This soulless machine produced mockery of "art" is a terrible but sadly unsurprising indictment of the modern age. Where's the passion? Where's the soul? If you want real art, that takes human imagination and skill. For example:
View attachment 3746776
Peinture (Le Chien) By Joan Miro
View attachment 3746789
Untitled (1970) by Cy Twombly
View attachment 3746823
No. 5 by Jason Pollock
And my personal favourite:
View attachment 3746856
Bridge by Robert Ryan. This pinnacle of human achievement is valued at 20.6 million dollars. On a completely unrelated note, you can buy a blank canvas for about 15 quid.
Could a soulless machine produce artworks of such profound beauty? I think not. A monkey randomly applying paint to a canvas might however.
The whole reason why all that abstract, childish stuff began to dominate high art at the end of the 1800's, was a direct response to advancing tech; What was the point of doing super-realistic paintings of people or landscapes or whatever, when you now had a machine that could produce a PERFECT image of a person/landscape, in the hour or two it took to develop a photograph?
Improving AI will affect furries on DeviantArt, or comic-book artists, or illustrators, but it won't have a big impact of the "fine art" world, because for the last 150 years, they've been selling stuff like the horsey drawing, or the $20.6m white canvas or like this...
[ATTACH"]3747304[/ATTACH]
"Artist's Shit" (1961) by Manzoni. Actual human excrement in a can. A single can sold for $275,000 in 2016. Manzoni shat in 90 cans in 1961.
Or this
"Fountain" (1917) by Duchamp. A ceramic urinal that artist bought, then signed, then put in a gallery. Valued at $2million today.
or this
"Brillo Boxes" (1964) by Warhol. Carboard boxes, that the artist's assistants screen-printed to be an exact replica of the soap boxes sold in every supermarket at the time. Valued at $3million today.
Whether you like or hate the modern "fine art" world, or modern "artists", they saw the writing on the wall a century and a half ago, and stopped giving the tinyest shit about realism, after seeing how the invention of the camera effectively made traditional painters obselete, overnight. Instead, they basically sell their million-dollar work on the basis of their name, "cool factor", the novelty of the artwork, and how well the artist can fellate art-dealers, gallery-owners, critics, and other "taste-makers".
Personally, I think it's kinda sad that we've lost the era where painting was a skilled craft, learned in years-long apprenticeships. But the reality is that an artist would be a complete moron to spend months, sometimes years on a single, realist painting, only for an end-product that's never going to be as accurate as a photo that any dumbfuck can produce in seconds. Especially when the other option is incredibly low-effort, and far, far more lucrative than the market for realistic paintings.
The "art" may be (sometimes literally) shit, but you can't blame modern artists for being effective in ensuring that they'll have the LAST job that can ever be replaced by automation, by shifting from realism to skills/traits that automation can't replicate.
People saying "My 5yo could paint that", or complaining that modern artists don't paint like they did 200 years ago, are missing the point- (1) Artists have little incentive to please the general public. They DO have massive incentive to please art-snobs and the super-rich, which is exactly what they've done. And (2) if artists HAD listened public complaints and stuck to realism, they'd have been second-best to photography for the last >century.
Tech advances like this new AI stuff are exactly WHY modern art looks the way it does, completely divorced from realism. One is the unavoidable result of the other.
