Raw LLM Responses

You're preaching the choir to me. But what your video about generative AI art made me remember was something I've never thought about: The invention of photography certainly saw to a seismic shift in how society viewed (painted) art before and after. Before photography, painters did their best to be as true to life in order to make good portraits. After photography, we got expressionism and impressionism to lay a human emotion and/or experience in painting. Around this time, we also see artists lay political meaning in paintings and sketches. If I remember my high school art lessons vaguely correctly it was there that we made the distinction that art should have meaning, should activate us to think or contemplate. Just the other day I went to Anselm Kiefer's exhibition "Sag Mir Wo Die Blumen Sind" in both the Van Gogh museum and the Stedelijk museum in Amsterdam. When you walk past painted canvasses wider than the length of your living room, and taller than your living room ceiling, filled with texture, and enough other materials you might make an argument that these paintings almost transcend into sculptures, you feel start to feel insignificant and awed. Seeing a German Artist (born in 1945) examining Germany's WWII history in his art while knowing that extreme right wing sentiments are getting stronger in Europe makes me, an empathic human being, experience emotions no computer could get out of me. I dare say that all the AI in the world with all the time on their hands could not be inspired enough to be the monkeys that churn out Shakespeares collected work in this analogy. People that say AI art will make actual artists superfluous sound like the poor souls locked up in Plato's cave, having only seen shadows of what emotions real art can evoke. About the digital art that AI seems to copy flawlessly from people who spend hundreds of hours creating it? I'd much rather look at the thing a human made because it meant something to the maker at the very least. Fuck that soulless AI slop.