• ENOAH
    836
    Is art objectively identifiable? A shared experience?
    Take something not so obvious: Reality TV.
    Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.

    At the risk of seeming to brag, I watched American Idol (AI) this year. All of it.

    In future centuries, art historians may praise AI as an example of fine art from the turn of this century.

    But, yes, today, we must be open minded, not only to think so, but perhaps to even consider thinking so.

    Before my attempt at a hypothesis of art, accept the simple premise that our Bodies are real beings, aware-ing real sensations, including real inner feelings.

    If not palatable metaphysically, then in the spirit of aesthetics, and to enhance the experience of the so-called hypothesis to follow, I now ask you to start with the admittedly controversial premise that The Mind is other than the Body just described.

    Mind is not Real. (There is no dualism because) Mind is "happening," but it, what structures the happening, isn’t real. There is only the aware-ing body. And as for Mind, it is a "light show" fleeting and empty of any of the "in itself" "will" "substance" or "being there" that we classically look for. Mind's processes affect reality but is ultimately no "thing" (in itself), there one second, and gone the next.

    Using Bodies for infrastructure, energy and feedback, Mind operates a dynamic and autonomous process of construction-then-projection manifesting in loosely Narrative forms as they flow into the incessantly becoming world, competing to occupy the surface.

    Mind does so, flowing freely into, and notwithstanding, the seemingly impenetrable boundaries of so-called individual bodies.

    Besides infrastructure, the relationship this fleeting empty process has with the Body (reality) are complex. Most relevant here, is that Mind's processes trigger the body to feel and to act in habitually conditioned ways.

    The Narratives doing the triggering of feelings/actions have become so rich and complex, our organic aware-ing has forgotten "itself" (that is, Nature, reality: feelings, sensations, movement and drives), mesmerized instead by the light show (emotions, perceptions, seemingly willful action, meaning/desire) triggered by the projections as Narratives.

    Now Mind is the thing we identify as (I/me), are most familiar with, and take to be real. The fleeting empty representations constructing a moving story, has displaced with made up Narratives and the Subject, our real consciousness' attunement to reality, I.e., to being doing (presumably, like every other creature).

    Mind is not reality.

    Mind is, at best, reality, once removed.

    Art is "lower" in the "hierarchy of truth".

    Art is Mind, once removed; reality, twice removed.

    And yet, like Mind, art triggers reality to feel/act.

    Go figure. Premises or not. Art triggers the Body to feel/act.

    Art is an expression of Universal Mind, a re-construction-then-re-projection of the Narratives of larger loci-in-History.

    Art is an expression of an individual mind and its unique micro-loci-in-History. We see someone’s yet-to-surface Narrative re-constructed-then-re-projected.

    I submit, specifically, here, that you can see these expressions, Universal/Individual in any form of art, no matter how so-called plastic, rudimentary or crude. But that's not why AI is art.

    I am impressed with AI as art, outside of the veil of a commercial enterprise or competition.

    I'll give brief observations about its aesthetic qualities, but the ultimate argument for its "value" as art, consists in one highlighted sentence below.

    AI is not, as some may prejudge, too one-dimensional. Unlike many other forms of art, it breaks the fourth wall without a comedic pretense, and presents its Fiction subtly enough to make us "believe," despite our better judgment, that it is just fourth wall all the way down.

    Whereas finding layers in other forms of art require the viewer to speculate. AI directly represents the layers of projected experience, from raw reality (very rare) to mind/becoming (also rare); and finally, to the fictionalized version of both, a "becoming" of becoming.

    Yet it is still stylish (within its medium and genre) and surreptitious enough to engage the viewer in a juggling of these layers, as well as digging deeper for hidden constructions. The 'fashion' in which it does this, is what allows the open-minded spectator to transcend AI's vulgarly exploitative commercial exterior, look around, and breathe a deep sigh of relief.

    I know little about TV production etc. But the "producers" have masterfully weaved beautiful voices and living personalities, with Fictional representations of both the vocals and the personalities.

    The finished product is presented with all the hierarchical layers of truth, fiction and fictional fiction directly, and indirectly; in segments, and all at once.

    Most pleasing to the art lover, is the accessibility of latent bits of reality (in the form of real bodies) teasing viewers to fish them out between gaps generously afforded through cracks disguised as poor editing; or, as Derrida might have, to infer glimpses of the so called real being and it’s so-called real Narratives between the staged production, in the silence, omissions, errors, and erasures.


    But none of that is why AI is art.

    What is art in the context of this process of construction-then-projection?

    Since we have prohibited it from being any absolute or immutable truth or thing in itself, then for the framework of this hypothesis, art must serve a function. Like anything projected, art must serve the organism, for better or worse.

    I think we commonly say, art inspires us to do something, or it makes us feel emotions.

    For me that can be shaved down to the organic reality. Art triggers real feelings for our Bodies, as I mentioned above.

    This triggering of feelings from art (unlike other forms of projection) happens so directly and often powerfully, that it allows for real consciousness, independent of mind, to attune to the feeling before such feelings reproduce a new set of constructions to override them.

    In other words, through art, you really get to feel something before it gets displaced again by emotions and other constructed-then-projected meaning evolved to trigger action or choice.

    Sometimes, you hear your first projections as the whisper, "I don't get why I'm crying?". These "just real feelings" are often expressed in tears or laughter, but rage, fear, drive, human bonding. A trigger far removed from reality, yet able to have created a direct path thereto.

    Art triggers real feeling, along with a momentary glimpse into the real being feeling. Like Zazen purportedly does; or deep single-focused prayer or contemplation.

    For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire.

    I'm not sure why I'm expecting resistance. It must be the "cheap" Narrative regarding Reality TV that we all cling to.

    But ignore everything I just said, if you prefer. Forget the premises, even the hypothesis, since it's constructed and projected anyway.

    I want to know what you think period, if at all.

    Here's the simple question repeated.

    Is American Idol art? And if inclined, on what hypothesis of art are you basing your conclusion.
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    Something doesn’t have to be good to be called art. But I’m not preoccupied by definitions, I would say Idol is also kitsch.
  • ENOAH
    836
    Something doesn’t have to be good to be called artTom Storm
    True enough.
    Idol is also kitschTom Storm
    ...or "inferior" art. Maybe it will be in its "kitschiness" that future generations will find an appeal.
    Kitsch can make us feel in not readily identifiable ways too.

    :up:
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    I think the issue is that people often think art has to be elevated and intricate and for the cognoscenti. But if art is just ideas or emotion conveyed via creative activity, like drawing, music, performance, literature, and dance, then art is much broader than many suspect. Personally I'm not big on definitions.

    I have only seen clips on YouTube but my problem with Idol is its sentimentality, its poor taste, its obvious choices, its elevation of certain house styles in performance, the popular over the creative, its endless tweaking of the familiar. To me it seems overly preoccupied with mainstream marketing and rarely takes creative risks. Artists like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen would never make it because they would be too interesting and unorthodox.
  • ENOAH
    836
    Artists like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen would never make it because they would be too interesting and unorthodox.Tom Storm

    So true! Try Bob Dylan. You make an excellent point.
  • Vera Mont
    4.3k
    Is art objectively identifiable?ENOAH
    Of course it is. But nobody seems satisfied with an objective definition
    the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

    No, a reality show doesn't fit the definition of art. It has none of the artistic components: acting, writing, directing, cinematography. In this one and dance contests, the contestants' performances may be considered art, good or bad art, but not the format itself.

    Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the OP question. It didn't seem relevant.
  • ENOAH
    836
    Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the OP question. It didn't seem relevant.Vera Mont

    No worries. Thank you for your perspective. Strictly speaking, American Idol certainly doesn't match the definition you quoted.
  • Vera Mont
    4.3k
    So then, what's all this about? Seems like entirely different subject matter.

    Mind is not reality.

    Mind is, at best, reality, once removed.

    Art is "lower" in the "hierarchy of truth".

    Art is Mind, once removed; reality, twice removed.

    And yet, like Mind, art triggers reality to feel/act.
    ENOAH
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    American Idol: Art?ENOAH

    I am not sure what to make of your post, but I will at least take a quick swing at your title. I haven't watched a lot of dance and I'm mostly ignorant about its technical aspects, but I did watch several episodes back in the first couple of seasons. More than once during the shows I found myself unexpectedly moved to the point that I had tears in my eyes. The human body in motion can be beautiful and exhilarating.

    Does that make it art?
  • ENOAH
    836
    Seems like entirely different subject matter.Vera Mont

    Might not strike you the same way. I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation, can so profoundly affect the body to feel, without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions. The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me.

    And as for American Idol, of course I know it barely qualifies as art. Yet, I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me, before any of my words could move in and construct meaning.

    You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept.
  • Vera Mont
    4.3k
    I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation,ENOAH
    It's not. It's a representation of reality in some altered form.
    can so profoundly affect the body to feel,ENOAH
    Not the body. Our reaction to art, or any external sensory input, is through the receptors (mainly eyes and ears) to the brain, and whatever emotional response the brain then produces may or may or may produce some physical reaction.
    without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions.ENOAH
    What does that mean?
    The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me.ENOAH
    It's not just art has that effect; it can be nature, speech, action in the environment. That's because the neural functions are very fast. We're not aware of how much information is received, sorted, processed, stored and transmitted by our brain in a single second.
    I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me,ENOAH
    The show format or a specific performance? They're separate entities. Each performance by a contestant is artistic, even though the show itself is not.
    You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept.ENOAH
    I don't understand your premise. I don't understand all that palaver about mind being unreal, etc.
  • ENOAH
    836
    Does that make it art?T Clark

    That's what I'm saying. Are we tacking on quasi-elitist conditions?
  • ENOAH
    836
    Sincerely, I agree that your explanations are sound.

    I ask this for clarification, not argumentively, do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way? Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them?
  • T Clark
    13.8k


    We've had a few "What is art?" discussions over the years. We came up with two criteria that answer the question for me. 1) It is art if it is presented with the intention that it be judged on an aesthetic basis. I got this from @Praxis. Hey, Praxis, I'm going to keep giving you credit for this unless you tell me to stop. And 2) It is art if it meets the criteria described by R.G. Collingwood in his "The Principles of Art." He proposes that, when we call something art (in this case a painting)...

    It means that the picture, when seen by some one else or by the painter himself subsequently, produces in him (we need not ask how) sensuous-emotional or psychical experiences which, when raised from impressions to ideas by the activity of the spectator’s consciousness, are transmuted into a total imaginative experience identical with that of the painter. This experience of the spectator’s does not repeat the comparatively poor experience of a person who merely looks at the subject; it repeats the richer and more highly organized experience of a person who has not only looked at it but has painted it as well. — R.G. Collingwood
  • ENOAH
    836


    Nice criteria. So it is art if the creator intended it to be; and, if it elicits a level emotion tantamount to that experienced by its creator. American Idol on the face of it is not art.

    But not necessarily because it is entertainment. Take something like SNL. The writers of the skits arguably intend to present their work as comedic art; the art elicits a similar level of laughter in the viewers as it would have the writers.

    You cannot say the same for AI.
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    Is American Idol art?ENOAH

    After reading your well-thought out OP I must, at the risk of sounding like a dullard, remind that American Idol is an opinion-based talent competition at its core. It's format is artful, yes. i remember watching segments of it while young, I can't recall if "performance" was a factor in the acts, confusing it with America's Got Talent or similar programming where vocal talent was but one of many factors in the act, not a prerequisite at all. As in, I can't recall if one was expected or encouraged to dance, perform gymnastically, etc. in unison with their singing or if singing was in fact the sole point of contention. Singing is indeed an art form, if not in the way art is a discipline, similar to cooking or even something non-traditional like debate or insult-slinging. If it was strictly singing I'd personally consider it to be more of a talent competition than a performance art or exhibition act like ballet would be considered. Art generally requires creativity, something that would not be present absent of human involvement. Though this is challenged by modern art (see "The Lights Going on and Off". "Banana Duct-taped To Wall", or Martin Creed's "Work No. 301: A sheet of paper crumpled into a ball" for example). You can be the world's most talented and favored singer, but this doesn't require creativity as you could simply be reciting the work of another simply "matching the notes" with your voice, which admittedly is not something most can do and requires talent, but nonetheless can be compared to pushing a button when a prompter says to. I'd say?

    You're correct in saying the "reality TV" stigma runs strong, for me at least. The "realness", behind-the-scenes drama, and human emotion of the show (something I believe is there for purposes of ratings and "interpersonal connection" and desire to watch it again more so than anything else) does seem to give it a pretense of being more than a simple talent measuring contest. But these factors are also present in other reality shows. Is "Jersey Shore" "art" as well for having all these factors minus the presence of any actual "art form"? One would likely say no. Bearing in mind many of the acts (I believe) were in fact written by the performers themselves, and perhaps even improv'd at times (though I can't recall) there's certainly an artistic quality to the final product. Perhaps it's my personal understanding of "art", in a non-discipline context where it is not defined as a measurable skill, but rather the traditional idea of art being a physical representation, be it on paper or on a stage where performers make a human pyramid, etc.

    Just to look at things a different way, if we consider singing more of a talent rather than an artistic discipline, would a pie-eating contest be considered art? Likely not. More of a "live event". You could add all the things also present: drama, emotion, human connection, progression of character, overcoming of personal obstacles, etc. but would this not make it more of a documentary?

    Though singing is commonly grouped in under "the arts". Combined with physical performance that certainly makes it a performing art such as opera or a play. By itself though, I remain uncertain. I guess in my head when I think of art I think of art as not just something "I myself am unable to do" and/or "any observable physical human expression (be it a painting or modeling of clay or man on a stage in a stationary dramatic pose for 11 1/2 minutes)" but, actually, that's exactly what I think of it as. Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV show.

    It's a good question. That's my take on the subject at least. :confused:
  • Christoffer
    2k


    I define expression through the lens of intention. It's either "content" or "art".

    "Content" is primarily expression that has an overweight into commercial interests. If the creator primarily produces something for the intent of profit or monetary transactions, it is "content" and not "art".

    "Art" is expression with an overweight towards the intention of creation itself. It's about the silent communication between the artist and the receiver (audience or viewer/listener). Primarily it is when the intention is not primarily profit or monetary transaction.

    There can be a lot of profit in working with art, and not a lot in terms of content, but the intention is key. Was it created for any form of profit or gain beyond the intention of creation itself?

    Things get a bit muddy when an artist is commissioned to make something for the purpose of content. Let's say Banksy gets commissioned to do design for a large brand. It's still the same type of expression like with his art, but in all forms of definitions it becomes "content" because the purpose of the piece is linked to profit and monetary transaction rather than the purpose of art itself.

    But let's say a game studio is making a game and they've signed with a big publisher who becomes the owner of that studio, and who's pushing them to make something that can sell better. Here, the focus for the investor is to sell more and profit, but the game studio aren't a bunch of commissioned artists as it is the game studio who initiated the will to create and the investors are just means to that purpose. They might have to comply with changes to the game in order to meet the will of the investors, but it's still the creation of the game itself that's at the forefront of intentions, and thus it is defined as "art".

    However, within the same situation, if the publisher owns rights to a franchise that is primarily made for profit and is iterated on year after year for this purpose and the game studio does not have any personal interest in it more than as a "job", then that becomes "content" as both the studio's and investor's intentions are profit over creation.

    But we can also have a mix in which an artist is commissioned for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation itself, meaning, it's not a design for the purpose of profit per se, but being part of the aesthetics of something that is involved with forms of profit. Like a commissioned artist who makes an artwork that hangs within the halls of a designed architecture, or the architecture itself being commissioned work by an individual or organization who want a building on their land. In this case, it's still art since even through there's profit involved, the intention is for the aesthetic appreciation prioritized over profit, even if the aesthetics are part of what generates profit.

    ----

    It may seem weird to define art through this lens, but it makes a clear line drawn in which we can define "art" better through a definition that values "creation" over profit. In essence, if an artist is asked "why" they made something, and their answer primarily revolves around the expression itself and the communication to the receiver (audience and viewer/listener), with any possible profit only being a "byproduct", then it can be defined as art.

    So, on the question if "Idol" is art, we have to look at the mechanics of that show. Is it content or art?

    The channel makes this show for the purpose of profit, they didn't decide to make it for their love of music and dance, it's a bought global franchise that's nationalized within the interest of record company's to find new artists to profit from. From this intention alone we see that the interest is profit and the initiation of the show is through the lens of profit, not creation.

    On top of that, the "commissioned" artists who are there for the contest aren't there for the purpose of creating something for an audience, they're there to battle against others for the purpose of winning the contest, and they do so by trying to impress judges on the basis of primarily the technical qualities necessary to be able to work as artists for record labels.

    Thus, both the investors, production company and the contestants ALL have profit as their main purpose and because of that, Idol is pure content, no art.

    These artists may well become artists after the show in which they focus on their expression and art primarily, but that's outside the scope of the show, so there's nothing with the show itself that defines it as art.

    ----------

    I also think that this way of defining art is a good guide for people who want to be artists. If you want to create but all you do is create for the purpose of profit, what value are you really producing for the audience? If the focus is to get their money, you are probably, maybe even subconsciously, fine-tuning the creation to maximize profit, not maximize the existential value of what the artwork is giving the audience.

    This is also why I think people can sense if something was made with heart or not. The instinct people have for spotting "good" and "bad" art, is rather the ability to sense "content" vs "art". As even in the art world, people can sense if an artist made something just to gain a profit of recognition rather than being honest in creation. When people speak of derivative and bland art, it may very well be centered around an artist who weren't honestly creating the artwork with the heart in the right place, but rather tried to summarize what they thought is effective to paint themselves as artists as an identity rather than purpose.
  • Baden
    16.3k
    For me, unashamedly, AI has triggered not one, but from time to time, all of those direct paths to real feeling (tears, laughter, rage, fear, drive, human bonding). And that is why it is high quality art. Art Extraordinaire.ENOAH

    That argument seems problematic. Were Hitler and Goebbels doing art? Are propaganda and advertising art? The more emotionally manipulative the better? Rhetoric is an art, but is it art? The ancient arts of discourse included rhetoric, but also grammar and logic, and we don't consider them art. Are we maybe confusing the art of putting a good show together with actual art--which is supposed to reveal insight and truth or have something of the sublime about it? I listened to a performance of Ibsen's play "Ghosts" recently and I was very moved, but also felt somehow improved as a person. I have watched very little reality TV since the original "Big Brother" and I enjoyed it, but never considered it more than entertainment and I never felt improved through watching it.

    I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving that. That idea may be leveraged to dismiss criticisms of TV and popular entertainment as elitist (and they can be ill thought out) but if we pursue the distinction between the art of doing something other than art properly and art proper, we don't fall foul of elitism in my view and merely recognize a valid distinction.
  • Vera Mont
    4.3k
    do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way?ENOAH
    Yes, I do. I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings.
    Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them?ENOAH
    Representations are not 'real' in the same sense as the things being represented or the entity making the representation; however, the media in which art is physically expressed are real. The internal visualization is real to the imaginer, but does not exist in the world.
    "Real" is a tricky little word.

    For purposes of classification, the arts are usually divided into fine art (representations that have no practical function, but are created only for aesthetic/psychological value) performing arts (the creation of artfully presented ephemeral experiences) crafts (skillfully created functional items) design (creative re-imagining of mundane practical items) and lately something called 'artisanal' which applies to non-factory products like beer and bread.
    What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production.
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    Nice criteria. So it is art if the creator intended it to be; and, if it elicits a level emotion tantamount to that experienced by its creator. American Idol on the face of it is not art.ENOAH

    Some thoughts. 1) I realized that when you were talking about "American Idol" I was thinking about "So You Think You Can Dance." I think what I wrote about one is applicable to both. 2) I'm not sure if this is clear from my previous post. The criteria I described are intended to stand on their own separately. They are alternative standards. I don't propose a work would have to meet both standards in order to be considered art. 3) Thinking more about it, I don't think it makes sense to think of "American Idol" or "So You Think You Can Dance" themselves as art, but it may make sense to think of individual performances that way.
  • flannel jesus
    1.8k

    the picture, when seen by some one else or by the painter himself subsequently, produces in him (we need not ask how) sensuous-emotional or psychical experiences which, when raised from impressions to ideas by the activity of the spectator’s consciousness, are transmuted into a total imaginative experience identical with that of the painter. — R.G. Collingwood

    I don't really like this definition particularly because of the word "identical". I'm not being pedantic, even if the above sentence were adjusted to instead say "similar to", I think it misses the mark.

    When I'm looking at a painting, I don't have any pretense that how I'm experiencing it is identical to, or in any way similar to, how the painter does. I'm having a relatively unique experience, made unique by my own relationship to the subject matter and the colours and my cultural history and etc.

    I don't even think the artists intentions have to be considered to be that important at all, really.
  • T Clark
    13.8k
    I don't really like this definition particularly because of the word "identical". I'm not being pedantic, even if the above sentence were adjusted to instead say "similar to", I think it misses the mark.

    When I'm looking at a painting, I don't have any pretense that how I'm experiencing it is identical to, or in any way similar to, how the painter does. I'm having a relatively unique experience, made unique by my own relationship to the subject matter and the colours and my cultural history and etc.
    flannel jesus

    When we've discussed what art is in the past, we never got anywhere close to a consensus understanding, so it's not surprising you don't like this perspective. I get your point. Collingwood is a pretty judgmental hard ass who likes to take definitive positions. In the book, he stated authoritatively that Kipling's "Just So Stories" is art while Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" is not.

    I came to this question with a personal understanding that art doesn't mean anything beyond our experience of it. Collingwood convinced me that we also need to consider the relationship between the artist and the audience. So, no, Collingwood and I don't agree that the artists intentions don't have to be considered. Collingwood is long dead, so I can state that without fear of contradiction from him.
  • ENOAH
    836
    Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV showOutlander

    I think you are likely in the conventional majority.

    But thank you for seeing my struggle.

    As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically.
  • ENOAH
    836
    it makes a clear line drawn in which we can define "art" better through a definition that values "creation" over profit.Christoffer

    Perhaps that needs to be a criterion; if tge intention is solely commercial, let's agree it is not art.

    This would be a superimposed deterrent, I think, designed to keep art "clean."

    But in my heart, I might find a McDonalds commercial artistic. What then?
  • ENOAH
    836
    I appreciate that, even in order to be entertaining, any media has to be involving emotionally and there is an art to achieving thatBaden

    Understood your response. Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?"

    Maybe you are right, if the feelings are manipulated out of me by architects of manipulation, it is not art. Like Nazi propaganda ought not to be viewed as art.
  • ENOAH
    836
    What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production.Vera Mont

    Strong argument, yes.
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    At long last, American Idol takes its rightful place as a topic of discussion in philosophy. Alas, we must still await the time when it's recognized as a branch of it, along with epistemology, metaphysics and ethics.
  • ENOAH
    836
    I agree no need to "correct" AI/Dance, same show.

    They are alternative standards.T Clark
    Ok, then in my estimation, AI meets the criterion which asks if it elicits strong feeling, no?


    may make sense to think of individual performances that way.T Clark

    It may be I'm confusing the trees for the forest.
  • ENOAH
    836
    It's an evolving world. If Plato had his way...and yet, look at us now.
  • Baden
    16.3k
    Does "content" like AI produce that "Sublime.?"ENOAH

    I think we have to admit that it might. Suppose I read a story presuming it to be written by a human and experience something similar to what I experienced with "Ghosts", I would classify it as art. I don't know how I'd justify retroactively nullifying my judgement on finding out it was written by an AI. What if I mistakenly thought it was written by an AI and then discovered it was indeed written by a human, would it become art again? Can something jump in and out of being art depending on a belief regarding its origin? Or are we saying its origin is a necessary condition of it being art? But then how do we tie that down? Can a human not create something "accidentally" or unconsciously and it be art? Does there have to be an intention there? Without knowing what we are saying specifically, it tends to reduce to having to be something that is a product of a living human body. Which doesn't seem to mean much. I think the important relationship is between the subject and the work itself.
  • Ciceronianus
    3k

    I think it's more a case of degenerating myself, but I've never watched an entire season of American Idol, I must admit.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.