>Why would you want to see a booth showing artworks that weren't even created by the person in front of you but by an AI?

I'd suggest people learn about Andy Warhol's factory where they mass produced "art." Art is obsessed with "thing-ness," that is, being able to hold and own the artistic object. It's why people without record players buy vinyl that they listen to on spotify. And the way I see it, the main problem with AI art is that (1) it's all digital, and (2) there hasn't been an artist willing to develop a model themselves in order to create unique pieces that exist in the real world.

Don't get me wrong, I think the visual arts are going through a shift that will rival the advent of the photograph, but we are at the birth of this new period. I think it's fair to say that we are in the "this is bad" period before new art movements using the technology start to emerge (e.g. photography), as well as art movements that move away from the medium (e.g. modern art). Art has always been in conflict between being about the idea and being about the skill to bring that idea to life.

https://guyhepner.com/news/318-andy-warhol-inside-the-factor...

https://www.thecollector.com/how-photography-transformed-art...

▲

hiddeninplain 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> This technique allowed him to mass-produce images, echoing the consumer culture he sought to critique and celebrate.

Critique, yes. Celebrate, wat?

I tend to categorize Warhol as an artist that if you hate their work you should love it because the point is to coerce you to hating it to lead you to the realization that the arc of factory mass production bends toward lowering quality.

I highly doubt Warhol used his chosen soup brand because he felt it was the pinnacle of soup and represented how even mass produced quantities can have excellence in quality.

More likely he was saying this piece is to art as this brand's product is to soup.

▲

reaperducer an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd suggest people learn about Andy Warhol's factory where they mass produced "art."

Ditto for Picasso, and many artists even going back to the Renaissance when great painters and sculptors sometimes had apprentices finish or duplicate paintings/sculptures for them.

But this isn't that. AI is something else entirely.

I don't recommend using the Warhol argument. It's become a trope used by AI-über-alles people who have little knowledge of and often zero experience in the arts.

▲

scoofy 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

My entire point is that art is an inherent contradiction. Art can be anything. Fucking Duchamp’s readymades should make any concern about AI worthless. He was literally putting someone’s trash in a gallery and it was art.

The reason why artists are mad about AI is the same reason artists were mad about the photograph… they were selling a product like craftsmen, but calling themselves artists. Yes, there is a crisis for getting paid to be someone else’s creative, but there is no crisis in creativity. In fact, there has never been more freedom than now.

	▲	hiddeninplain 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Wild that you claim others misunderstand art via an ill conceived attribution to "thing-ness", but make all of your arguments on the grounds of said "thing-ness". Duchamp's R Mutt is an abstract commentary. The actual vehicle of this commentary, the upside down urinal, is wholly arbitrary.