Raw LLM Responses

Sounds nice, but heads up that having certain “intentions” is completely arbitrarily as a criteria and doesn’t seem to have any logical rigor connecting it to the art. Maybe you’re fine with that, and that’s cool. For example: A dead artist doesn’t have intentions, or you might not know their intentions. Does that stop their work from having meaning after they are dead? If you consider the value of intentionality to survive (after any intentions themselves are missing), then you must assume the value from their intentions must somehow be transcribed into the painting to survive after their death. Mood in the viewer color scheme style etc. This important part is that it would have to be a physical property or characteristics to survive. IF it is physically part of the painting, then another artificial process producing the painting could be equally capable of transcribing the same signature effects as intentions. At the end of the day, claiming “intention is a property that matters to artistic value” relies EXCLUSIVELY on your belief of who made it. If you don’t know if the artist was a human or as an AI, you won’t be able to judge if there was intention. Your rule wouldn’t help you distinguish if it was even art. You’d have to say identical work from a robot is less valuable than work from a human, even if you can’t tell the difference. “Intention” is code for your own internal rule for when you personally judge art: That you like it more art more because you THINK a human made it, but that rule isn’t really about the art. That rule is about you. 🤷