That the exact same piece of art will have a wildly different value depending on who’s seen to have made it, is true. And that goes for different humans, as well as for human vs. AI. Usually artists find that part undesirable, though. It’s supposed to be a skill they personally have and not just about connections and clout.
You’re probably right that people aren’t going to stop wanting Banksy, even if AI can do an equally good Banksy.
BTW, photography did kill painting, as it was. Painting portraits was like a steady trades job before - people wanted to be remembered and seen by future generations, and with no cameras that was the only way. Afterwards, it just becomes a form of fine art. A lot of the anger now is because something similar is happening to, like, graphic designers.
who’s seen to have made it does matter but is not the important part, the important point is the causal chain by which the art is manifested into the final product matters. people assign much lower value to artwork that has been traced vs original pieces for instance.
photography did not kill the aesthetic value of paintings. people have and still appreciate good paintings even with the rise of photography. of course photography has changed painting stylistically, but has not killed its aesthetic value. the question of how much people value art aesthetically is related but separate from economic considerations. don’t get the concepts mixed up. as i argued in the article, it follows from the statement that art is not a state function to the case that it is merely that our tools to make art evolve, but good art is always hard to make and intrinsically valuable regardless of what tools are available, even if those tools are a camera or a neural net.
To be a bit glib, it’s always about money. And ego, in the case of the skill involved. People here aren’t angry and insulting me because I’m technically wrong about the philosophy of aesthetics.
I’m just someone on the internet, and you should talk to other artists. If I’m guessing correctly, the response won’t be “you’re right, as long as the causal chain is intact it’s fine”.
pretty much no artists, or consumers of artistic works, would say their art is aesthetically more valuable simply because it costs more due to whatever the current economic situation is. of course there may be some correlation though, but think about whether it is causative, or perhaps the other way around (maybe art that has more aesthetic value entails they on average fetch higher prices based on however much people value their spare dollars in the current economy…).
also, artists actually aren’t the best people to ask about the philosophy of aesthetics, philosophers are. mostly because artists spend their time making art whereas philosophers spend their time actually thinking deeply about these things. (though asking an artist might be better than the average consumer, because we artists are more attuned to the relationship between the creation process and our works)
That the exact same piece of art will have a wildly different value depending on who’s seen to have made it, is true. And that goes for different humans, as well as for human vs. AI. Usually artists find that part undesirable, though. It’s supposed to be a skill they personally have and not just about connections and clout.
You’re probably right that people aren’t going to stop wanting Banksy, even if AI can do an equally good Banksy.
BTW, photography did kill painting, as it was. Painting portraits was like a steady trades job before - people wanted to be remembered and seen by future generations, and with no cameras that was the only way. Afterwards, it just becomes a form of fine art. A lot of the anger now is because something similar is happening to, like, graphic designers.
who’s seen to have made it does matter but is not the important part, the important point is the causal chain by which the art is manifested into the final product matters. people assign much lower value to artwork that has been traced vs original pieces for instance.
photography did not kill the aesthetic value of paintings. people have and still appreciate good paintings even with the rise of photography. of course photography has changed painting stylistically, but has not killed its aesthetic value. the question of how much people value art aesthetically is related but separate from economic considerations. don’t get the concepts mixed up. as i argued in the article, it follows from the statement that art is not a state function to the case that it is merely that our tools to make art evolve, but good art is always hard to make and intrinsically valuable regardless of what tools are available, even if those tools are a camera or a neural net.
To be a bit glib, it’s always about money. And ego, in the case of the skill involved. People here aren’t angry and insulting me because I’m technically wrong about the philosophy of aesthetics.
I’m just someone on the internet, and you should talk to other artists. If I’m guessing correctly, the response won’t be “you’re right, as long as the causal chain is intact it’s fine”.
pretty much no artists, or consumers of artistic works, would say their art is aesthetically more valuable simply because it costs more due to whatever the current economic situation is. of course there may be some correlation though, but think about whether it is causative, or perhaps the other way around (maybe art that has more aesthetic value entails they on average fetch higher prices based on however much people value their spare dollars in the current economy…).
also, artists actually aren’t the best people to ask about the philosophy of aesthetics, philosophers are. mostly because artists spend their time making art whereas philosophers spend their time actually thinking deeply about these things. (though asking an artist might be better than the average consumer, because we artists are more attuned to the relationship between the creation process and our works)