Raw LLM Responses

1. your 1st argument about how people usually describe art is just trash. Language is inadequate at expressing feelings and emotions. Also saying most of the people does something doesn't make it right or true. 2. Depending on which art philosophy school you follow you can approach an art piece from the artists intention, the reception of the artwork, the effect it had on society and its history or just analyze the symblism and layers of meaning in the art work. You can use either or all methods when you approach most artworks. Philosophy is not like physics where there is only one correct answer but maybe the one we accept now is not correct and will be corrected in the future. The same with art, there is no "bad" art and even defining something as art is not set in stone. instead its a dialogue within society between people discussing their thoughts about artworks and trying to define them. 3. Beauty became a slur word in modern art and most artist started going actively against it. Post-modern is even worst, and with the rise of consumerism beauty and things pleasant to the eye are often seen as cheap, trivial, slop, naive art. 4. You can have a conversation with a rock. You can see faces in the clouds. Again, you approach art by concentrating on what it makes the viewer feel. It is a narrow viewpoint, like imagine reading a essay about a Balzac novel and it is only about discussing how the guy who read it felt. I mean how about we remove the artist and the viewer from the equation and concentrate only on the artwork in itself? This is the post-modern method at least. 5. Your worries are mostly about society, how it percieves art, how it regulates and uses it and secondly how people other than you percieve and experience art. These are thoughts and feeling inside people. You think art as a tool for affecting people. It is a shallow perspective and also not purely about art. By the way I agree on your points about the dangers of AI to artists and society. But when I look at art I don't care who made it. Because people will always make art. We will use different methods, different styles, and society's relationship with art will also differ but the same took place over the past centuries. What we experience now is not too different from the backlash about dadaism, surreal expressionism or the apperance of photography. Regardless of it being a primitive cave painting or a Ghiblified profile picture we can still analize pictures, they can affect us thanks to the meanings they convey with artistic tools like attributes, symbols etc. so they basicly have the same function and work in similar ways. It's not the end of the world (of art) if a lot a of people how doesn't really care about art start mass producing AI pictures. Of course it affect the job market but that has nothing to do with art, beacuse people will create art for the sake of the process, not for monetary gain. You have the right to have a different taste but to you should separate art and art pieces from people who interact with art, even thought people make and consume art, the same way physics and chemistry are separate sciences even though they apply to the same world we live in. Sorry, I got bored halfway because you kept complaning about people I don1t know or don't care. Crying about what a lot of people do online is a waste of time. Sure I do someting similar but at least I get to practice my English and it sounded to me like you are a native speaker.