). So I get your impulse to be open and not gatekeep. I’m not trying to gatekeep, but I do think there is utility in defining things. I don’t like splitting species, but there are differences in crocodiles and alligators. We can’t just lump them into one species - but they are related by broader terms. In this case, I think you’re talking about aesthetics, and not art. Just my personal opinion, and not making a value judgement any more than calling an alligator an alligator, and not a crocodile. They’re different things, and yes: species that look nearly identical but are genetically distinct qualify as different species. The way something beautiful is made matters. IMHO