Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
But it isn’t “just rectangles.” That’s the point. They were slowly and meticulously constructed by layering oil paint in a way that explores the idea of what colors and color contrasts mean.
He didn’t just take a broad paintbrush and paint a rectangle.
He also suggested viewing his canvases up close, maybe a foot away, so you could see it the way he saw it.
With less skill in painting but the same artistic intent I can take a sample book of unicolour fabric with different weaves from the local textile store and put it on a pedestal: Exploring the idea of what fabric texture and texture contrasts mean.
And I’m sure clothing designers all over the world will be ecstatic… or would be, if they didn’t have store rooms full of sample books.
It is a valuable and thorough exploration of the craft is all I’m saying. He’s a Paganini, not a Ravel.
But why isn’t such an exploration a form of art?
If someone does a complicated abstract painting but uses a ruler and a protractor to achieve it, is that art?
Because I make a distinction between art and craft. You can produce extraordinarily impressive pieces of craft that have no artistic content at all, no intent nor capacity to convey a message or transform mind or anything that resembles it, you can produce extraordinary pieces of art with zero recourse to craft. Like putting a urinal on a pedestal, as I’ve mentioned quite often in this thread.
Speaking about protractors: Engineering drawings can actually be art. There’s a difference between a drawing that’s merely conveying technical information and one that is both technical and at the same time is arranged, presented, such that it does not have to be deciphered, it is capable of transforming a mind by merely being looked at, instead of having to be pondered. It’s the difference between a court file and a thrilling detective story.
So you’re claiming any image that must be deciphered isn’t art?
Nah not like that. Art is something on top of the mundane and with technical drawings it happens to be that kind of stuff.
I would argue that Rothko’s works are anything but mundane considering the effort that went into them.
There’s also tons of effort in merely technical drawings.
As said: Things can be absolutely impressive for their craft content alone. I’m not discounting that. But art is something on top of that. Art is something which works without craft. Which works with nothing more but a urinal out of a factory.
I’m not married to the word “mundane” in that comment btw it’s just a suitable word to use for the baseline I contrast the “art on top” to. If you want to use it for “basic craft, fulfills its purpose” vs. “extraordinary craft, exceeds even the wildest dreams” then be my guest, I do the same I simply didn’t happen to use it that way in that specific sentence.