This is a very nuanced question, because art isn’t always about skill.
I remember I was one of those guys who thought modern art was stupid. My family took me to MoMA and I remember I was looking at a painting of a red square. It was a large 2 foot by 2 foot red square. I remember saying “but anyone could do this” to my aunt. She replied:
But nobody else did.
Stopped in my tracks and it clicked. The fact that they had done it, and we were there talking about it and discussing it, that right there proved it was art.
So it’s not just quality. I’m sure AI could spot out 1000 red squares, and some would consider that low effort, but no one would ever discuss them.
But there’s already tons of generative art that gets discussed, lauded, shared, and remixed. Even when in negative connotations, it’s proving that generative art, warts and all, is a new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.
This is a very nuanced question, because art isn’t always about skill.
I remember I was one of those guys who thought modern art was stupid. My family took me to MoMA and I remember I was looking at a painting of a red square. It was a large 2 foot by 2 foot red square. I remember saying “but anyone could do this” to my aunt. She replied:
Stopped in my tracks and it clicked. The fact that they had done it, and we were there talking about it and discussing it, that right there proved it was art.
So it’s not just quality. I’m sure AI could spot out 1000 red squares, and some would consider that low effort, but no one would ever discuss them.
But there’s already tons of generative art that gets discussed, lauded, shared, and remixed. Even when in negative connotations, it’s proving that generative art, warts and all, is a new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.
I mean, if a duct-taped banana can fetch millions