I find myself agreeing with parts of this but also wanting to challenge parts of it, and whilst I don't think my thoughts are fully clarified even to myself yet, the crux of my challenge is that how art makes an individual feel has little to do with the time spent, effort or even the technical ability of the artist, generally because you are not aware of it (this is obviously variable depending on the field or medium) and if you then become aware of those things, it neither validates nor invalidates your relationship to it.
Of course, the extreme events mentioned (the banana art, et al) are largely performative and sit at the very end of this scale. But the magical thing about much art is the subjectivity, and if something genuinely invokes feeling to you and moves you, then you largely aren't reacting to the amount of technical skill involved, which is why many people would rather listen to The Beatles and Nirvana as opposed to say, virtuosos with extreme technical ability like Yngwie Malmsteen or Steve Vai.
It's a thoughtful comment, but I think you do somewhat prove the point, The Beatles and Nirvana are at the same levels at their particular craft as the instrumentalists you mention. I think we could get into a separate discussion on artistic complexity here, which is valid too but I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the main points. Those groups and the virtuosos are still different than a group of middle managers in a building trying to manufacture something at a conference table or clicking some prompts. And the output proves it
Yes, I think artistic complexity or multi-disciplinary fields perhaps muddies the waters a bit. The Beatles were fairly mediocre instrumentalists, mediocre vocalists and certainly started out as mediocre songwriters though grew into much better ones later on. But we must take them as the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. And yes, definitely agree on the manufacturing. With AI, though, I do think, for better or worse, we will (and perhaps, even already have without knowing) reach a point where there is generated art that both moves us and is indistinguishable from something drawn, and I suspect that in that case, if we were then to find out it was generated we would have a reckoning about whether that should or does invalidate anything we may feel towards it. I'm not necessarily saying this is a good thing, but it would not surprise me, and I think these kinds of conversations are great to examine our relationship with art as a whole. Moreover though, I think generated VS not is somewhat of a false dichotomy, and what we will begin to see more of is something that sits between the two. But that is a whole other conversation regarding AI as one tool used amidst a wider palette.
I see AI output as a Rorschach test for taste. The people who think weird AI generated pictures or songs are good are the same people who bought those Now That's What I Call Music! compilations or line up for every Marvel movie slopfest. Those people have always existed and will always exist I suppose, but the difference is, before they were made fun of, and now it's "let people enjoy things." Which isn't invalid, people are free to like crap, but I think it should be okay to call it what it is.
It makes sense, because to them since it's "new" it's automatically good. They have no sense of history, of place, of anything else. Basically novelty seeking goldfish
As much as I hate to give those people a pass, they've been inculcated to it. Those people are just responding to what's been incentivized. "The new thing is the good thing, give us all your dollarbucks now!" is basically the US in a nutshell.
Ayn Rand defined art as a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value judgments. See Rand’s essays in the “Romantic Manifesto” for a deep dive on the purpose of art and the objective standards by which art may be evaluated.
There’s this tea I drink and the bags have this little fortune cookie thing, and I often get the one that says, “the difference between a flower and a weed is a judgment”. It annoys me every time lol.
Like the difference between a beautiful cathedral and a concrete building with four walls is a judgment.
As you say, taste does vary, and that is a good thing. But most people who are in tune with the world in the right ways are able to recognize universal beauty when they see it!
If I'm trying to find a positive out of all this AI slop, it's that it has raised the bar for good taste. It's a lot more to sift through, but it makes finding something great that much more worthwhile.
I find myself agreeing with parts of this but also wanting to challenge parts of it, and whilst I don't think my thoughts are fully clarified even to myself yet, the crux of my challenge is that how art makes an individual feel has little to do with the time spent, effort or even the technical ability of the artist, generally because you are not aware of it (this is obviously variable depending on the field or medium) and if you then become aware of those things, it neither validates nor invalidates your relationship to it.
Of course, the extreme events mentioned (the banana art, et al) are largely performative and sit at the very end of this scale. But the magical thing about much art is the subjectivity, and if something genuinely invokes feeling to you and moves you, then you largely aren't reacting to the amount of technical skill involved, which is why many people would rather listen to The Beatles and Nirvana as opposed to say, virtuosos with extreme technical ability like Yngwie Malmsteen or Steve Vai.
It's a thoughtful comment, but I think you do somewhat prove the point, The Beatles and Nirvana are at the same levels at their particular craft as the instrumentalists you mention. I think we could get into a separate discussion on artistic complexity here, which is valid too but I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the main points. Those groups and the virtuosos are still different than a group of middle managers in a building trying to manufacture something at a conference table or clicking some prompts. And the output proves it
Yes, I think artistic complexity or multi-disciplinary fields perhaps muddies the waters a bit. The Beatles were fairly mediocre instrumentalists, mediocre vocalists and certainly started out as mediocre songwriters though grew into much better ones later on. But we must take them as the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. And yes, definitely agree on the manufacturing. With AI, though, I do think, for better or worse, we will (and perhaps, even already have without knowing) reach a point where there is generated art that both moves us and is indistinguishable from something drawn, and I suspect that in that case, if we were then to find out it was generated we would have a reckoning about whether that should or does invalidate anything we may feel towards it. I'm not necessarily saying this is a good thing, but it would not surprise me, and I think these kinds of conversations are great to examine our relationship with art as a whole. Moreover though, I think generated VS not is somewhat of a false dichotomy, and what we will begin to see more of is something that sits between the two. But that is a whole other conversation regarding AI as one tool used amidst a wider palette.
I see AI output as a Rorschach test for taste. The people who think weird AI generated pictures or songs are good are the same people who bought those Now That's What I Call Music! compilations or line up for every Marvel movie slopfest. Those people have always existed and will always exist I suppose, but the difference is, before they were made fun of, and now it's "let people enjoy things." Which isn't invalid, people are free to like crap, but I think it should be okay to call it what it is.
It makes sense, because to them since it's "new" it's automatically good. They have no sense of history, of place, of anything else. Basically novelty seeking goldfish
As much as I hate to give those people a pass, they've been inculcated to it. Those people are just responding to what's been incentivized. "The new thing is the good thing, give us all your dollarbucks now!" is basically the US in a nutshell.
There are people here who aren't like that too so don't lose hope entirely
There are, and that’s always encouraging
Buy local art from real artists!
Ayn Rand defined art as a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value judgments. See Rand’s essays in the “Romantic Manifesto” for a deep dive on the purpose of art and the objective standards by which art may be evaluated.
There’s this tea I drink and the bags have this little fortune cookie thing, and I often get the one that says, “the difference between a flower and a weed is a judgment”. It annoys me every time lol.
Like the difference between a beautiful cathedral and a concrete building with four walls is a judgment.
As you say, taste does vary, and that is a good thing. But most people who are in tune with the world in the right ways are able to recognize universal beauty when they see it!
If I'm trying to find a positive out of all this AI slop, it's that it has raised the bar for good taste. It's a lot more to sift through, but it makes finding something great that much more worthwhile.