It’s an interesting question. Some things can’t be quantified 🤷♂️
Discussion
An artist using a tool is still an artist, however art is subjective, and no one owes you anything for your art.
Id suggest intent is actually the definition of art.
For example- If a human uses a tool to create an image, and it’s intension is to be art, then it would be art. If the same human uses that same tool with an intention to advertise a product, it is not art, but an an advertisement. In my field of photography, I define the latter as “work”.
This is also similar in other arts that become work, for example- another art I participate in is fire dancing. My partner now has a side gig where she performs this art for pay. While it is an art, when performed for pay it becomes work, and the “artistic expression” one has is limited by clients’ desires.
Therefore, I’d make two claims- A- AI cannot create art, only a human using an AI as a tool can do so, by using such a tool with the intention to create art. B- art has no relation to a viewer’s experience, emotional or otherwise, positive or negative, but rather the creators intent.
Great perspective #[3] Intentions matter and I hadn’t through of it this way before. Thought provoking 🤔
If you walk into my home and tell me the picture on my wall isnt art, I have a right to have you arrested for trespassing. Perspective trumps intent in reality. You have a right in America to express your opinions, however the word "free" is a debatable term 😂 🤦. I hope we can build towers of babel together through dialogue on the internet, but we arent there yet. What we have right now is a discussion which always drives "dis-unity" though it cam be used to inform. Ill think about your words, hope you can think of mine.
First, hanging “a picture” on your wall doesn’t make it art- family photos are hung on the wall for example, that is not hanging art on the wall. Certainly a photo of a family can be art, the nuance is important.
Second, I never mentioned anything about freedoms, or America? Your perspective seems US centric.
If you are thinking of my words, I’d suggest you read again and think harder, because your response seems influenced by words other than my own.
Finally, I’m not sure I’d want to walk into your house and talk about what you have hung on the wall if your response is to call the police for trespassing on a disagreement. Not my kind of friend.
Your words are in my words: intention makes something art. My response: the receiver of the thing determines the value, and if it is welcome at all. I am central US so take that for what its worth.
You make an assumption that art must be received? What if there is no receiver, only a creator? Is it not art?
As a creator of art, sometimes it’s not intended to be given or shared with anyone other than myself.
For one I am glad you did not block me. To answer your question, I think you are the receiver in that case.
By definition, creator creates. Art is not received, it is created, with intention.
Maybe you should try it sometime?
Now you are adding terms 🤦 no big deal 🤙 I like this video for Art by Seth Godin. If you want to discuss creation, that is a whole other bag of things 😁: https://youtu.be/rdUeq09cGJ0
Interesting 🧐 I’ve thought often that AI is a tool or an extension of humans, but you really drive it home that nobody owes an explanation.
It was reinforced to me by that interview with James Clear's assistant - the one you shared. Still waiting on two quotes and two anecdotes from you on it 😂, but that doesnt mean Im gonna zap you for it 😜 especially if you use chatgpt to come up with them from the tramscript 🤙