Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human creations are far better still than AI ones. I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands. And stuff that I genuinely appreciated for what it is, divorced from how it was made. I am reminded that very early on with Midjourney, before this wave of AI gen art was wider known, there was a story of someone winning an art competiti…
I hear you but: > I have seen many examples of AI-generated art where it's beyond my taste level to see how it could be improved on by human hands This is my overriding point, beyond matters of taste. Everyone who talks about this stuff can't seem to talk about its value without reference to the hypothetical human artist or writer or whoever who didn't make it. The awe of just the fact it was made by AI can't be sepa…
Consider that it's because that's the interesting areas of conversation to be had. The overwhelming majority of art I see all day does not warrant comment, and so it goes with AI art that is of a quality to replace that everyday art. The AI art that I do share and comment on tends to be works that are hilariously broken in some bizarre way. And I agree that that's possibly a novelty that will pass, but that would be due in part to AI gen improving to the level where it's consistently indistinguishable from artist-made art.
> I just don't think we have the ability to separate these things.
Perhaps not entirely, but it seems to be an overreach to claim the impact is necessarily debilitating. With my very modest amount of formal arts training, I approach analysis piece by piece. Composition, color, shape. Line and form, light and shadow, anatomy, texture. Subject. Abstraction and realism, style and tone. While not objective, it's easy to clinically assess the subjective quality achieved with an individual element, up to one's limit of taste.
Further, when I am knowingly looking at AI art I'm not doing it from a place of enthusiasm, but criticism. I am aware of a set of flaws that current art gen models are prone to include, and I actively look for them. Each one found speaks to the limitations of the technology, and the patterns suggest challenges that may be un-resolvable with consistency.
So yes, when I say that I genuinely appreciate an AI-made work for itself, I am indeed confident in the truth of that.
> The painting, and all the others like it, can only speak one thing: themselves as novel works.
Your concern with "statements" suggests that the area of art you are talking about is narrow, indeed. To clarify, I speak of the wide world of works made for primarily aesthetic goals. Well no, that's not entirely true. For the purposes of this discussion I've been speaking of static visual arts. But that ranges from museum oil paintings to product labeling, from the stunning to the mundane. That's all preamble to this blunt point: being visually pleasing is sufficient to provide worth. AI gen can provide that.
I am sympathetic however to what may be your position: what meaning can be learned from a work if no mind was behind it to intend meaning? If your appreciation of art requires the belief that you are part of communication between souls, then clearly knowing a work is authored by AI would render that work worthless in your eyes. And I can understand that, or some version of it. It does not apply to me, however. In a death-of-the-author way I care much more about the meaning I can find myself from a work, considering the meaning intended as optional spice.
Lastly, no: I'm aware of what I like and do not, thanks.