Well, the average person doesn't go look at art at all. They'd rather watch blockbuster movies or TV shows and barbecue. That's nothing new. The audience is small for art. That does not mean it isn't important to those that do love it. If everyone only cared about things because they were new and popular, the world would suck. Thankfully we have people who still like things simply because they like them.
That’s a good point. I wonder out of the 200 million-ish adults in America how many read books? With concentration on STEM how much value we as a society will we place on the humanities in the future? We exist to support tech while tech creates art?
Well, we do seem to have some STEAM which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics. So, I guess proponents of that have decided you cannot leave the Arts behind at least. 🙂
Really big of them. I feel so validated. I always knew my BFA was a golden meal ticket. 🙄
I never stressed my BFA. I had a good time and finished college. That was a first in my family. haha. I still got work in whatever field (outside of art) that I needed to in order to make $.
Exactly the same here. I got a good taste of the Art World during and after school, and decided "No thanks!" I found alternate fields of employment, and could make my art what I chose it to be, rather than what might sell. No regrets whatsoever!
Fair enough, and yet blockbuster movies incorporate a lot of artistry in the form of cinematography and CGI and costume design and set design and sound design and all those other things that there are Oscar categories for. And aficionados of, say, Marvel superhero movies are ruthlessly dismissive whenever films don't measure up in one of those categories. And don't get me started on barbecue -- I used to work with chefs, who consider themselves as creative and artistic as anyone, and the rise of "foodie culture" suggests that they're finally finding an appreciative audience. Heck, all you have to do is try to sign up for the new Instagram competitor Lemon8 (not as bad as you'd think, BTW) and you'll find that there are highly engaged communities interested in creative expression through the media of fingernail decor and lip gloss.
There were schools of painting centuries ago which included a downright obsessive attention to minute details. Even details that were impossible to see when viewing the painting when displayed as intended. It's a very short distance from trompe-l'œil to what we'd consider a "photorealistic" scene today.
Is it? What happens when no one can tell whether the photo-realistic picture they're looking at is a genuine photograph or an imaginary image created by a computer?
Well, it is safe as a separate art form, but you are also correct regarding how AI will probably be used.
Umm ... What about AI photo-realistic images having zero to do with capturing light and aren't on this spectrum at all? If they're on a spectrum, it's that of cave drawings to paintings to computer art.
There's also another less known device used to create realistic drawings that basically does the same but is ever so much more convenient; the camera-lucida (Camera lucida - Wikipedia).
In the AI-era how will anyone be able to prove or disprove whether a photograph was created by a human using a camera?
There will be a way.
Vermeer has been suspected of using this Camera Lucida and there has been an interesting film om the subject. AI?
No, the camera lucida was invented much later, end of the 18th century. Vermeer used a camera obscura. Why "suspected"?
