So if the AI generated content is sufficiently advanced, and you are not aware it’s AI generated when you interpret it and give it meaning does it then become art?
You are saying something different than the commenter above. The original comment stated art gains meaning from the artist, and you are saying that art gains meaning from the audience. If it’s the latter, and the audience isn’t aware the creator is AI, then it becomes art just like any human made content.
The difference between AI and human artists is only meaningful if you believe art gains meaning from the artist.
I made a mistake and I intended to specify "readymade art" on the second sentence, it's not meant to cover all art, sorry 😅. I realize now that I did state something different from the post I was replying to, but I do stand by the statement that it gains meaning from the audience. In the same sense readymade art pieces are not originally intended to convey artistic intent when produced. Only when they're displayed. The mere act of being displayed and being spectated as a display is where the piece (the infamous urinal, for example) acquires meaning. I know it's a controversial opinion though.
This isn't even a novel problem in art. I argue that it's pretty much the same as Xeniakis' stochastic compositions and John Cage's experiments with composing by using the i-ching, they were trying to divorce the artist from art. The difference is that the AI pieces just happen to be rather pleasing on an immediate level. Urinals, stochastic music, 4' 33'' were, uh, not pleasing. If the implication is that AI art is essentially the same as human made art, that context and curation is the entire difference, then yeah, it's something that art has been contending for decades though.
Should be mentioned that this would be a better discussion if the obvious threat of being automated out of a job wasn't looming all over our heads, I think it injects too much consequence to what's a conversation a bit divorced from normal life
So if the AI generated content is sufficiently advanced, and you are not aware it’s AI generated when you interpret it and give it meaning does it then become art?
You are saying something different than the commenter above. The original comment stated art gains meaning from the artist, and you are saying that art gains meaning from the audience. If it’s the latter, and the audience isn’t aware the creator is AI, then it becomes art just like any human made content.
The difference between AI and human artists is only meaningful if you believe art gains meaning from the artist.
I made a mistake and I intended to specify "readymade art" on the second sentence, it's not meant to cover all art, sorry 😅. I realize now that I did state something different from the post I was replying to, but I do stand by the statement that it gains meaning from the audience. In the same sense readymade art pieces are not originally intended to convey artistic intent when produced. Only when they're displayed. The mere act of being displayed and being spectated as a display is where the piece (the infamous urinal, for example) acquires meaning. I know it's a controversial opinion though.
This isn't even a novel problem in art. I argue that it's pretty much the same as Xeniakis' stochastic compositions and John Cage's experiments with composing by using the i-ching, they were trying to divorce the artist from art. The difference is that the AI pieces just happen to be rather pleasing on an immediate level. Urinals, stochastic music, 4' 33'' were, uh, not pleasing. If the implication is that AI art is essentially the same as human made art, that context and curation is the entire difference, then yeah, it's something that art has been contending for decades though.
Should be mentioned that this would be a better discussion if the obvious threat of being automated out of a job wasn't looming all over our heads, I think it injects too much consequence to what's a conversation a bit divorced from normal life