this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Memes
45489 readers
700 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a weird take. I’d say pretty much everything from impressionism onwards has (if only as a secondary goal) been trying to poke holes in any firm definition of what art is or is not.
Now if we’re talking about just turning a thorough spec sheet into a finished artifact with no input from the laborer, I can see where you’re coming from. But you referenced the “only seven stories” trope, so I think your argument is more broad than that.
I guess what it comes down to is: When you see something like Into The Spiderverse, do you think of it as a cynical Spiderman rehash where they changed just enough to sell it again, or do you think of it as a rebuttal to previous Spiderman stories that incorporates new cultural context and viewpoints vastly different from before?
Cuz like… AI can rehash something, but it can’t synthesize a reaction to something based on your entire unique lived experience. And I think that’s one of the things that we value about art. It can give a window into someone else’s inner world. AI can pretend to do that, but it’s a bit like pseudo-profound bullshit.
And how do you know, that impressionism (just as an example) is not pseudo profound bullshit?
Think about post modern art. Objectively, it's often enough just a bit of paint plus an explanation that is supposed to have meaning. How could you tell, that this is not generated bullshit? Seriously.
Art is basically just a genetic algorithm. Thousands of artists try different stuff based more or less on previous works, some succeed, most don't. The next art pieces will be heavier influenced by the previously successful art and thus lean more in that direction. Over time, saturation sets in, more experimental art wins, creates a new style, cycle begins again.
There's nothing inherently human in that. You'll find hundreds of thousands of crappy drawings, bullshit statues, etc., but you won't see them in history books. You only see what was loaded with meaning after the fact. Put an AI in place that generates thousands of images with different and new styles based in varying degrees on existing art, and you'll see a similar process (given a proper feedback loop).
Art fundamentally is an illusion. We give stuff meaning. Not the artist, but the rest of the world.