What is the problem?
This period does not matter, art has never been threatened with anything. This is one thing that man creates without purpose and is satisfied with existence only. Its space has always been easy – to stand against nature or the burden of the useful utility.
But now, in the 21st century, something has come. Nothing is human.
It can imagine and create better art works than most people. And suddenly, the ego of Genees, who is responsible for art, has been a blow that can never stop.
What do artists hate him
As an artist myself, I tried to consider all the reasons why I was against such development.
First, I thought the reason for this is Extension From American artists – borrow from our work without any confession – and just looks real. In this case, our anger will be felt by robbing and recognizing. But on the reflection, it does not seem very different from learning from another artist by observing our work, unless they are directly copying our style.
Then I noticed how easily it produces images – without years of practice, study, or effort. Would mean that our hatred is actually a form Jealousy. But once again, it’s not a new sense for artists – we always have to deal with others with more skill or sharp consequences.
Or maybe it’s a deep fear: of existence ReverseLooking at our livelihood, artists become even more fragile. Or, to put it in a further dramatic way, the fear of it The death of art In a world where machines dominate, and human creativity is pushed aside.
No, it bothers us to a deeper level. We naturally reject it, and only then we come up with reasons for justifying this discomfort – as I have mentioned earlier. Even if it can re -make Mona Lisa, we will not like it. In fact, I think it really bothers us when we feel beautiful. If this is just a strange effort of art – such as these early models, such as “Will Smith, developed the memes by eating spaghetti” – we just laugh and move on. And if we Know It is AI-generated. Otherwise, if it doesn’t move to you, it’s just another piece of bad art. We can say that when we find it beautiful, it becomes bad and we know that it was prepared by AI. But why is that knowledge that is that so much to ruin our aesthetic happiness?
What is actually happening
Throughout history, beauty is either from nature or manufactured by humans – often as imitation of nature. Now, we face a new type of art, which includes an unfamiliar layer: the art created by machines. And not only tools that guide human hands, but also the systems that work freely – a machines that do not learn from nature, but from us. We never thought that anything that has been removed from nature can still be the appearance of beauty. And yet, it looks like the natural development of the art story. The addiction. From secondary to abstract expression, one can see gradual changes in the purpose of art – seeking meaning within himself or within the artist, away from great moral stories and religious symbols. Art, ultimately, is made for itself, which does not require external meaning or context to maintain its value. When I look like Jackson Polk Autumn rhythmI don’t see nature. I can barely see the artist. What I am seeing is art – and whatever keeps this piece, it pulls itself completely.
AI art then reaches the ultimate breakdown – where both artists and nature have disappeared. What is left is a kind of imitation, an artificial echo is trying to pass for the real thing. And I’m not sure which part is more and more tragedy. Because when you think about it, the artist was never really necessary for aesthetic experience – yet his existence, and even more importantly, his humanity is always important. Art always stands as one of the rare achievements that we collectively claim as a species. Like Nail Armstrong stepped on the moon, a great job of art seems as if humanity has finally achieved something. The artist’s identity can be irrelevant, as long as we know that he was a man who created him. And as long as the artist is present, we can assume that there is a purpose behind work and it is appreciated how he achieved perfection. Officially, we can adopt a television approach without hesitation. We can analyze its formation – its colors, lines, shapes and so on.
When it comes to nature (in terms of nature, I mean natural elements that exist, not forests or deserts), once appeared in a piece, it provides us with something to take an idea, an idea – a point for interpretation. This allows us to make a story, though it is easy: ‘It’s a lizard -cut boy’s painting.’ Through this, we engage art intellectually. We argue with it, talk about it, and it stimulates the part of our brain that tries to make things feel.
With AI art, neither the artist nor nature can be found. What is left is a venture and a haunting imitation. The artist becomes a chamra, and integrates all creators into a strange, vague black box. Nature may still be present, but it has been stripped of meaning – it exists without just purpose or cause. We cannot engage with it, nor can we find the meaning behind it. And if we do, it is not different from seeing the rain and claiming that it falls so that the rose can grow. Even then, the religious mind can attribute nature to a single creator – something impossible about AI. This does not mean that it has no explanation, but it can have no purpose – because the purpose of the mind or the intellect means the presence of the mind.
Conclusion
AI is one thing I am still trying to make, and I know I will continue to find it. I wonder if there will be a generation that does not feel any trouble in its presence – or a place that will not stop even to consider its place. Art is allegedly the most human endeavor, so what does it mean for us if we let it go?