This same argument happened 200 years ago after the invention of photography.
They saw photography merely as a thoughtless mechanism for replication, one that lacked, “that refined feeling and sentiment which animate the productions of a man of genius,”
Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.”
And where are we today? 99.999999% of photos are taken by people with their own phones for free, when they want something cheap and quick.
It’s the same with AI. If I want AI generated art, I’ll just do it myself. And it’s only getting easier and cheaper and better.
To say there’s money in the future of AI art is like saying there’s money in photography. I.e very infrequent, very specialized, where quality is a premium.
This same argument happened 200 years ago after the invention of photography.
They saw photography merely as a thoughtless mechanism for replication, one that lacked, “that refined feeling and sentiment which animate the productions of a man of genius,”
Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.”
https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/
And where are we today? 99.999999% of photos are taken by people with their own phones for free, when they want something cheap and quick.
It’s the same with AI. If I want AI generated art, I’ll just do it myself. And it’s only getting easier and cheaper and better.
To say there’s money in the future of AI art is like saying there’s money in photography. I.e very infrequent, very specialized, where quality is a premium.