Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekco
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
yeah i don't know enough about art theory to even argue about it. but like when was the last time a human came up with "new artistic value" seems like 90+% of artists are just copying / emulating / remixing other humans art, just like the computer is doing, i don't really see the distinction
like in anime for example i can think of like 3 styles, and that's it Toriyama, Miyazaki, Shirow and like maybe one or two others.
and it's like that in every art form humans do
|
I hear you, you don't really need to know about any kind of art theory though. The reason I brought up the beatles specifically is because people often try to explain away their success by some factor other than their actual artistic output. "Beatlemania" was very much a real thing, and yet:
-None of them were particularly good looking
-They started as white guys playing black guy music in a sea of other white guys doing the same thing.
-There was no access to internet virality because it was like 1960.
Given the topic of the thread it seems interesting; what is the intrinsic value of any piece of art? Does it matter how it was made? I don't think it does, but the problem with AI art is that it can only emulate inputs. It's kind of dazzling and remarkable how quickly it can make something that is a facsimile of something people recognize, but I don't think it can ever push the envelope artistically. Or maybe it can and I'm retarded, I dunno.