AI-Art Isn't Art
erikhoel.substack.com
erikhoel.substack.com
Yesterday we had an article on Duchamp's urinal. The art world consensus, after that incident, seemed to be that what made it "art" was the intention of the artist. (Never mind that Duchamp's intent was to point out that non-art was the same as art...)
But if you accept the art world's definition, the AI doesn't have "intent". Since there is no artist's intent, does that make it non-art? Does the AI programmer's intent count for anything?
And in reverse, I think a lot of "AI art" we get shown does have human participation - people do pick the prompts and often iterate on them and only show the interesting results.
My objection isn't to the article. It's not to saying that "AI-Art Isn't Art". My objection is to an art world that accepted Duchamp's "ready-mades" as art. They are not art, for the exact same reason that the article gives.
It's not just the intention of the artist at a superficial level - someone intending something to be art, therefore it's art. As the article says, it's a skillful artist intending us to think and feel and experience what the artist did, and creating something that will make us do so. Signing a urinal doesn't do that, no matter how much the artist "intended" it to be art.
So what I'm saying is that, in the same way that AI-art is not art, the working definition of much of the art world for the last century has been labeling other things "art" that also are not art.
If that's your position, I have some sympathy for that but I'd say that the difference is that in a world where AI art can be generated at the push of a button, we end up in a world where it's impossible to determine if a piece has been made by human hands. The cultural equivalent of grey goo.
To me there's a big qualitative difference between some art being bullshit and (effectively) 100% of it being bullshit. Of course that includes narrative art as well, since GPT-N language models are already pretty capable in that department and will only be getting better.
Let's talk about that instead, if you don't mind. I think that might be a really useful thing to have in my mental toolbox, if I understood it.
What is "epistemological closure"? How do you know when a conversation has hit it? Why do you stop there?
Are illnesses caused by bad humors or are they caused by an imbalance of cold and hot foods? That discussion will eventually reach a point where both participants realize they're arguing about theology, but it'll take a little while to get there. Once there, it's not like there's nothing left to do but unless both sides are willing to go "hey we disagree about truth here do you want to talk about the reasons why instead of the object level stuff about what's true" it's better for all involved to just smile and call it a day.
Avoids a lot of less filling/tastes great shouting matches
And by the way, I deeply appreciate your style of argument and disagreement. You disagreed without being disagreeable, and without even really arguing. You listened, made sure you understood, stated that you disagreed, and moved on cheerfully. May your style spread.