Raw LLM Responses

There's still a major difference between contemporary art and AI "art", anyways. Post-war contemporary art follows a different canon than the traditional fine arts which goes back to, like, Renaissance. Performance art, as much as all the "post-dadaist" conceptual artistic expressions, are not a technological advancement of the artistic product, but envision art as a "non-product" that doesn't need specifical historical context to exist. The fine arts moved to illustration, comics, graphic design, but they still exist. They have always existed. In this sense, I think Cattelan's banana is still way more advanced conceptually than anything AI would ever do. AI would belong to a traditional art context, as it makes pictures, moving or static, but it doesn't seem to me that it's able to "go forward". All these AI techbros talk about efficiency, and money, and the future of AI art as an economical opportunity. But where's the artistic opportunity? And it's not a stupid question. You should ask yourselves those questions if you care about art in the deepness of your heart. I don't think they do. Ultimately, reaching for becoming more human is the objective of EVERY art movement that ever existed. AI fails to achieve that, which is a fundamental prorogative of art in general.