Community condemn Bedminster AI mural as 'insult' to artists

Maybe the art is the letter and the resulting media outrage rather than the mural itself, like the Leeds 13 “Going Places” degree show.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jun/08/martinwainwright

My favourite commentary of specific art pieces comes from Patrick MacGoohan who said (of a piece of modern art) "it means what it is."

Were John Berger here, I'm sure he would remind us all that art does not exist in a vacuum, but lives in a social context.

The most meaningful (to me) critique of AI generated works are that they deprive the artist of the benefit of the investigation. As media become more disconnected (intermediated), the reasoning path between urge and resolution is obscured for the artist.

Generative models are highly intermediated.

The purpose of art may be thought of as the effort to produce artifacts. But at a societal level it is a process to reveal "truths" embedded in commonly held "lies."

I like this specific piece in the same way I liked Duchamp's urinal. It makes a statement about art more than being art. And in concretizing that statement raises itself to the status of "art."

But if Duchamp (or anyone else) tried to pass off a second urinal as a second fountain, the impact would not be there and it would not be art.

Which is to say... I think the Bedminster piece IS art because of its context. But subsequent AI generated pieces would need to be judged on different merits.

If the Bedminster piece is indicative of the quality of output of generative AI, human artists have nothing new to fear.

There has always been the danger of art patrons subsidizing substandard public art because of budget concerns. This is just the next chapter in that story.

Bedminster is not known for its patronage, and it's unlikely that will change anytime soon.

Though yes, to the degree that generative models rip off existing artists, whirl it around in a convolutional neural network and barf up something... Yes, this is a prime example of what Massimo Vignelli called "visual pollution."

https://archive.ph/AV4LA

Artists unhappy the money train is ending, News at 11.

Art isn't supposed to be comfortable and it's uncomfortable for a good reason, what if this became a trend? Would it endanger the organic art scene? Can these coexist?

That we are discussing it shows that the mural, even though it's AI generated is performing as art should. Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line? That's for me the most uncomfortable question.

> Raines added local artists would have been "very willing to help" create a temporary mural, had they been asked.

For free? I find these arguments completely unconvincing and they completely ignore the extra work that would entail.

Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so. Just like code is code is code no matter how it came into being. There is still good code and bad code but that exists separately from "was it AI generated". Judge things based on their merits, not their origins.

I look forward to a future where artists embrace AI tooling to further their work. I reject completely the idea that art must be 100% human created. For starters because it's absurd on the face of it, you might as well say no technology at all can be used and it still be called "art", and yes that includes your brushes and paints. You can see how this is an absurd idea. It's my understanding that often artists use other people to assemble their art pieces and/or fill-in painting on something like a mural. Since the artist didn't actually make it with their own hands is it no longer art?

There is just simply no logical place to draw the line on this and I'll be glad when we've moved past this distraction from progress. AI is another tool in the toolbox, avoiding it for the sake of avoiding it is silly and self-defeating.