I am all for supporting local artists and I feel that “handcrafted in XXX” products make great souvenirs when you’re connected to those places. Still, if some AI hallucinated me a perfect novel for my interests, or generated something I couldnt tell was manufactured or created by a master, I would happily enjoy it.
“How can I tell if this is slop so I can know to hate it” sounds stupid to me: good is good. When it comes to art / food / products, I want the best experience for ME. If I want human connectedness, then I’ll go interact with a human directly.
I can do without wasted water, power, and money, but in the abstract it seems to bother everyone on Lemmy to enjoy something a person didn’t make. I don’t have that hang-up.
To me at least there are 3 parts to art. It sounds like you don’t look past the first. This fine, but you lose a lot of the magic of art at the same time.
Aesthetic appeal. A lot of art is inherently nice to look at. This is the bit you seem to only want.
Uniqueness A work of art requires time and effort. The end result is often 1 of a kind, or at least exclusive. This is why prints of paintings are valued less than the original.
Connection This is where the “soul” of a piece of art lives. When an artist makes a piece of art, they put parts of themselves into it. Some are intentional, others are accidental. The art becomes a connection between the mind of the artist and the mind of the viewer/user. This is wide, nebulous and difficult to describe well. It’s like when an author puts subtle plot twists or political commentary into a story. Most people will miss it, but a few will connect via it. It could also be religious or cultural factors that get injected unintentionally.
AI art can do the first to some extent. Not that well yet, but getting there. However AI art is also quite low effort for the producer, this vastly reduces the uniqueness value of the work.
The last is the kicker. AI art has messages and connotations in it. They are not deliberate however. It’s akin to putting ideas in a blender. You might still pick out bits, but the larger internal structure is gone/randomised. People will still find bits of it. Humans are excellent at finding patterns. The work feels hollow however, the intentional soul that should be like an excellent meal has been reduced to chicken nugget “pink paste”. This is doubly bitter when people put mental effort into connecting, but later find out there was nothing really there.
I would say that the third point here on connection is interesting and might be something I appreciate one artist or author for, but not necessarily a necessary condition? Everyone likes to be in the know for inside jokes and commentary, but the ones on the outside can still enjoy I think.
The only other thing I think I disagree with you about is point 2. Yes, art needs to be unique to be valuable, but working in the styles of others and in a clever way is still unique. I think there is an untapped market of interesting artistic commentary that gets written off because it’s “low effort”. It strikes me as weirdly hypocritical that people will celebrate the majesty of “modern art” where the point of the piece isn’t the product, it’s the method. It’s squiggles on a page or a bold red line (with a bullshit plaque that says that line is a commentary on social inequality or something). I don’t find that any more insightful than someone who comes up with a good political cartoon idea and has a prompt make it in the style of Vincent Van Gogh in starry night: it was the idea that was the important part, but it loses impact when made with stick figures and crayon.