← Back to context

Comment by kredd

3 years ago

That’s totally fine, everyone’s definition of art is subjective. But general value of an art as a piece will just still be zero for AI generated ones, just like any IKEA / Amazon print piece. You just pay for the “looks pretty”, frame and paper.

>You just pay for the “looks pretty”, frame and paper.

But you pay that for any piece of art though? You appreciate it because you like what it looks like. The utility of it is in how good it looks, it's not how much effort was put into it.

If you need a ditch you're not going to value the ditch more if the worker dug it by hand instead of using an excavator. You value it based on the utility it provides you.

  • That analogy doesn’t work for art, since worker’s ditch is result based. There are no feelings like “i like this ditch”, “experience of a ditch” or “i’m curious how this ditch was dug”.

    Again, i’m not saying buying a mass made AI art will be wrong. Just personally speaking, it will never evoke any feelings other than “looks neat” for me. So its inherent “art value” is close to 0 as I can guess its history is basically someone put in a prompt and sent it to print (which I can do myself on my phone too!). It’s the same as looking at cool building pics on my phone (0 art value) versus actually seeing them in person (non-0), mostly because the feelings I get from it. That being said, if it makes others happy, it’s not my place to judge.