who’s seen to have made it does matter but is not the important part, the important point is the causal chain by which the art is manifested into the final product matters. people assign much lower value to artwork that has been traced vs original pieces for instance.
photography did not kill the aesthetic value of paintings. people have and still appreciate good paintings even with the rise of photography. of course photography has changed painting stylistically, but has not killed its aesthetic value. the question of how much people value art aesthetically is related but separate from economic considerations. don’t get the concepts mixed up. as i argued in the article, it follows from the statement that art is not a state function to the case that it is merely that our tools to make art evolve, but good art is always hard to make and intrinsically valuable regardless of what tools are available, even if those tools are a camera or a neural net.
To be a bit glib, it’s always about money. And ego, in the case of the skill involved. People here aren’t angry and insulting me because I’m technically wrong about the philosophy of aesthetics.
I’m just someone on the internet, and you should talk to other artists. If I’m guessing correctly, the response won’t be “you’re right, as long as the causal chain is intact it’s fine”.
who’s seen to have made it does matter but is not the important part, the important point is the causal chain by which the art is manifested into the final product matters. people assign much lower value to artwork that has been traced vs original pieces for instance.
photography did not kill the aesthetic value of paintings. people have and still appreciate good paintings even with the rise of photography. of course photography has changed painting stylistically, but has not killed its aesthetic value. the question of how much people value art aesthetically is related but separate from economic considerations. don’t get the concepts mixed up. as i argued in the article, it follows from the statement that art is not a state function to the case that it is merely that our tools to make art evolve, but good art is always hard to make and intrinsically valuable regardless of what tools are available, even if those tools are a camera or a neural net.
To be a bit glib, it’s always about money. And ego, in the case of the skill involved. People here aren’t angry and insulting me because I’m technically wrong about the philosophy of aesthetics.
I’m just someone on the internet, and you should talk to other artists. If I’m guessing correctly, the response won’t be “you’re right, as long as the causal chain is intact it’s fine”.