Hacker News Reader

Comment by satvikpendem | Hacker News Reader

Should I like art only if they're made by humans? If I did a blind test between AI and humans and I like the AI, does that make me suddenly not like "art?" Face it, I (along with most people) like the outputs of art, not the inputs. We simply don't care whether a human or a computer or a dog made it, as long as the output is good. If you want to define "art" as only a human thing, go ahead, but I will still watch and listen to what I like, regardless of its creator, and if that's not true "art," then I don't really care.

View on HN

Then you don't like art, you like the product of art, the form or topography of art, the presentation of it, but not art itself. You like to consume a product.

Some people do actually like the art, the process, the artist, the questions that art open (even if mundane such as "how did they think of this?"). Remove that and it's just a shell, a hollow product without soul. It's ok if you like that but then you don't actually like art.

Sounds good, I don't actually care about "art" then, based on your definition.

It's not my definition, it's by definition art is:

> the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

Conscious use of skill, there's no conscience in AI hence no art.

If we're getting into the definition of art I feel like it's a hard sell that an actual episode of TV, with plot and actors and everything, isn't art because no creative impulse went into it, yet a plain orange canvas is art that's worth $80 million [1] just because a human touched it.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/arts/design/rothko-painti...

You’re conflating economic value with artistic value. The worth of a painting is a highly speculative number based on a few rich people deciding they want to trade in art. Artistic value is independent from it. Art may resonate with you, yet be economically worth nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com