@akjcv sure, it is interesting from an art history perspective, but i’m kind of biased in terms of like, what we do with that

like, “due to the presence of A·I generated visual media and its perceived tackiness, artistic styles and techniques which reminded viewers of A·I fell out of favour, while artistic styles which did not resemble A·I output became trendy” is an interesting statement. there’s a lot to unpack there.

but i also think it’s bad. it IS a reduction in our artistic space and a cheapening of art to value it based on whether it “looks like” a certain kind of generated visual media instead of judging it on its own merits. and in particular: clean lines and high resolutions are labour-intensive and difficult to produce. it’s hurting a lot of artists if we assign a lot of value to that.

i’m not saying you ARE assigning value in this way, but it’s the inevitable endpoint in a society which DOES assign value to artwork based on these factors. and i wonder if it is necessary. there are other things generated art is bad at: semantic coherence; intentional artistic decisions; communication of sentiment. why are we indexing on the technical aspects of the artwork and not these human- and art-oriented things? isn’t that kind of playing the game by A·I’s rules instead of our own?