Some quick thoughts on Codex 4: In Defense of AI Art
Maybe I actually just want to spend this week editing and improving last week’s Codex entry. Maybe. Mmmm…maybe. Anyhow…
Thoughts
I need to tweak some of the section titles to be more pointed; I think I answer the question “what makes art, art?” directly before the section with that same name, for example.
There are a small handful of grammatical errors :)
I think I’d like more pictures – especially of AI art. Loab is a really interesting story that significantly bolsters my argument, but there are other interesting AI art pieces to show and discuss.
There seem to be 2 questions I’m answering: “what is art” and “why does AI-generated art count as art?” I think that answering the former ultimately helps provide a satisfying response to the latter, but I need to make these arguments more clear.
I think I’ve done an “okay” job at describing “artist” in this context, but I recognize that it may not be a completely satisfying answer. I do believe that an artist can imbue a new intention onto something that already exists, such as in the case of Fountain, but I think I need to dig deeper into this.
The easy way out would be to boil the entire argument down to “if photography is art, then so is AI art,” but I’ve found the challenge of defining what art is to be a satisfying one!
I had not considered the concept of artifacts at all, which may or may not be considered a form of art, and I think the definition may help to give a more satisfying answer to the “artist” question.
In the case of Mrs. De Florian’s apartment, perhaps it’s simplest to say that it’s arguable that she intended to create a beautiful living space and therefore she would be the curator and the artist, but it’s also arguable that she had no artistic intention whatsoever and therefore the apartment is strictly an artifact. Even assuming the latter, presumably someone else coming along and imbuing meaning onto that artifact would be creating a work of art as a result.
I also think it would help if I tried to build a more concrete set of “rules” for what I mean when I say “imbuing meaning,” or what the limits of “artist’s intention” are. I tried to give some extreme examples, such as mere record-keeping or “thought it looked interesting,” but there are plenty of examples someone could throw at me that I’d have to really think on. Even if it doesn’t affect the primary argument, that AI art is art, it’s still a part of my “what is art” definition and would benefit from being expanded.
Additionally, it could be fun to dive into some of the legal and ethical questions – especially considering my affinity towards vaporwave!
Lastly, I think I’m moving in the right direction with the criticisms I’m responding to, but they can benefit from some editing. I’m also sure I can come up with more.
c.zip