🏳️🌈🖖🏽
@georgetakei The erosion of seaside cliffs and the movement of the tectonic plates makes for gorgeous landscapes that few can deny are artful.
The blooming of of flowers, with or without human guidance, is a work of art, as is the brilliant burst of red light caused by an oblique angle through our atmosphere at sunset.
A photo, captured, processed, and retouched on the same artificial materials that run AIs, are unquestionably art.
I see no reason that a network of silicon and copper, built and trained by humans, can't make art too.
@jamesmarshall @georgetakei No, it's not. It was built by a human and it is prompted by a human.
Does art have to be enjoyed by others? Can't the artist be their own audience? If someone prompts an AI and receives a picture for their own appreciation and enjoyment, how is that not art?
More importantly, there are many algorithmic music artists that produce songs that do have a human audience. They're guided far more by a random number generator than by a human hand, yet their output is enjoyed as art.
There are many other examples of procedurally-generated art. That humans created these wondrous tools seems to be more than enough to consider their output to be art.
@LouisIngenthron @georgetakei I would say that those natural phenomena may be beautiful, but they are not art. Art is an expression by a sentient being. The biggest part of enjoying art, for me, is the connection between the artist and the listener/viewer/audience. AI-generated "art" may be aesthetically cool, but that human connection is completely absent.