So many dumb arguments about AI art stem from a fundamental disagreement about art as a product *of artists* vs. art as a product *for consumers*, between art as a social activity and art as an experiential one, between the intent of the speaker and the effect on the listener.
If you are not interested in the trappings of cultural lineage, if you scorn art history as an idle waste of time, and if, most importantly, you care not for what the particularities of a painting tell you about the peculiarities of the painter, then of course you will have no issue with AI art. You are the glorious consumer, seeking only that which delights his senses, utterly ambivalent to origin or craft. And with AI, you shall finally be freed from the petty demands of labor, who insist you expend precious effort on "being cultured" so as to offer tithings to qualities beyond your immediate perception. At last, technology and capital have conspired to Just Let You Enjoy Things, slop and all.
But, on the other hand, if you claim that AI art is inherently inferior, you will come to find no refuge in idle criticism of appearances. With enough data at one’s disposal every technique can be mimicked, every stroke simulated. The hands will be fixed and the piss stain will fade. If you can describe a flaw, you can test on it, and if you can test on it, you can train on it. That you can spot patterns in the subpixels which act as scarlet letters does not mean that such patterns are the root cause of your disgust. These are mere excuses for your prejudice; to pretend otherwise is ignominious. It's not categorically worse or fatally flawed. There is nothing "wrong" with the art as object; you just don't like its origin. You don’t care for AI art because you don’t care for AI artists. That’s it; the rest is cope.
What happens when you post a real Monet and say it’s AI? The coolest art social experiment I’ve seen in a while. Thank you
@SHL0MS