What does it mean for art to have a soul?

I would argue that modern art has none. Further, I would argue that art is what speaks to people.

That means that an AI generated image which makes people laugh has more soul than whatever the top selling modern artists was in 1995. By my estimation, that makes a lolcat a better piece of art than most modern art.

That is something that I actually think is true. Of course there are great artists who can show us much, much more than what is inside a lolcat. Its just that I haven't seen one of those in a while.

Artists are concerned for their jobs; That I get. Trying to defend art by claiming magical things like it doesn't have any soul is just cope. And frankly, the more I see of that, the less I care about artists and their real problems.

▲

ozmodiar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To me it means more that art is a window into its creator. I am more interested in exploring how and why a piece of art is being communicated, why certain details were used, how constraints were incorporated. AI is usually boring to me. By generating so much peripheral and extreme detail it removes rather than enhances expression in many cases. I think that's what people mean by missing a soul. It becomes difficult to tell what was intentional expression or a choice of the artist.

▲

dudefeliciano an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Modern art refers to art produced roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s.

▲

shlant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

people who complain about modern art almost always know essentially nothing about art. Usually heavy overlap with those that complain about anything that is different from what they like/grew up with

	▲	carlosjobim 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Because the public never gets the opportunity to be exposed to good art, whether classic or abstract or whatever style. Most what's called "modern art" in the style of early 20th century like Picasso or later Pollock is low quality sewage, but that's what's being fed to the public. That's what everybody grew up with and everybody hates. The public is underexposed to beautiful and interesting art, but who is to blame?

▲

goosejuice an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes and yet modern and contemporary are synonyms. See polysemy. The context makes it clear.

▲

customguy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're confusing entertainment with art.

Art is a form of expression and/or communication. It's interesting because it shows us different perspectives, as well as things that overlap with ours. When you see a smiley face on your lawn and think it's a sign by the person you just fell in love with, and then find out the exact same artifact was in fact created by wind sweeping some branches together, you'll feel different about it. Similar for art. Or take jokes. A friend might find a joke of yours funny they might not find funny from a person they dislike. That's not "unfair" or "objectively wrong", just like rejecting the same artifact depending on source. If you don't understand this, you talking about "magic" is the cope.

> Its just that I haven't seen one of those in a while.

So that's the argument for making sure of that? Heh.

> Artists are concerned for their jobs; That I get.

The article isn't about artists being concerned for their jobs. This is about people rejecting slop.

▲

techblueberry an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The soul is whatever story the buyer puts into it. A few years ago, people attributed soul to NFTs, but I think in the long run, humans will ultimately be able to generate more pervasive stories. There are thousands of artists in towns continuing to generate them.

	▲	dudefeliciano an hour ago \| parent [-]
		NFTs were just a supposed new way to claim ownership over works of art. NFTs themselves were not a new artform in itself. I doubt anyone claimed that NFTs had some kind of artistic value, just by virtue of being an NFT.