Comment by gametorch

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.