• Susaga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.

    In order for something to be an artistic choice, it has to be a choice. It has to have meaning and intent. AI did not choose to put a glass there, it calculated that there was probably a glass there based on shitty reasoning. AI does not have the creative capacity to make art. It can only make images, and those images are shit.

    You’ve thoroughly proven you can’t tell between slop and high art, so thank you for the compliment of my critique.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      AI does not have the creative capacity to make art.

      I agree!

      And the same applies to cameras. That doesn’t mean that photographs can’t be art, though.

      It’s not dada. It’s too coherent to be dada, and it’s too shit to be anything else.

      TBH my first instinct was trolling, especially as it’s easy to overlook when you’re just reading the text, not focussing on anything else. Point is when you’d hang this thing in an exhibition the audience would go all “ahh” and examine the mechanism.

      The academic art world is beset nowadays with blurbs of barely intelligible critical theory to justify themselves, I find a fresh amateur artists saying “oh that’s interesting, neat, let’s keep it” much more interesting.