People said exact same thing about CGI, and photography before. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody scream "IT'S NOT ART" at Michaelangelo or people carving walls of temples in ancient Egypt.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the "people" you're talking about were talking about tools. I'm talking about intent. Just because you compare two arguments that use similar words doesn't mean the arguments are similar.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Intent is not needed for the art, else all the art in history where we can't say what author wanted to express or the ones misunderstood wouldn't be considered art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Note that one of the first regulations of AI art that is always proposed is that AI art be clearly labeled as such, because whomever propose it do know the above.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

i didn't say knowing the intent is needed. i believe in death of the author, so that isn't relevant.

the intent to create art is, however, needed. the fountain is art, but before it became the fountain, the urinal itself wasn't.