> You don't have to engage, but choosing to denigrate is actively hostile engagement.
Apologies, that was not my intent, more to make people think because some people seemed to be confused about what is the art here.
Sticking a webcam through a filter to produce a pretty output isn't necessarily original, but that doesn't stop it being interactive art. Some folks here seem to think the image is art, whereas I see the whole as the art. A single static image that had been captured and run through the filter then presented doesn't really have very much to say.
The installation can be interpreted in many ways and grows to be more than the sum of its parts.
Is it generating images?
Could it be co-adopted by people with vision or interpretation issues such as prosopagnosia?
Low effort/low brow art is still art.
Clicking on "create me an image" and having Bing generate a picture doesn't give the world anything as it enters zero effort, which ultimately reduces the creators investment, and therefore the viewers investment, into the piece.
If I had to drag myself across a desert in order to press that Bing button, would it be art then? (I think, in that example, the act of pressing the button might be the art - a performance).
Sticking a webcam shot through an AI filter is a pretty low bar. What makes it art that anyone other than the creator would care about is the real-time rendering. Thats the art that people are interested in discussing.
People do all sorts of walks as art. Whether thats Drag or a parade where the art is to make the walk interesting, or walking through the desert, laying on a bed of nails where the "walk" (or laying down) isn't necessarily interesting but the passion is.
Pressing the Bing button is unlikely to evoke any passion except from Bing product management.
Apologies, that was not my intent, more to make people think because some people seemed to be confused about what is the art here.
Sticking a webcam through a filter to produce a pretty output isn't necessarily original, but that doesn't stop it being interactive art. Some folks here seem to think the image is art, whereas I see the whole as the art. A single static image that had been captured and run through the filter then presented doesn't really have very much to say. The installation can be interpreted in many ways and grows to be more than the sum of its parts.
Is it generating images?
Could it be co-adopted by people with vision or interpretation issues such as prosopagnosia?
Low effort/low brow art is still art.
Clicking on "create me an image" and having Bing generate a picture doesn't give the world anything as it enters zero effort, which ultimately reduces the creators investment, and therefore the viewers investment, into the piece.