Im a philosophical Idealist so 100% the viewer. That viewer can be the artist themselves but the point stands - only observer can view art.
The process of creating art can be an art in itself and so does the meta societal situation of art culture but all of that still only matter in the pov of the viewer. So, the creation, creator or any context itself is not important for definiting art unless that’s the meta subject.
Thats why AI generated art is fundamentally art because if the viewer doesn’t know the context the effect of art upon their conciousness is exactly the same.
As you say, as everything is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the most successful artists are those who understand what their target audience want, and know where it overlaps with what they want to create, maximising passion and enjoyment on both sides.
As for AI art, you’re absolutely right, and it’s acceptance is also wholly to the observer. Cheap low effort stuff is going to be called slop, but where it’s part of a broader process that enhances the prompter’s work it will be considered successful.
Of course if something is culturally taboo (and AI art is risking this) art on the topic will be buried under down votes.
I don’t remember who said it (so I’m likely butchering the phrase), but I’ve heard that any creative work exists in three forms: The mind of the author, the physical copy, and the mind of the audience.
For example, a book/story exists as the author intends, as the author writes, and as the reader interprets.
No one of the three is more “correct” than the other.
As most modern art as basically Rorschach cards on canvas, the interpretation (Illusion? Hallucination?) Is usually left to the viewer.
The audience, obviously. That’s the majority of people who are going to experience it. Why would I watch anything if I can’t have my own opinions on it?
Art is built on metaphor, which is an underlying connection between multiple meanings.
In semantic space, meanings are points while metaphors are vectors.
If the creator intended a meaning for the piece, the creator.
If the creator made something just for the fun of it and came up with a meaning afterwards, still the creator.
The audience can’t change that but what they can do is to not give a fuck about what the creator thinks so they are free give whatever meaning they want. Specially when the authors are no longer around to complain or explain what were their intentions.
The creator (ideally) knows what they wanted to say, their effectiveness in expressing it is skill-dependent. Those engaged with their content should be able to understand what the creator tried to say, which is also skill-dependent (if you’re clever enough you can even understand what the creator wanted to say even if they don’t communicate it properly/at all!). You can also ‘take it’ this or that way, even while knowing that the creator didn’t mean it that way.
Only this guy decides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpmI7w57MKw
Neither, I personally determine the meaning of art. Please feel welcome to ask about any pieces you are unsure of
Both imo. The creator can mean something but you can have something mean whatever you want to yourself.
Before and while its being made its the artist, the second someone else experiences that art its not really the artists anymore
Everybody is welcome to their own meaning, but I think the creators intent should be the only “official” meaning. Just to keep it consistent for historical sake.
Yes
