What is the future of human art?

Is a photograph art? The device records the scene, whether on film or a sensor.
Is a photograph art? In some cases, yes. That question is like asking "is a stone or mallet and chisel art?" when looking at the statue David.
A camera sensor or film is the tool that records that which the artist holding, adjusting and aiming the camera has chosen to be recorded.
Or, "Is a photograph art" is like asking "Are words on paper art?" when looking at a sheet of paper from the printer.
 
Is a photograph art? In some cases, yes. That question is like asking "is a stone or mallet and chisel art?" when looking at the statue David.
A camera sensor or film is the tool that records that which the artist holding, adjusting and aiming the camera has chosen to be recorded.
Or, "Is a photograph art" is like asking "Are words on paper art?" when looking at a sheet of paper from the printer.
Small objection here. A hammer and chisel would be comparable to the camera, not the photograph. It's what the user of the tool does with it that creates the art. Just like a typewriter, or my computer. It's just a mechanism to create the end product.

You and I can take pictures of the same thing, but your eye may be better and you may catch(probably) a finer nuance than I do. Both images of the same thing, but yours would be considered art and mine just a picture of whatever. Conversely, someone else may see those same two pictures, and see mine as art.

Words on paper can most definitely be art. That could be due to the font or the arrangement of the words, or it can be because of the emotions and feelings those words elicit when read. A further extension could be that those words become art when say, Morgan Freeman recites them? (wet dream)

Whatever the medium, whatever the implements used to create, art is still, by nature, going to be subjective.
 
There have been some interesting legal cases lately regarding tattoo copyrights.

Tattoo artists own the copyright to their artwork that they have put on other people’s bodies unless other agreements have been made, so pictures of a person that display their tattoos can be a copyright violation if those pictures are used for commercial purposes.

Courts may have to sort through this for a while.

https://www.mandourlaw.com/tattoo-copyright-cases-take-strange-turn/
 
I would also suggest that, as it pertains to AI, it again depends on what the person using it does with it. It's just a tool. Take for example the images of her characters @EmilyMiller posts on her Xitter account. There is intent and nuance there. She has creativity with that tool, her AI image generator, that I don't. I'd suggest that her work is more artistic than mine. The beauty of art, no matter how it is created, is that you get to be the judge when you experience it.
 
I would also suggest that, as it pertains to AI, it again depends on what the person using it does with it. It's just a tool. Take for example the images of her characters @EmilyMiller posts on her Xitter account. There is intent and nuance there. She has creativity with that tool, her AI image generator, that I don't. I'd suggest that her work is more artistic than mine. The beauty of art, no matter how it is created, is that you get to be the judge when you experience it.
Thanks for saying, but like eleven people have seen them. And most of my views are you, @Djmac1031 and @djrip

Emily
 
Back
Top