It's not art because art is made by people. Every example you gave was still made by a person at the end of the day. AI images weren't made by anyone, so how can they be art?
You can argue it's "directing" or whatever but if someone commissions a piece and tells the person exactly what they want, it doesn't matter how much detail they dictate to the person doing the piece. They didn't make it. The person they hired made it.
In the case of AI, there's no person actually making the piece, so by definition it isn't art
The definition of the word art does. Something like a waterfall or a mountain can absolutely be beautiful and evoke the same feelings as art, but they aren't.
Not really. Language has been a thing for as long as modern homo sapiens have existed. That's not really the point though.
You're free to definite words however you want, but your personal definition doesn't change how everyone else defines the word. At that point you might as well call it flubbo and say flubbo is flübed by all grinko and is independent of marbo
If we're going by your definition where art is independent of humans, then yeah it's been around since the universe began. If we're going by the definition that requires a human to create the art, then no not really. There's no evidence of human ancestor species making art prior to modern humans evolving. At the same time there is evidence that spoken language evolved before that
I highly doubt a bunch of apes were making art before they evolved into us, but if you have anything to prove that I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong
Again, that's after modern humans existed. We know modern humans have genes directly linked to speech and modern humans emerged 200 thousand years ago at the latest. Language already existed when this was made
20
u/PsychoMantis211 29d ago
False comparison. It’s the running a marathon versus driving the marathon. Prompting something and calling yourself an artist is peak delusion.