Ai Weiwei says art that can be replicated by AI is ‘meaningless’

[C C]

Ai Weiwei says art that can be replicated by AI is ‘meaningless’ – philosopher explains what that means for the future of art
https://theconversation.com/ai-weiwei-sa...art-221166

INTRO: Ai Weiwei, China’s most famous dissident and artist, has called art that can be easily replicated by artificial intelligence (AI) “meaningless”. What I find most striking about this comment is how it manages to look both backwards into the intricate corridors of art history and forwards into the uncertain future of the art world.

Does Ai Weiwei mean that AI should make us rethink our appreciation of the works of art of the past? Or is AI so powerful that it should shape the mission of future artists?

The undertones of this double challenge are familiar to philosophers of art, who have, at times, seriously entertained the claim that art can come to an end... (MORE - details)

[stryder]

Art has had many schools similar to philosophy. In some respects AI and what it produces is just another school.

A landscape artistic might of suggested that impressionism wasn't art, but it's just a difference "sense". (considering art can be observed, emotionally felt or touched)

AI art might however suggestibly be "souless" in the sense of it having no passion applied. Blantent capitalising on AI as pop art is likely about mass producing for a profit without the need for paying an artist royalities... if of course the AI can do the art without first plagurising it's style or content.