/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6483535
>Every style is an abstract yet computable algorithm of brushstrokes, coloring, verisimilitude and content.
The last one is where AI hits a roadblock. Content is an outgrowth of an artist's idiosyncratic style, like handwriting. The art doesn't even have to be 'good,' just reflective of the content.
A good example: Peanuts. On a pure skillcel level Peanuts isn't impressive, but the simplicity reflects the content. As Charles Schulz aged, the line became shakier and the art cruder. But that was fine, the comic was a reflection of the man. Could you imagine if Schulz used AI to do Peanuts?
Another example is my favorite, Robert Crumb. He fearlessly puts it all on paper. His insecurities. His sexual fantasies. His obscure interests. His bizarre philosophical thoughts. His fucked up childhood.
Now Crumb IS technically skilled. But he also has a quirky style—an acquired taste—which is closely identified with him and his content.
Theoretically you could have an AI that does the same. It could have an entire biography, psychology, individual art style. But at that point we’re just playing pretend. What human would care? (besides the odd tech fetishist)
When the dust settles humans will still want art from humans, and it comes down to content. AI is a novelty.