>>692784I dreaded generative music until I realized most music out there is already formulaic, relies on software like FL Studio, sample and loop libraries, ghost written lyrics, etc.
Drawn furry porn likewise was always slop the way most landscape painting was in the 19th century (and mostly died out with the advent of photography): It was something created to pay the bills. There's nothing existential, political or autobiographical about it.
>AI is runing artPlease read the following
https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf>>692858People are basically doing what Duchamp did and uploading urinals to various platforms. In previous eras human curators would have stepped in by now, but that would mean these billion dollar companies actually having to spend some of their income on ensuring people don't flood the web with manufactured slop.
This entire "problem" was solved literally over one hundred years ago.
>>692869As someone who is also an artist, I like to frame it differently: All of this boils down to same issue 19th century painters and early 20th century architects faced. In a world where everything can be made and (mechanically) replicated cheaply (on an assembly line, or through an algorithm) what the fuck does it mean anymore to be an "artist"?
Consider for example Versailles: When it was build, not only was there nothing like it in all of Europe or France, but the craftsmanship and expense involved in its construction inspired awe particular to the era in which it was build. Glass was expensive and difficult to manufacture. The Hall of Mirrors was spectacular because there was nothing like it, and importantly, could not be replicated by anyone except perhaps the wealthiest royal houses of Europe. Foremost of which was House Bourbon.
Imagine if someone were to build a copy of Versailles today: People would find it tacky and a waste of public funds. We have the means to replicate it much more cheaply, and that's why it isn't. You cannot replicate the "aura" of Versailles by building it in the modern era. You wouldn't be able to replicate it even if Versailles had never existed.
And so when it became possible to build anything, no matter how tacky. With mass produced concrete, glass, paint and architectural elements mechanically replicated on assembly lines, this provoked a crisis within architecture. Ornament had become meaningless because it was now possible to cheaply tack it onto a building like selecting from a fast food menu or picking items from a shelf at a cheap retail store.
For example, a lot of people still lament the demolition of Penn station in NYC. But it was basically architectural slop. (Fake tacky columns which weren't even structural elements, etc.)
There was a whole reaction against formalism in the second half of the 20th century, leading to "postmodern" architecture, but people hate that shit about as much and perhaps even more so than they do brutalism.
Basically where I'm gong with this is that the "mystique" previously inherent to art (be it architecture, painting including portraiture, sculpture, and now finally music and furry porn) in its inability to be mechanically replicated (which Walker Benjamin also heavily ties into the 'aura' and cult value of pre-modern art) is gone now.
You're never going to be able to impress people with artisanship alone the way it was possible to do so in previous eras. Unless you perform it right in front of them. E.g. playing a sick guitar solo or making a photorealistic painting by hand in front of an audience is still impressive. A track uploaded to Spotify or an image reposted in itself on Xitter, isn't.
Most simply won't give a fuck anymore as to whether you placed every single pixel by hand over the course of weeks. They won't be able to tell the difference, just like most people can't tell the difference between a Corinthian column build by ancient greek craftsmen, and a modern replica on the facade of a strip mall made out of cast concrete or foam.