There’s a bit of me that’s willing to be initially curious about AI “art”, but that’s likely due to its newness. My considered response is more negative. When I attempt to absorb the generated images in a meaningful way, as I would a piece of art in a gallery or museum ~ the emotional response is wholly un-impactful. With the certain knowledge that zero feeling went into the creation of the image, it can’t help but illicit the same reaction. It would be interesting to perform a double-blind response to a showing of actual art created by human artists interspersed with digitally created images just to eliminate the bias.
Yes, that would be very interesting. The NYT recently had an article that showed images of people, some of which were actual photos and others AI-generated, asking readers to choose which were "live" and which were "Memorex." When AI is used to trick people, it's an evil thing, but these scenic or just plain weird images are, to me, harmless fun.
There’s a bit of me that’s willing to be initially curious about AI “art”, but that’s likely due to its newness. My considered response is more negative. When I attempt to absorb the generated images in a meaningful way, as I would a piece of art in a gallery or museum ~ the emotional response is wholly un-impactful. With the certain knowledge that zero feeling went into the creation of the image, it can’t help but illicit the same reaction. It would be interesting to perform a double-blind response to a showing of actual art created by human artists interspersed with digitally created images just to eliminate the bias.
Yes, that would be very interesting. The NYT recently had an article that showed images of people, some of which were actual photos and others AI-generated, asking readers to choose which were "live" and which were "Memorex." When AI is used to trick people, it's an evil thing, but these scenic or just plain weird images are, to me, harmless fun.