1) for their own creative fulfillment. Generative AI makes no difference.
2) for enjoyment / appreciation from other people. Generative AI makes little difference here since the average person's art is likely to be mediocre with or without generative AI
3) as a way to earn their living. Here generative AI will make a difference in some art professions, but that doesn't seem to be the implied scenario of the comment I was replying to.
When you read a book do you jump to the final chapter, read it, and then shut the book?
Because it sounds like that's how you view art.
I keep photographs of moments as memories, eventually I'll collage them together, maybe I'll do this a few times to develop a style that I enjoy. For the argument, say that it looks horrendous but in a consistent way that I like. This collection and its output have significance to me and to others I'd share it with because of the attachment to the reflection of my identity, not because it was something I created "correctly". If AI art was generated of every moment of my life and done in the same style, it wouldn't have value not because it was made incorrectly, it wouldn't have value because it has no personal meaning to anyone.
If you view art without meaning to others being less financially valuable as an attack on all creative work, I don't think you view art much better.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a good chunk of art is meant to be consumed rather than created. but the only way to know that is to gather all artist and ask them.
There are some art that insincerity meant to be seen of course. Such as murals , street, Large wall Paintings and it would be silly to act as if they’re not meant to be
You're allowed to read it however you like. No one is saying you're not. But, given those circumstances, is your interpretation of the art valid? At that point why even read the last chapter? Just make up your opinion based on the cover, you'll get through books much faster since that is your only goal.
But understanding an art piece frequently (usually?) doesn't end with that individual piece of art anyways. If Duchamp presented Fountain in 2024 would it have the same appeal? Could Fountain have been produced in 1200? Does the fact that Fountain started as a mass produced item fundamentally effect it's statement?
Your final sentence is just a completely unfounded ad hominem? No reason to attack me bud. I haven't told you how I view art (except for "in full") and I certainly didn't say anything like "art without meaning to others being less financially valuable is an attack on all creative work"
I don't think your comment really fits this thread, which is about why artists are creating art.
But if anything, it strengthens the point. The art in the Fountain is not reproducible by generative AI, its existence therefore makes no difference.
No, it really doesn't. The value in Fountain has nothing to do with the tangible piece of art itself. That's what I'm trying to communicate to you.
Attempting to boil "art" down to any one quantifiable aspect is impossible. That is the point of the anti-art like Fountain.
In other words, I disagree with your assumption that highly polished corporate art is superior to home made "mediocre" art. I grew up with TV shows like 12 OZ Mouse, Home Movies, Shin Chan, Tom goes to the Mayor, etc. If you think running those shows through generative AI would improve the shows... I would say again you don't understand what made that art good.
At best you could try to make a case for "death of the author" but I'm not sure if that principal applies to art that never had an author.
wat
I'm also talking about the way it would feel as a human.
You're jumping to conclusions.
Edit: You also didn't answer the question.
How could you possibly expect this sort of worldview to reflect well upon you as a person?