247

adherence to the rule is the 4th law of robotics (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 months ago by nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 months ago

the thing is i don't think a meaningful definition of art can exist. any attempt would necessarily leave something out. you can look at a crack in a random wall on your way to the shop and think it's art.
is all art necessarily good? No, obviously not, but if looking at a wonky ai landscape (or let's be honest with ourselves, massive honking ai tits) means something to you than that's art to you.

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago

Things can be beautiful or interesting without being art. The crack in the wall, a naturally occurring landscape are examples of that. You could call them "art" but I think you'd be wrong. That's not a generally accepted meaning of the word.

Actually I'd refine my definition to say that art should be primarily for the purposes of expression and not for any other functional use.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Would you say that the building made that art? Even that analogy is imperfect, because the building didn’t have to have the work of thousands of other buildings poured into it to create the crack, it just happened.

[-] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

i said that it could be art to the observer art can't exist in a vacuum it needs someone to experience it.
the ethics of how an artpiece is made are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not it counts as real™ art but very relevant to whether or not we should keep letting it be made the same way.