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.
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
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 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.
Buy local art from real artists!
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
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.