Comment by strogonoff
18 hours ago
What makes art different from an arbitrary pretty thing?
In my view, it is the nature of art as self-expression and metaphorical, transcending the constraints of literal verbal meaning, human-to-human communication. Ergo, when there is no self to express on the other side, it could be a pretty thing, but categorically not art.
You know, I agree.
I think there are two components of art that make it valuable - first, the entire history and human context behind the art. This component is sentimental in nature and inextricably linked to both the artist and the beholder. People value art because it means something to them in a way that is often indescribable. And yet you can definitely say that this sometimes-indescribable meaning is definitely not "because it looks cool." It seems related to the sum of all human feeling about the art.
The second component is being automated away. That component is "this configuration of pixels can be used to convey meaning in a practical sense." I need a retro pixelated cactus for my game. I can generate a really good looking one for 10 cents because this component of art has been commodified.
Just because the second component of art's value has been commodified and its value has been driven to zero through competition, that doesn't mean the value of the first component has changed at all. If anything, I'd think people now value art with most of its valued anchored in the first component even more than they used to.
One last thought - I agree with your semantics regarding what we define as art. I apologize for calling this commodified thing, for lack of a better word, "art" throughout my comment. Whatever you call it, I want it for my video games. And I still want the real true human art just as much, if not more, than before the advent of these technologies.
first, the entire history and human context behind the art
In some ways, AI art embodies this even more --- it's the sum of innumerable human artists whose work was used in its training, and of course the human that prompted it to generate.
The second component you refer to is the craft, or making of artworks. This was automated away over a hundred years ago by Duchamp with 'Fountain' an industrially made urinal. Since then the making of a work and the meaning of it have become two mostly independent concepts, with neither particularly reliant on the other.
That might be nice philosophically, but i don't think that is how the average human defines art.
Even people who like art don't really define it that way afaict. For example, "death of the author" is a hugely popular concept when it comes to art, where the idea is that what matters is what the art makes you feel, not what the author was trying to communicate.
I think you find art as you describe it in galleries not in pixel art collections.
And do we all actually care that much? No otherwise it would not be a breadless job.
We don't value artists they struggle financially and most do contract work and not their art.
> We don't value artists they struggle financially and most do contract work and not their art.
I think taylor swift is doing fine.
Its not that we don't financially value art as a society, its just that we do it very unequally.
You know exactly that I did not mean the 0.01% of artists.
We do it aligned as a mass phenomenon.
But still Taylor for sure makes good music but how many people really pay for art?
And then also art from a specific artist.
Exactly. Artistic and aesthetic values are distinct concepts.
That Mona Lisa replica in your living room has the same aesthetic value than the original, as it is a perfect copy, but vastly inferior artistic value.
Art is defined by context.
Yeah it makes me sad. I play games to see something neat someone else found and made and wanted to show me. Ai images are just content for its own sake and we have so much of that already.
I've played a bunch of great RPG Maker and Ren'Py games that used creative commons art and music. The draw of those games was experiencing the story that the creator wanted to tell. What's the difference if the same creator used AI generated art instead? Seems to me it could help creators to express themselves better, not worse.
I agree.
But in your case the art would be in everything else that isn’t the sprites. By everything else I mean everything the author would have care about. It wouldn’t mean that the sprites couldn’t be aesthetically appealing but only that this part of the game wouldn’t be what’s artistic about it.
I think IA can be incorporated into art as long as it is made consciously, but IA generated content in itself couldn’t be the art piece.