One could argue that the viewer also has a role in acknowledging something as art, which would mean that intention is not totally mandatory in the definition.
What would the argument be, exactly? I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone refer to a sunset as a work of art, but only that it was like a piece of art. The only exception have been people who believe in God.
What about a still frame of a sunset, chosen from among the dozens of photos a stationary camera took over the course of a day?
What about an ai generated still of a sunset, chosen from among the dozens produced from a handful of prompts?
…what if that ai frame gets retouched? Where is the line?
A viewer has no role in determining if it’s art. Art is solely determined by an artist intending to make art.
A viewer decides if they like it, decides if they appreciate it and decides what messages they take from it… But they don’t decide if it’s art. Art is what an artist makes.
I think a viewer can decide something is art unintentionally by evaluating it as art. If you need an artist to intend, then I guess the viewer is that artist because they are the one who made it art.
People can decide non-artistic things are aesthetically pleasing and apply the label of art to them but without a creator you can’t have art.
But if it’s a good a human designed - that designer had artistic intentions.
by your logic I declare everything I create with stable diffusion to be art :)
Everything you create? When I win the jackpot on a slot machine I didn’t create the money
By that logic, no art is ever art because no one “created” anything except maybe god, or something?
If I used a tool to make the pixels light up in a new way, how is that different from Pollock flicking a brush to get the drops the way he wanted? His method is just as stochastic and randomly generated as mine.
Correct!
I find a 5 year old’s doodles more interesting and higher quality than anything you’re making with SD but it’s still art.
