Community condemn Bedminster AI mural as 'insult' to artists

"Comfort implies art" is different from "art implies comfort."

Which is to say, not all art is comfortable, but not all things that are not comfortable are art.

It's perfectly fine for art to be comfortable. Stop gate-keeping.

It's a good question. I just don't personally believe it's a challenging one. I'm comfortable drawing the line at simple AI art ("simple" as in nothing beyond some hours spent prompting - for somebody who finds a creative way to take it beyond that, I'd come back to the question).

We are not uncomfortable with what the art is saying but with what the meta-narrative around the art is saying, and I think that's an important distinction. Sometimes context is an important part of artistic interpretation and expression, but this time around I think the discomfort is that human intention is being replaced by a machine.

> If not, where do we draw the line?

I don't find this question uncomfortable at all: art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end. Human thought informing human action resulting in a human-created work. If you involved an AI, it is not art; it is a facsimile of art. If you agree that conveying emotion and meaning is an important part of art, and I think you do since you highlighted that art can and sometimes should be uncomfortable, then I posit that AI "art" cannot be art because there is no feeling, emotion, or creativity involved in its creation. An AI can only attempt to mimic human expression based on its training while the AI itself is incapable of these things.

"The money train". Very good. If AI ever takes your job, might I suggest a second career as a comedian.

I think artists are unhappy that something that does not fit all the criteria for "art" is being described as "art."

Where's the money train in painting murals?

Hideous.

Was that an N scale train?