this is not a pipe

[Bongo]

For the most part, I'm all about the image - show me the image - I don't give a rat's *ss how it was made.

Except I'm also a connoisseur of certain art forms. And for those art forms and others like those, it matters VERY MUCH how it was made.

I make plein air paintings. A plein air painting, by definition, is a painting made in one session by an artist on location, depicting the scene in front of them. not a jpeg made up on a computer or a painting made in a studio. It has mass and weight and was produced in a very specific way. So if you're not just fond of plein-air-style images but a connoissueur of the art form, then (at least for now) A.I. can't do it.

I'm also a street photographer. A street photo by definition, is a genre of photography that captures candid, unposed moments of everyday life in public spaces. AI can make street-photo-style images of made-up people in a made-up scene or paste photos of real people on photos of real scenes but that is not street photography. If you're not just fond of street photos, but a connoisseur of the art form, then (at least for now) A.I. can't do it.

This is a clarion call to bring back connoisseurship. The point is NOT just that it's made by people, - people can make fake plein-air and street photos too, just like A.I. It's the protocol, time-honored traditions that should be protected and cherished imo. And not just my examples - but other art forms too.

 

[Bartc]

Well, Bongo, something got your goat, I see.

FWIW, I disagree with your definition of "plein air", in that it doesn't need to be done in one session, nor 100% outdoors. Yet in my own practice that is exactly what I do deliberately. You can start a painting and do it 80% in situ alla prima and still polish it off in a studio and most PA artists I know and juried shows would accept this. Not the way I paint, but that is a fact of life for others.

None-the-less, I agree with the feelings you express about AI "art" and your definition of street photography to a degree. The difference is that street cameras that are automated can make pix from real life that are candid, but lacking a human artist it isn't really street photography at all nor art in my book

Totally agree that connoisseurship or some such is still vital to art. We are likely to both be replaced by AI soon with nobody raising a protest nor a fuss, however. (Sad emoji)

 

[Bongo]

not going to get in a pissing contest about definitions, I put them up loosely just for illustration purposes.

Please bear with me while I use myself as an example of what I mean by connoisseurship, and connoisseurship is probably the wrong word to describe what I mean.

I paint and photograph to please myself.... obviously, since I make little-to-no effort to show or sell my work. What other reason could there be. So if I'm just out to please myself, why don't I just eat cake and masturbate all day? Would be a lot easier and arguably more pleasing. Because part of the pleasure or satisfaction is feeling connected to a tradition, part of something larger than myself. And not to pastry and self-abuse, but to plein-air and street photography.

And trust me I know that connection is not just tenuous , but a fantasy. But , at the end of the day, you live in your head.
My bros - Pete "the street" Brown, Roos Schuring,-- Gary Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz, and so on. I'm not a Walter Mitty, it's not cos-play just a thought in back-of-mind that helps get me thru the day.

The connoisseurship comes in by distinguishing their work (and mine) as different (by definition) from other art forms.
"The difference that makes a difference" Gregory Bateson

I could work the streets with Joel, or put up an easel next to Roos, and be comfortable - even though they are leagues more acccomplished - because we share a tradition, a protocol, an aesthetic.

 

[Bartc]

Not intended as "pissing match" at all, B, since I agree with your basic premise.

 

[Hermes2020]

I think definitions catalyse the development of art, since definitions define boundaries. Those boundaries are thorns in the sides of some creatives, who may be inspired to break free and steer art into exciting new directions. Without these "revolutionaries", art would simply stagnate and become meaningless. The development of Impressionism is a good example of my proposal.

 

[Bongo]

If a word describes something that has no meaning, then that word has no meaning.

Example:
What is art - anything.
Therefore anyone that makes anything is an artist.
NO, you also have to call yourself an Artist.
So anyone that calls themself an Artist and makes anything is an artist.
YES, BUT - you don't have to make anything you can just call yourself an Artist.
AND - anything can be art even if it's not made by an Artist.

So, I'm an Artist - okay. And that lawnchair is art.- okay

If there are no categories, no definitions, then there is nothing to revolt against. It could be argued that part of the deplorable state the "artworld" is in now is that it its full of revolutionaries with nothing to revolt against.

Your impressionist is a good example the Paris Salon didn't stop the impressionist from making their paintings, they just said
not in our Gallery. So the impressionist formed their own group and thrived.

I'm a plein-air painter and a street photographer -- not an Artist,because I have no idea what that word means.