A recent discussion at David Zwirner gallery explored the evolving nature of AI art, with critic Jerry Saltz and writer David Wallace-Wells contemplating its definition and value. Saltz suggested that, similar to the Renaissance, 90% of AI art may lack quality, dubbing it 'shite'. Wallace-Wells questioned what to call such creations, implying a need for distinction from traditional art. They also referenced Hayao Miyazaki's critique of AI animations as insults to life, pondering if perceptions about AI's artistic legitimacy are shifting as technology advances.
Jerry Saltz argued that, like the Renaissance, most AI art might be of poor quality, with a significant portion being unworthy of distinction as true art.
David Wallace-Wells reflected on the essence of AI art, questioning its definition and its potential impact on how we perceive art and creativity.
Saltz quipped that we should consider AI-generated works as 'maybe art' since true art must originate from human experience and intention.
Wallace-Wells recalled Miyazakiâs earlier criticism of AI animation as an 'insult to life,' while expressing newfound uncertainty about that perspective.
Collection
[
|
...
]