ups.. sorry 🙏

Now I am curious to see when other concepts that have nothing to do with AI will be swallowed up by the same phenomenon: "generative grammar" will become an AI corrector, "generative cell" will be a synthetic neuron to build AI, "generative process" when an AI is finally convicted in court...😅

However, I fear that the defense of the meaning of "Generative Art" is now a lost battle, linguistic superficiality and ignorance have now taken over. I fear we will have to acknowledge defeat and fall back on alternative terminology, for example "algorithmic art", or something like that.

Sometimes, however, I also suspect that this confusion is created on purpose, as a surreptitious attempt to attach the creation of AI images to an artistic tradition worthy of respect.

Probably this hijacking is mostly due to simple ignorance of the subject, and to a mental laziness for which the mere presence of the adjective "generative" is automatically associated with the very popular collocation "generative AI", just for phonetic assonance but without any semantic affinity.

For those who work with generative art - the real one, which has existed since well before any machine-learning technology - it is quite depressing to observe the lexical hijacking that is underway, where the concept of "generative art" is used in place of "Art created with AI tools".

Do you agree? Why did you ask? ❤️

☝️😅

It is a parking lot transformed into an exhibition space, in Tokyo 🤩

Thank you Miska! 🙏

This theme seems to me to be of great interest and importance. Are there perhaps any traces left of the discussions that led you to this artistic position of yours?

you got me! :-D