141–146 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely anything successfully sold as a work of art at an art auction by an auction house famous for selling works of art de facto becomes a work of art.
That was my point. The fact that this is the first piece that is recognized as a work of art AND was sold at a high price will only make this piece increase in value as time go on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case accessibility would be enhanced by the artist writing down the meaning and context. But I take it that artists are loathe to do that because they fear that explaining it would make it lose it's mystique, kind of like how explaining a joke ruins it, so you basically end up with what amounts to elaborate inside jokes. OTOH, it probably helps drive up the price when the rich buyers feel like they're part of…
Artists almost always write an extensive explanation of what their work means. It's got to the point of satire: https://artybollocks.com/generator.html
I'd buy art (and listen to music) generated by an AI, but I'll admit that I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans. We know math and science can be found within art: measures and half measures in music, the golden ratio in painting, etc. Optimizing for these mathematical properties seems a bit like cheating for lack of a better word. There are many musicians and artists wi…
>I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans That debate goes way, way back. In 1966, a researcher at Bell Labs used a computer to generate an image in the style of Mondrian. The images were presented to 100 people; not only were test subjects unable to identify the computer-generated image, but the majority liked the computer-generated image better. The computer-generated ar…
Brian Eno quote about a related field: music "The great benefit of computer sequencers is that they remove the issue of skill, and replace it with the issue of judgement"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is an important difference between art that people will go to see in a gallery, museum, or in public, and art that is bought at auction. I have no interest in seeing AI generated paintings either at home or in a gallery, but I would go to an art museum specifically to see Fountain by Duchamp. Fountain encourages people to appreciate the world around them by taking an everyday readymade and probably over…
What's fun about Fountain is the the original has been lost, so you can only see a, "recreation" of it. Since it was initially just a found object of a mass-produced item, this wasn't a problem - but still, Duchamp could sanction "official" replicas. Ah, love it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really that hard for you to understand what the GP was saying? A jerk is somehow who, while not breaking the law, acts like..a jerk. They seem to think being able to get away with something somehow makes it OK. (e.g. bullies, trolls etc) Society relies on most people not acting like jerks most of the time. You seem to be saying, if someone follows the letter of the law, they possibly can't be a jerk. I guess yo…
The point isn’t that it’s legal or not. It’s that the creator -expressed his wishes- for how his work would be treated when he chose his license. There’s nothing unethical about respecting people’s freely chosen and publicly expressed wishes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This dude set up a "this is for free" sign and then some other dudes just swooped in saying "we'll take all of this" and then just replaced the sign with "$500k". This loses the important nuance that them swooping in and slapping a price tag on their own use of the implementation doesn't deprive anyone of access to the original on the same terms they were able to access it. No one has lost anything in this scenario.…
Well the author lost trust in the community, he is modifying his licenses and maybe won't make it open at all next time. So perhaps not that far off from the analogy