News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Using Artificial Intelligence to Augment Human Intelligence by brudgers on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:14PM (#15857438)
An art idea, however witty is not a work of art. The hard part of art creation is the willingness to evaluate opportunity costs in terms of lost opportunities to make art. Saying "This sunset would make a lovely photograph" is not making a photograph of a sunset. Art is in the artifact.

The professional artists I know aren't famous. They don't persuade people. Sometimes they do what they do. Sometimes they make things they think people will like. Sometimes they make works on commission. They make a living at art, but it is something they were doing before making a living at art and had ordinary day jobs. As professionals artists their day job looks a lot like other day jobs in that they work a lot of hours and have to deal with paperwork and order supplies and collect money from customers.

Re:Using Artificial Intelligence to Augment Human Intelligence by theoh on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @05:58AM (#15860152)
Since the 1960s, conceptual art has been an uncontroversial thing. An idea _can_ be art. A gesture that leaves no perceptible trace can be art. "A great artist can make art by simply casting a glance." – Robert Smithson.

The reality of the trendy art world (high-profile artists and gallery) is that good PR is the one thing an artist absolutely can't do without. Everything else is optional. Anything can be art. No physical manifestation is required.

I'm sure the artists you mention are serious and professional. There's a distinction that's sometimes drawn between the kind of conceptual/trendy work and supposedly more honest, commercial or traditional art production. It's almost always the more conservative, conventional people who make that distinction -- it's a way of dismissing more conceptual work as pretentious or elitist.