• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      I will try to make it more clear, if you didn’t understand me.

      1. not all art is creative. A great deal of art is representative. Saying that art NEEDS to be creative is conflictive. Art can be representative, just picturing something beautiful or not without any creativity effort on the artist.

      2. Art being expressive does not conflict with AI generated art. As it is just a tool used by a human to express themselves. A human being can use an AI to make true an image they have on their head in order to express that image to the world. So AI art will enter in your definition of art being a product of human expression.

      I’m just analysing you definition of art. Let’s be clear that it’s not my own definition, nor I agree with it. But you definition is faulty at its intention which is trying to come out with a definition that excludes only AI art from an art definition while including any other technique. Try again. Let’s see how convoluted could you ad hoc definition of art can be.

      Keep trying really. It’s interesting seeing some people realize how in all human history we have been unable to came up with a united and universal definition of art. It is probably one of the most vague concepts we have as humans. And of course pushing politics in the definition (we all know this is truly about politics, there is not facade here) is the oldest trick in the book. I remember when I studied story of art, that this have been a recurrent debate. Is a white toilet art? Is Malevich black square art? People have been debating this for ages. Many times with underlying political agendas, of course.