Question & Answer

>>12473
Art is another way of spreading ideas, just like music, books etc. It just uses mainly visual signals to tell its message. I do agree that not all art should be really deep in terms of meaning (i hate it when there's a lot of esoteric symbolism that you need to learn in order to understand even a fracture of the message; most of the time the message is useless and you have wasted your time). But at the end of the day, art can still be used for spreading ideas (simple or deep) one way or another.
Even the Mona Lisa, given the proper context, can tell you about Leonardo's ideas for good coloring, good anatomy etc. Compare him to say Picasso, who has different opinions on what beauty is, and you have a form of a debate between worldviews.

Thinking that AI will replace drawing, composing etc. is a way of thinking that misses the point of such craftsmanship. AI can only imitate already existing creators (it feeds on data to produce) and is not creative (as >>12453 said). People want to see what (you) have to say about certain topics and the way (you) will share your opinions.

>>12452
>Read every single word, it seems kinda pretentious. This idea that "real art" is something that "challenges people and makes them think" seems kinda gay. In what way is mona lisa thought provoking? In what way does anguished man challenge your worldview? I think it's a narrow view of art, probably spawned out of a desire to counter signal trannies (keyed albeit).
>I think art exists to be appreciated. For observers to appreciate it's ability to evoke emotions, convey ideas, or challenge the viewer (not exclusively that).
I have no problem with art that has no meaning and is purely to be enjoyed for entertainment. But that form of art has been industrilizated so much and like the latter half of your statement, it's made exclusively to make profit. I just think that valuable art should have meaning. Art is a powerful tool of expression and yet it's been curated by mass media to only express what people like to see instead of what they need to see.
The artists back then worked on improving their talent, that's why most of the good artworks you see from back then were high quality. Things like the anguished man like what you said was clearly made to invoke some kind of idea, it's not completely meaningly, I can't really say that for the mona lisa since it's more of a showcase of the artist's skills rather than to express an idea.
Someone made this great comment about what I said on the sharty:
>It all comes down to Pygmalion. If you don’t know the story- a fool tries to make his art works come to life as living beings and gets rebuked by the Gods (greco-roman) for his foolishness.
>The spirit of this dreadful mockery of human ability, this bullshit soy myth perpetrated by mindless last-men is well and alive in any lesser imp that ‘just draws for fun’, while letting their own art suffer; their own art becomes unrealized because they don’t respect the ‘life’ of the thing they brought in.
>Japan, for all her problems and failings, still tries. It had the exact opposite myths- possessed objects, paintings that came to life, and for every failed bugman that creates horrific fairies and unnerving anime distortions, there are at least five more with the capability to rise above and make meaningful works- all because of the love and care they place into craftsmanship; the love and care they hold drives them to infuse their things with meaning.
>Any artist who holds that they are making ‘dead’ things is blind to the power they hold. A failed pygmalionist makes dust that is forgotten and passes away, a failed rejector of pygmalion makes coal that possesses and controls people.

>>12465
Sure

>>12481
>I didn't say art is or should be meaningless or aimless
I know, but when I typed, my thoughts started going places. I am sorry.

<warning: SNCA ahead

<I just hate that people dont realize art can in fact be as meaningful as a small text, when it comes to sharing knowledge or ideas.

<Leonardo, for example, could have simply written "I like detailed anatomy and i think its important" and nobody would have bated an eye. But he made an eye catching drawing and everybody lost their minds. He chose that type of an expression to make the viewer stop and listen to what he has to say.

<I guess people dont realize the power of art that much because they usually connect it with media that was meant to be consumed at the moment and forgotten about after a few minutes. Something shiny to look at in order to stimulate some need at the moment (for example porn).

<bla bla bla i can babble for ever about this topic, so i will stop here.