It used to be that if we saw an art piece or a cartoon, we would know someone made it for a reason. Even if it was a miscommunication or accident, it had an original intent behind it. It could have even been the deliberate lack of intent. I guess the closest to AI would be drunk/druggy art, but that usually has some kind of learned intent sneaking in.
Idk, I think some things have a lot of intent in them. Some old cartoons were absolutely made just to sell toys (although I guess that is intent - to sell). I think art can also just exist, and doesn’t need a message behind it. It can just be an expression of a vision turned into some sort of physical manifestation. I will argue that a lot of people are influenced heavily by the need for $$$ (rightfully so). Likewise, I think a lot of media is manipulative and can have a sort of vapid feeling regardless of if AI is involved or not. Maybe you just need to find some new things to fall in love with? Maybe you just wanna hang with your older stuff. It’s all good, just saying that it’s not as hopeless as it feels even if a lot of media is an absolute dumpster fire. To be honest, it kinda has been for a while (I can’t say always, but for sure I remember some absolute shit coming outta the 70s).
I think art can also just exist, and doesn’t need a message behind it.
Absolutely, that’s why I posted the video of Jackson Pollock. His art looks like a mess until you see him painting it. He’s kind of dancing or meditating. It can just be the experience of doing the art that is the intent.
Here is an example of Jackson Pollock painting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFJtv6FavA
If the art is being sold or used to sell things it was made to make money. That was the intention, and continues to be for most AI generated art.
