Asklemmy

I use two definitions for the two broad intellectual trends in art over the past century:

Robert Hughes on modernism- "the shock of the new"

David Harvey on postmodernism- "The reduction of experience to a series of pure and unrelated presents"

AI fundamentally can't create modernist art because it recombines what already exists into a crude 3rd stage simulacrum. You'll never see genuine brilliance from how we understand AI. It's incapable of creating a new perspective, new consonance out of dissonance, or a societal transformation through art. If the world is a shared historical trajectory where we're discovering the same common thing, AI doesn't participate in that. It has no investment in the nature worship of art nouveau or the class politics of constructivism or the physics of cubism. It can't overcome the 1936 standard of Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction when he was only describing crude printing presses.

AI can create postmodern art but only because postmodernism is ideologically, historically, and financially flattened into artists as bourgeois bloggers. If the world is nothing but commodified individual commentary in a marketplace of ideas with the most valuable commentary coming from wealthy failchildren, AI is a wealthy failchild that can also regurgitate what it learned from scraping art school data while still staying tailored to market preferences.

I don't personally value the latter or see it as anything more than a counterrevolution against the future we lost in the mid-20th century. There's no reason I'd ever pay for an AI image if I can generate a more personally-tailored version instantly for free using the same IP it recombined to shit out. It's inherently Thomas Kinkade kitsch but somehow less valuable because they don't even pretend to involve creative labour in it.