Raw LLM Responses

​​​@draalttom844 I guess I should preface that I prefer it if ai doesn't take artist's jobs. If an alien made art, would it no longer be art because they're not human? Or if any other animal etched a drawing on a surface, would you say the same? Is the only thing that makes it art the conscious application of certain theories? The defintion is human-centric, since art is a human concept. And yes, there is theory with multiple aspects, but whether or not those have been applied well is subjective. We can defer to subject experts if we want to (who are those experts by the way?), but other than describing how the artist applied the standards, and why the expert approves of said application, how does the expert objectively show that that piece of art is better than some other piece of art? I agree that most of us share an idea of what art is good or bad, but when we get into questions of why, then what we are describing is relatability. If something is too complicated to understand, or if the person isn't in the correct mood to enjoy it, or if for whatever reason it is that something doesn't appeal to them, just pointing to theory is not adequate. The point of deliniating between art and science, was that in science, the objective is not to explain why something should be a certain way (i.e. why something is good or not), but to give a description of what it is and how it works. You can do that with art, but that is not the same as explaining why a piece of art is good, or why more art like it should be made.