Whole libraries have been written over millennia about the importance and purpose of art, and that specific quote reduced it all down to nothing more than the creation of a product with a specific and mundane function as part of some other product. I genuinely feel bad for people with that mindset towards art.
I think that quote is talking about commercial art and there being a market willing to pay a large number of artists to do relatively mundane artworks. It does not exclude the possibility of artists doing art for art's sake as a hobby or a few elite artists doing paid high culture art. It's like when photography became a thing and there was a lot less paid work available to painters.
I don't see that as a distinction worth making. Commercial art is still art.
Music, for example, is an incredibly commercialized art. Replacing every song or album I have ever purchased with AI generated facsimiles is also an incredibly depressing thought. And let me tell you, my tastes aren't "a few elite artists doing paid high culture art".
I would hope people still find value in painting, especially in a world with photography. That is even ignoring the strained nature of this analogy. The context of the original quote was in a discussion of the inherent plagiarism of AI. Photography wasn't invited by stealing painters work.
Huh? just because most of my day spent writing simple scripts for cleaning up data, to use as an example, doesn't mean I didn't have many many years honing my programming skills.
Someone who points out I'm mostly doing mundane things is telling the truth, not that they underestimate my knowledge or skills or don't appreciate the beauty of code.
Whole libraries have been written over millennia about the importance and purpose of art, and that specific quote reduced it all down to nothing more than the creation of a product with a specific and mundane function as part of some other product. I genuinely feel bad for people with that mindset towards art.
I think that quote is talking about commercial art and there being a market willing to pay a large number of artists to do relatively mundane artworks. It does not exclude the possibility of artists doing art for art's sake as a hobby or a few elite artists doing paid high culture art. It's like when photography became a thing and there was a lot less paid work available to painters.
I don't see that as a distinction worth making. Commercial art is still art.
Music, for example, is an incredibly commercialized art. Replacing every song or album I have ever purchased with AI generated facsimiles is also an incredibly depressing thought. And let me tell you, my tastes aren't "a few elite artists doing paid high culture art".
I would hope people still find value in painting, especially in a world with photography. That is even ignoring the strained nature of this analogy. The context of the original quote was in a discussion of the inherent plagiarism of AI. Photography wasn't invited by stealing painters work.
5 replies →
art to them is a commodity, not a facet of expression or cultural participation.
Nobody talks about art that survived millennia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(2007_film)
Never been to an archeological museum? There's a couple just in my city, they definitely show art that survived millennia.
2 replies →
Huh? just because most of my day spent writing simple scripts for cleaning up data, to use as an example, doesn't mean I didn't have many many years honing my programming skills.
Someone who points out I'm mostly doing mundane things is telling the truth, not that they underestimate my knowledge or skills or don't appreciate the beauty of code.
I don't know how you interpreted my comment about art being undervalued as me undervaluing coding, but it is the wrong interpretation of what I said.