The best definition of Art that I have heard is “an object/piece that makes one feel things”
However, AI slop makes many people feel anger, so I don’t know if that definition can really fit or not. Probably not.
There is art, such as music, that has the intent of of making people angry or frustrated too. So, it is a grey area and as you said, very messy.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
In the age of romanticism, art usually depicted idealized and beautiful things. Then realism emerged, and artists also stared painting poor and ugly people. In social realism, the art was supposed to make you feel a bit uncomfortable. All of that was still clearly art.
I think art requires an intention. When you paint a picture of a seagull covered in oil, you may want the viewer to feel something about the petrochemical industry. When you take a photo of Chinese children working in a toy factory, you might want your audience to feel what the children are going through.
When you’re painting using digital tools, you may draw the same line 20 times to get it just right. As an artist, you have a goal in mind, and you will keep pressing undo until each line in the drawing meets your criteria. If you generate a hundred pictures with an AI and pick the one that fits your goals, you’re essentially acting as a curator of art. There’s a goal and an intention behind the selection process. That’s why the one picture that didn’t get deleted is art.
What if if there’s zero human involvement? If there is no selection process guided by goal or intention, is that still art? Maybe. What if the viewer still feels something when looking at the result. Maybe that could make it art. What if you just look at the clouds or a sunset, and that makes you feel something. Is that art too? This is where it gets really messy and the categories fall apart.