No and the hyperbole around this gives AI authority that it does not deserve. I love art, and one of the things that has peeved me off in the last 10-15 years is how many times I have stood in a gallery and all around me are people with a phone out snapping a pic to say I have been there.
There is only one of that item. One, and in real life if you take the time to view, you can appreciate the delicate lines, the brush strokes, the variation of colour and technique, the grain of the canvas that have stood the test of centuries, and you can marvel that it was once held by its creator. It has the ability to stir something inside you.
Pure art still holds. as another posted alluded digital art is where it changed. It is nothing more than endless reproduction, I am not criticising digital art, it is a movement, and and employer but with it you lose uniqueness and compromise authenticity. It’s hard to hear but its the nature of the format. AI is just another form of mass production and I would argue a graduation of the movement.
In short, anyone who thinks this needs to step inside a gallery and assess if AI content can achieve and hold credence.
This suggests that the only things that qualify as art are things that can be made by hand.
So let’s flip that a little and talk about writing. A perfect turn of phrase still exists when you type something rather than write it out by hand. The ability the evoke emotion through shared experiences, to evoke empathy or sympathy by telling a story, to bring joy and satisfaction through a literary tale still exist when the medium is “digital”.
What a lot of people talk about when they talk about ebooks vs physical books is the loss of physical sensations like the smell of books or the feel of turning a page. I will not say (as an avid reader) that this tactile feedback isn’t missing from the digital book experience, and I won’t say that it’s not an enjoyable part of the experience.
But I will say that just because we can recognize that trade off between the two doesn’t mean that the one that came after is lessened as art. Because if that were true it would have been “lessened” by going from spoken story to written story and I don’t think that’s true. It was changed. Some of the experience changed with it. But that’s not the same thing.
No one can appreciate shit anymore. They’ve lost the ability to enjoy anything. Brains are fried.
Try getting 1 person to sit through an album today. Its RARE. Doesn’t matter if they’re young or old either. The olds forgot their ways and have fried their brains worse than the young.
I would love it if all smartphones and social media dissapeared today.
No and the hyperbole around this gives AI authority that it does not deserve. I love art, and one of the things that has peeved me off in the last 10-15 years is how many times I have stood in a gallery and all around me are people with a phone out snapping a pic to say I have been there.
There is only one of that item. One, and in real life if you take the time to view, you can appreciate the delicate lines, the brush strokes, the variation of colour and technique, the grain of the canvas that have stood the test of centuries, and you can marvel that it was once held by its creator. It has the ability to stir something inside you.
Pure art still holds. as another posted alluded digital art is where it changed. It is nothing more than endless reproduction, I am not criticising digital art, it is a movement, and and employer but with it you lose uniqueness and compromise authenticity. It’s hard to hear but its the nature of the format. AI is just another form of mass production and I would argue a graduation of the movement.
In short, anyone who thinks this needs to step inside a gallery and assess if AI content can achieve and hold credence.
WBM Link https://web.archive.org/web/20260413102003/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/apr/12/is-ai-the-greatest-art-heist-in-history
This suggests that the only things that qualify as art are things that can be made by hand.
So let’s flip that a little and talk about writing. A perfect turn of phrase still exists when you type something rather than write it out by hand. The ability the evoke emotion through shared experiences, to evoke empathy or sympathy by telling a story, to bring joy and satisfaction through a literary tale still exist when the medium is “digital”.
What a lot of people talk about when they talk about ebooks vs physical books is the loss of physical sensations like the smell of books or the feel of turning a page. I will not say (as an avid reader) that this tactile feedback isn’t missing from the digital book experience, and I won’t say that it’s not an enjoyable part of the experience.
But I will say that just because we can recognize that trade off between the two doesn’t mean that the one that came after is lessened as art. Because if that were true it would have been “lessened” by going from spoken story to written story and I don’t think that’s true. It was changed. Some of the experience changed with it. But that’s not the same thing.
No one can appreciate shit anymore. They’ve lost the ability to enjoy anything. Brains are fried.
Try getting 1 person to sit through an album today. Its RARE. Doesn’t matter if they’re young or old either. The olds forgot their ways and have fried their brains worse than the young.
I would love it if all smartphones and social media dissapeared today.
“Society can improve somewhat” meme.