Search Results
7/16/2025, 2:04:43 PM
>>510529018
Art is different I think. If the human element is removed from the bulk of "artwork", I'm concerned about the general implications of centralized systems of technology monopolizing common human access to generating utilitarian beauty.
I've always thought that the best artwork is judged by a combination of technicality and authenticity. By "authenticity" I mean that it is meant to be a sincere, though symbolic, exchange of information with a polysemic quality to its interpretation. There is a general spectrum of ideas which are presented by the piece, which when introduced to the viewer, elicit a personal set of feelings and ideas all contextually dependent upon the experiences of the viewer. This is "good" art -- steered, but open to interpretation.
It is important then to distinguish between sincere art and insincere "art", where the first is generated from a range of ideas and emotions, and the second is intended to be analogous with something directly, usually a historical event, contemporary movement, or aspiration. We would typically classify crude and egregious cases of insincere art "propaganda", but the antipodes of this quality, sincere to insincerity are on a continuum. There exists propaganda which openly states itself as such which obviously carries sincere artistic merit. Still, it isn't intended to be viewed through the perspective of the individual observer without "priming" of environmental context (current events, contemporary politics, shared social motivations).
The danger is that once the production of "art" is dominated by centralized systems instead of a independent artists, there will likely be a substantial erosion of the association with "art" and "sincerity" entirely. This shows an escalation in the stakes of AI advancement, where each passing generation faces a more intrinsic and nuanced part of human-specific abstractions encroached upon by systems of technology.
How much farther are things going to go?
Art is different I think. If the human element is removed from the bulk of "artwork", I'm concerned about the general implications of centralized systems of technology monopolizing common human access to generating utilitarian beauty.
I've always thought that the best artwork is judged by a combination of technicality and authenticity. By "authenticity" I mean that it is meant to be a sincere, though symbolic, exchange of information with a polysemic quality to its interpretation. There is a general spectrum of ideas which are presented by the piece, which when introduced to the viewer, elicit a personal set of feelings and ideas all contextually dependent upon the experiences of the viewer. This is "good" art -- steered, but open to interpretation.
It is important then to distinguish between sincere art and insincere "art", where the first is generated from a range of ideas and emotions, and the second is intended to be analogous with something directly, usually a historical event, contemporary movement, or aspiration. We would typically classify crude and egregious cases of insincere art "propaganda", but the antipodes of this quality, sincere to insincerity are on a continuum. There exists propaganda which openly states itself as such which obviously carries sincere artistic merit. Still, it isn't intended to be viewed through the perspective of the individual observer without "priming" of environmental context (current events, contemporary politics, shared social motivations).
The danger is that once the production of "art" is dominated by centralized systems instead of a independent artists, there will likely be a substantial erosion of the association with "art" and "sincerity" entirely. This shows an escalation in the stakes of AI advancement, where each passing generation faces a more intrinsic and nuanced part of human-specific abstractions encroached upon by systems of technology.
How much farther are things going to go?
Page 1