There are certainly cases where this might be true, but I doubt that this assumption is generally true; one would have to do some experiments and put these artificially generated paintings up for real auctions (for the purpose of scientific knowledge, of course, not to cheat).
I've tried this around with some friends of mine and they could not spot the difference between Person generated and AI generated. None were art experts just people with good taste.
Well, there is a considerable difference between "good taste" and professional experience with the art market. A lot of art sales are made with things that are totally tasteless from my unprofessional perspective. It would therefore make a lot of sense to experiment with real art experts with experience of the market. Maybe you have heard of the experiments where they submitted machine generated publications to scientific conferences and succeeded with it ;-)
Was this on a screen or some sort of physical medium (canvas, etc.)?
Hence the saying:
"Art is anything you can get away with."
Still a human hand is involved there, even for mere deception.
You're right. But it is not a particular trait of modern art. It was the same centuries ago as well.
Good point! So what it needs is a story then? How about the work, is it interesting?
I like the work very much. The art market is very much about story. Check out a documentary (I think available on Netflix') called Beltracchi: The art of Forgery which wrestles with this question.
So what is about creation?
We train algos on creation and we think AI nailed it
Would be more intersting explaining the computer what art is, give it some hints and let it come up
With something. This is all but a gimmicky remix of previous work, whatever was trained on
I don't think anyone has found a way to explain to people what art is, let alone computers. Practically all art is very heavily inspired by what has been done before, even if as a kind of rejection of it. The only exceptions I can think of are "art" by toddlers, chimpanzees, pigs, etc., and it's debatable whether that fits the definition (or whether the definitions it fits are acceptable).
Agreed. But all art takes place within a context which an AI algo cannot ever fathom of. AI is nothing but a tool and lets squeeze this down to a simpler tool, could a brush ever create art by itself?