Alt Text
Show parent replies
The post below is a reply to another user
ooh good thought experiment i think this brings out the difference. i suppose im very keen to diminish the role of a discrete ontological specification of an “art” object as such, and more keen on emphasizing the role of aesthetic interpretation and appreciation
so i agree it does sound rather odd to call a collection of clouds “art”, but if they’re playing the same role that other art objects do, i don’t care too much about whether it counts as art or not
i’m also extremely keen on diminishing the role of intentionality, both on the side of the artist and the interpreter. these can be of subsidiary sociological/anthropological interest, but don’t seem directly aesthetically relevant to me
or rather, they can be relevant if that influences an observers interpretation, but that isn’t a necessary condition
and yes i very much agree, labeling generative models as artistic is very silly lol, and i wouldn’t care to do this since i don’t really see the value in focusing on creators anyway.
that being said, im open to the possibility that an automated ai (no person selecting outcomes) could still produce objects capable of aesthetic appreciation - which colloquially seems to approximate what “art” means to people, but i don’t extremely care about the definition if that isn’t conflated