Comment by @larryscruff • Hey
I don't understand. Can you explain it in a simpler way?
Comments
- Sure, you asked:
*Is it art if it's made by an AI? 🤔*
My answer:
*suppose yes, then:*
*is the "artist" who "did" the art* (i.e., the operator who wrote the prompt) *able to create more art once we turn off the tool?* (i.e., is an artist or an operator? is an tool-dependent artist an artist? Short answer: it doesn't matter).
*if no, then:*
*what happen with all the "art" we did before inventing art degrees?* (The argument for many is that it is not art because it doesn't come from "real artists", so, under the same criterium, the art made before art degrees shouldn't be considered art neither... So... again, it doesn't matter).
*etcétera...*
the discussion can go forever. All definitions of art/no-art will eventually fit and be right under a certain point of view. But that is not the point, we are focusing the discussion on a tool, and that's a vain discussion as the art passes through the aesthetic, the emotive and the intellectual experience, i.e., through **the perception of the artwork** (if you want to go deep on this check on the book "Ideas about the complexity of the world, by Jorge Wagensberg). That's why on my first answer I asked back "does it matter?", because:
- as long as you enjoy consuming or doing an artwork,
- as long as you identify yourself with the role of artist regarding if you work with AI, acrylics, pen or a guitar,
- as long as the society assumes something as an artwork,
... then **what is the importance of the tool that you use or has been used for creating it?** The tool doesn't modify the perception, is the cultural reading of the artwork what does it.
Hope that clarifies my answer 🙂