critical thinking
Oct. 8th, 2022 11:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
totientA bunch of folks who think they know what art is are debating whether AI art is art over in the convention-running social medias.
So far every criticism I've heard is also true of someone whose works sell for millions of dollars. Kruger, Rauschenberg, Banksy, edited to add: Koons. (Did you know that a Rauschenberg recently sold for $89 million? I didn't until today, but I'm pleased that the reaction of the art world seems to have been "it's about time".)
Ultimately I think the question is meaningless. Is any given image art? If so, at what point did it become art, and how? To my mind, the first question is much more about what happens after it's finished than what happens beforehand. Trying to classify things as art according to their creation is absurd.
So far every criticism I've heard is also true of someone whose works sell for millions of dollars. Kruger, Rauschenberg, Banksy, edited to add: Koons. (Did you know that a Rauschenberg recently sold for $89 million? I didn't until today, but I'm pleased that the reaction of the art world seems to have been "it's about time".)
Ultimately I think the question is meaningless. Is any given image art? If so, at what point did it become art, and how? To my mind, the first question is much more about what happens after it's finished than what happens beforehand. Trying to classify things as art according to their creation is absurd.
