this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38230 readers
1110 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These are great examples of that part of art AI can not capture.
The first was painted by a donkeys tail in the presence of a legal witness, sent to exhibition under a false name, and when it began to be recognized at the time by critics and media, the artist said "aha! You literally like art that a donkey can make, your taste is terrible and so is popular art".
The second is a physical can of the artists feces (I don't know if anyone has opened the can to be sure), this time with no explicit agenda. What did the artist mean by this, was it another criticism of art critics, was it a criticism of the commodification of art, or something else entirely?
The last was made as the artist tried to find a religious experience derived from art. He said with this piece he did. I don't find it particularly compelling, but 100 years ago this rethinking of what art can be was revolutionary enough for Stalin to send him to the camps.
If you only value art for consumption, yes these are exactly the same as me sitting at the computer pressing generate for a few hours. If any of the context is included in your enjoyment of the art, there is no comparison.
They are examples of a simple prompt you can put into an AI, to get similar results.
One is little more than random noise. You can put this comment into an AI prompt, in the presence of a legal witness, and when people start liking the output, say "aha!".
The second is an automated process of canning food, that the artist used to can his own feces. Yes, they were real, about half the cans have exploded after being exposed in places when the sun would heat them up, which was part of the artist's plan. Another piece by the same artist is Fiato d'Artista, a balloon blown up and sealed by the artist, that over time has deflated. The "art vs. automation" of both, fall heavily on the automation part.
The last can be generated with a single sentence prompt to any image generating AI.
The interpretation you make up to justify a piece, is independent from the means used to generate it... so you have to choose: