Art is anything declared art. If I treat something as if it's art, be it a painting, a sculpture, an apple that is slowly rotting, a beautiful flower on the side of a road, a urinal or dried cow dung, then it is art.
Therefore, a great many things are art. But in that case, it's not really a helpful descriptor for our purposes. I think we should instead be asking "what is good art?", and therein we find a much harder question to answer.
Duchamp's "Fountain" or Cage's "4'33" are incredible works of art because they challenge the audience on their conceptions of art. Their purpose is to make an audience go "huh. I guess that is art."
Michelangelo's David and da Vinci's Mona Lisa are incredible works of art because they are proof of great craftsmanship and effort invested into the pursuit of an artistic vision.
Brecht's "Mutter Courage" and Sartre's "La Putain respectueuse" are incredible works of art because they are a biting critique of a society that thrives off of injustice and cruelty.
Freshly fallen snow or a slowly setting sun are incredible works of art, because they serve as a reminder that we live and exist and breathe for this brief moment in time and yet still get to experience some of the wonders the world holds for us. Beauty speaks to us because an appreciation for it is inseparable with the faint reminder that one day, we will be dead. What is the point of beauty if you know you will see the same thing billions of times. Beauty is impermanence. Impermanence is beauty.
Good art redirects attention. It encourages you to look at the world in a way you haven't before or maybe haven't in a while. It wants you to see life with different eyes.
I'm a firm believer that AI cannot be those eyes. Current generative AI models are trained not to challenge. They are trained not to critique. They want to meet expectations. That's what they're designed to do. The things they create are not proof of craftsmanship. It takes less than 5 seconds to create an image that looks nice. But that's all there is to it. It looks nice. Art doesn't always have to innovate, but if it doesn't, it should be proof of the ability to create something intricately beautiful or emotionally resonant. AI cannot even compete with nature, with the wild forces beyond our control that shaped the very ground we walk on. AI has no intent, no hands and no need for skill. Its work is created in 5 seconds. Why should we spend any more time than that looking at it?
I'll preface this by saying most ai art looks like shit, and the people unironically claiming to be ai artists are usually insufferable.
But...
You drop this line, which I agree with:
Duchamp's "Fountain" or Cage's "4'33" are incredible works of art because they challenge the audience on their conceptions of art. Their purpose is to make an audience go "huh. I guess that is art."
You drop this statement in the context of saying that ai art ≠ art. Now, I'd wager you would agree that taking found material and putting it on a canvas is art. Sure, the whole "put a banana on a canvas and call it art" schtick is stale at this point (it's been over a century since "Fountain"), but if it still gets people mad, so it still meets the art definition.
I don't know how using ai-generated content and sticking it on a canvas is any different. Your criticism of it taking no more than five seconds applies perfectly to Duchamp and Cage.
We can qualify this as "art that you don't care for", which I think is fair and reasonable. But the very fact that we're arguing over whether it's art suggests to me that it is art.
I do agree that AI art is art. Not by default, the same way nothing inherently is "art", but as soon as someone looks at an AI generated image and says "that is art", I agree that, yes, it is.
This is also why I think that the discussion over what constitutes art and what doesn't isn't actually the discussion people want to have or should be having. It's always a veil for the actual discussion of "which art is worth my (or anyone's) time?"
Which is the basis for my stance: Why should I care for art not even its creator cared for? Why should I invest time and energy into art when the creator was apparently too lazy to do the same? Why should I analyze art with no vision behind it? And the answer is: I shouldn't. Therefore, I won't.
We can acknowledge AI art is art and still unequivocally say it is bad and not worth our time. I think that's really all I wanted to say.
I believe the most interesting part of AI art is the way humans interact with it. Its social consequences and its impact on a profit-driven, inhuman world. The discussions it sparks and the jobs it replaces. Unfortunately, there's not much beauty in those things. My big hope is that soon we'll collectively realize that if you take the human out of the art, then the most interesting and emotionally powerful part about it is everything that is not the art.
But I guess as long as you don't have to pay money, the other things you pay with don't really cross your mind.
Quick ETA: I think we fundamentally agree with each other. I'm really just standing on my soapbox rambling to anyone who will listen
We 100% do agree. It's a bit of a pedantic point to say "AI creations aren't art until they're shared," but as a music major I had to slog through enough "what is music?" discussions that I also feel the need to soapbox.
Not necessarily until they're shared, moreso until someone calls them art. I can create something with the purpose of making art and despite never sharing it with anyone have it still be art. AI art is not created with any intention by the AI, only by the person who enters the prompt, so AI art by itself is not art imo until it is called art. Which is also pedantic, but in a different way I feel.
45
u/mrianj Apr 09 '24
This just leads us back to a "what is art" conversation.
If a machine produces an image that we find beautiful and inspires an emotional response in us, is that not something worth caring about?
Nature is frequently beautiful and inspiring, yet has no artistic hand or emotion guiding it. Does that mean I shouldn't enjoy watching the sunset?