Comment by piltdownman
5 days ago
You ARE, however, allowed to decide what constitutes Art - and the determining factor for many comes down to conception and intent.
With the advent of creation by prompting, the conception and intent is abstracted away to a patron/artist interaction as opposed to the tool/artist synergy you contend. Providing only instruction and infrastructure as input means the appropriate analogy is something more akin to Medici/Michelangelo than Mass-Production-Silkscreening/Warhol.
You may not get to decide what someone else's creative journey looks like, but you are more than entitled to critique the extent of its creativity and artistic veracity.
Nope, that's also incorrect. You get to decide what you think is art, but not what others consider art to be. That is the nature of subjectivity: your opinion holds no weight over others.
Generally, it's inter-subjectively decided what art is, which works enter the canon and are passed on. Placing it solely in each individual, "it's only a matter of taste", falls a bit short of some centuries of aesthetic theory.
Also, AI is maybe only the last straw as Silicon Valley and the digital sphere was already "transforming" the creative industry, cp this piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-dea...
No. The simple fact is that you cannot tell two people, a producer and consumer of art respectively, what kind of relationship they are allowed to have nor, what medium they express it through, or whether or not it is a valid form of creativity. It is simply none of your business, and it's exceedingly arrogant to think otherwise.