What concerns me is how easily the “rest of the world” is changing their opinions about what’s good. If the result isn’t good, then it isn’t good, sure. But in my experience there’s a large contingent of people, especially the youth, that are more reactionary about AI than they are interested in creativity. Their idea of creative value is inherently tied to self-expression and individualism, which AI and systems-based creative processes are threatening. When they don’t understand the philosophical case for non-individualistic/systems-based creative processes, they can’t differentiate between computer assisted creativity and computer assisted slop
The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit. Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
>The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit
Big opinions there. A large amount of art that you think comes from individual expression is often not. There are countless examples of artists that secretly used algorithmic processes. A great example is Vermeer: https://youtu.be/94pCNUu6qFY?si=M6UQ-XuHNtoj2-3a.
This is what I mean about how this individualistic philosophy of creativity actually just results in artistic gatekeeping and manipulation of the audience
It’s very common for artists to add on individual expression narratives at the end of the process just so they can market the art, and the reality is that the individualism was never there to begin with. It’s just manipulation and advertising, and it sucks because the success of advertising like this actually undermines the quality of the art world. Because audiences are so susceptible to advertising narratives, artists are forced to spend more time on advertising more than art
> Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
This is also not true. This idea mostly comes from the Romantic period. Modern day versions of it are often really just referencing a single book from the 1930s called The Principles of Art by a guy named R.G. Collingwood. It’s a very recent way of seeing art. Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
Well aware of Hockney's work related to the use of technology in art, but there's a difference between producing purely algorithmic work and using a specific technique. Vermeer's style and work is still uniquely his.
> Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be able to identify the style of individual artists and artisans, and yet we can of course, regardless of their intent. Giotto's only intent may have been to glorify god in his work, but of course, inevitably, his work is also a reflection of who he was.
This is precisely why AI art is so hideous and anti-humanistic - it can never been a singular reflection of the individual.
We can retroactively value art of the past using an individualistic philosophy, but that doesn’t change how it was valued in past. Artists of the past were considered good artists when they were capable of putting their own selves aside and allow God to flow through them. We now value their individuality, but they probably would’ve seen their individuality as their failures. It was a virtue to be objective rather than subjective. In literature especially we have are tons of letters between writers where they insult each other for writing in styles that are unintelligible to other people
I don’t necessarily ascribe to their views, but I bring it up because you said art has always been this way and it hasn’t always been this way