• Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why do you interpret Fountain as being an example of why AI generated art is not art?

    I interpret it like this -

    Spoiler tag, so my thoughts don’t influence yours

    Fountain was a reaction against artistic snobbery, and it kicked off a movement of people who create art, not for review boards, nationalistic purposes, or rich patrons, but because they themselves find it appealing - the whole ‘art is in the eye of the beholder’ thing.

    But I still regard it as art. Someone had an idea, and used tools (“AI”) to execute that idea. Sure, those tools remove certain kinds of skill from the equation (but they do require others, such as prompt engineering), and image generations definitely copy from others - but so do artists.
    If someone makes something that pleases them, who am I to say it’s not art?

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because AI art, as it is commonly used nowadays lacks intentionality (the thing that makes a urinal art).

      If I read a book, I used to know that every word was put there by the author with intent. If iI read AI generated text, it doesn’t convey anything that a human has put out there for me to experience. I’m looking at formatted output of stochastic models.