You say you wouldn’t get something as interesting as Turner’s slave ship but people have already entered AI artwork into competitions under human aliases and won the competition. The truth that art people never really want to admit is that the art world is basically controlled by gatekeepers. Whoever the influential art gallery owners/buyers decide is a good artist gets to exhibit. They craft a mythological story around the artist and their work and the artist does their part in perpetuating it. The wealthy buy the art thus translating the mythology around the artist in to actual monetary value. Once this has actually happened, it probably doesn’t even matter if any of the artist’s story is true - if it turns out not to be, it becomes just another twist in the story behind the art and it goes up in value. The rich people who buy the art don’t really care so long as the value of the artwork doesn’t come down; it’s just another way to diversify the portfolio so they’re less exposed to risk.
People are trying to figure out how to make AI art serve the same purpose: as an investment/cash storage for rich people. You seen them trying to do it with NFTs but it’s not really been that successful. The problem is that the value comes from there only being one unique physical piece (or however many the artist made) and the fact that the artist has a finite life span means only a limited number will ever be produced. This is why the art goes up in value after the artist dies; the story is “locked in” and there will never be any more pieces created. It’s a scarcity system.
I’m not an expert but I don’t know if AI can really do this. It’s an abundance system with an unlimited expiration date. Still if someone finds a way to make it a more reliable or valuable financial instrument than conventional art it may be able to replace it. I just doubt that it will happen because of its very nature. It’s hard to build a mythology around a token. People need some human connection. People who are working as graphic designers, logo makers, web designers etc are pretty screwed though because their work is a straight up exchange designed to serve a business purpose rather than a wealth management one and the businessman will opt for whatever is cheapest which will always be AI.
If you think this is cynical, look at someone like Van Gogh. No one gave a shit about his paintings whilst he was alive. It wasn’t until after he was dead and one of the wealthy and influential gatekeepers of the art world decided his art was good and built a story around it and wealthy people bought in did the painting become worth anything. If they hadn’t, it probably would be selling in some flea market for pennies.
barbarianbard t1_irb6772 wrote
Reply to comment by BCBCC in [D] What is left after machine learning takes over creative endeavors? by NotASuicidalRobot
You say you wouldn’t get something as interesting as Turner’s slave ship but people have already entered AI artwork into competitions under human aliases and won the competition. The truth that art people never really want to admit is that the art world is basically controlled by gatekeepers. Whoever the influential art gallery owners/buyers decide is a good artist gets to exhibit. They craft a mythological story around the artist and their work and the artist does their part in perpetuating it. The wealthy buy the art thus translating the mythology around the artist in to actual monetary value. Once this has actually happened, it probably doesn’t even matter if any of the artist’s story is true - if it turns out not to be, it becomes just another twist in the story behind the art and it goes up in value. The rich people who buy the art don’t really care so long as the value of the artwork doesn’t come down; it’s just another way to diversify the portfolio so they’re less exposed to risk.
People are trying to figure out how to make AI art serve the same purpose: as an investment/cash storage for rich people. You seen them trying to do it with NFTs but it’s not really been that successful. The problem is that the value comes from there only being one unique physical piece (or however many the artist made) and the fact that the artist has a finite life span means only a limited number will ever be produced. This is why the art goes up in value after the artist dies; the story is “locked in” and there will never be any more pieces created. It’s a scarcity system.
I’m not an expert but I don’t know if AI can really do this. It’s an abundance system with an unlimited expiration date. Still if someone finds a way to make it a more reliable or valuable financial instrument than conventional art it may be able to replace it. I just doubt that it will happen because of its very nature. It’s hard to build a mythology around a token. People need some human connection. People who are working as graphic designers, logo makers, web designers etc are pretty screwed though because their work is a straight up exchange designed to serve a business purpose rather than a wealth management one and the businessman will opt for whatever is cheapest which will always be AI.
If you think this is cynical, look at someone like Van Gogh. No one gave a shit about his paintings whilst he was alive. It wasn’t until after he was dead and one of the wealthy and influential gatekeepers of the art world decided his art was good and built a story around it and wealthy people bought in did the painting become worth anything. If they hadn’t, it probably would be selling in some flea market for pennies.