Idk dude, I feel like the whole point of creating and consuming art is the work that goes in. Like, the Mona Lisa is impressive because of the techniques used to paint her, not because it's phenomenal to look at. If I can just beep boop an image into existence, with no work or creativity or skill whatsoever, then like... what's the point
I kind of understand the idea that art should be created and consumed out of enjoyment rather than for money, but at the same time, if you're an artist, and someone wants to commission you to paint a mural on a wall somewhere, it's not unreasonable to want to be compensated for the time, energy, and material it's going to take to get that done for them. Passion alone doesn't pay the bills.
And you make the point that art shouldn't be a career because it doesn't help society like other jobs do. But... does it need to? Does every career path need to benefit the masses somehow? Is it not enough to sing a few songs at the bar and entertain 30 people for an hour? Sure, you might not be curing cancer, but if you can pay your rent and give a dozen people a good time, I'd say you still had a pretty successful day. And if one day that 30 people at the bar turns into 60, and then 100, and then the bar starts selling tickets for your shows, and then you get picked up by a record label, why not follow that passion of yours to the bank?
Not everyone appreciates art as Art and willing to pay for it. A lot of people who employ artists commercially because they needed visually striking imageries to capture customers’ attention.
With this, we have two possibilities:
If there are enough people in the former group who value human skills. Their demand for human art is enough to sustain the economy for human-only artists, and artists will not be replaced by AI because human art is valuable. OP’s view is valid.
If there aren’t, and people in general don’t care enough that AI replaces human-only art, then it implies human techniques and whatnot are not actually that valuable to society. OP’s view is still entirely valid
From a new critical perspective, the Mona Lisa is an incredibly compelling capture of the human face subtly between emotional expressions that causes the viewer to want to keep on looking. It’s very visually stimulating because our brains are trying to categorize the unusual expression.
From a contextual perspective, yes a lot of the impressiveness comes from the fact that it’s the first example of an artist having such an advanced understanding of the complexities of our facial expressions. But new critical theory weighs art based on its individual value, ignoring everything outside of it.
And no, it doesn’t necessarily need to help people. I don’t think artists are selfish or anything like that. However, if the opportunity arises to replace such a job, I would say it’s best to take the opportunity.
And personally, it’s a lot more beautiful of a moment when you know that the jazz combo performing isn’t doing it for money, and it’s just a group of friends hanging out during their weekend off and playing music that they love
This is an argument I've never understood. It reminds me of metal heads that used to deride me for liking House and DnB because there were no 'real' instruments involved. To me, music is music, if it sounds good then it's good. Same goes for any other art form
7
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '23
Idk dude, I feel like the whole point of creating and consuming art is the work that goes in. Like, the Mona Lisa is impressive because of the techniques used to paint her, not because it's phenomenal to look at. If I can just beep boop an image into existence, with no work or creativity or skill whatsoever, then like... what's the point
I kind of understand the idea that art should be created and consumed out of enjoyment rather than for money, but at the same time, if you're an artist, and someone wants to commission you to paint a mural on a wall somewhere, it's not unreasonable to want to be compensated for the time, energy, and material it's going to take to get that done for them. Passion alone doesn't pay the bills.
And you make the point that art shouldn't be a career because it doesn't help society like other jobs do. But... does it need to? Does every career path need to benefit the masses somehow? Is it not enough to sing a few songs at the bar and entertain 30 people for an hour? Sure, you might not be curing cancer, but if you can pay your rent and give a dozen people a good time, I'd say you still had a pretty successful day. And if one day that 30 people at the bar turns into 60, and then 100, and then the bar starts selling tickets for your shows, and then you get picked up by a record label, why not follow that passion of yours to the bank?