• huginn@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    A viewer has no role in determining if it’s art. Art is solely determined by an artist intending to make art.

    A viewer decides if they like it, decides if they appreciate it and decides what messages they take from it… But they don’t decide if it’s art. Art is what an artist makes.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Correct!

        I find a 5 year old’s doodles more interesting and higher quality than anything you’re making with SD but it’s still art.

        • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          By that logic, no art is ever art because no one “created” anything except maybe god, or something?

          If I used a tool to make the pixels light up in a new way, how is that different from Pollock flicking a brush to get the drops the way he wanted? His method is just as stochastic and randomly generated as mine.

    • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think a viewer can decide something is art unintentionally by evaluating it as art. If you need an artist to intend, then I guess the viewer is that artist because they are the one who made it art.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        People can decide non-artistic things are aesthetically pleasing and apply the label of art to them but without a creator you can’t have art.

        But if it’s a good a human designed - that designer had artistic intentions.