pull down to refresh
Artistic talent is differently apportioned. Some singers seem effortless in their ability, while I sound like a croaking frog and would only be sonorous with great effort (probably never actually something you want to listen to).
The amount of effort put into art is not a great gauge of the artfulness.
A person who is naturally beautiful is not less beautiful than a person who was hideous but put a lot of effort into getting fit.
Yeah, not arguing with you on that. But because I am roughly insensitive to the aesthetics, I need another criterion, such as the amount of effort, to appreciate art. To my wife's or family's despair, who don't understand why I can not appreciate art solely for its intrinsic beauty.
I'm probably exaggerating, but the above captures a big core of truth.
I'm pretty much insensitive to must forms of art. I will look at a painting, a building, a statue... It won't really move me much. At least, from an aesthetic point of view.
Yet, I do appreciate it, because of the artist's effort and passion behind it.
If I go to Picasso's museum, I see the vast body of work he has produced and how his style has evolved over years of relentless drawing and painting.
Same thing can be said when seeing all of Gaudi's works. Tremendously passionate person who worked on his art until his death when hit by a tram. Decades later, his impact is undeniable.
Now, take AI. No effort, no passion. You just removed the two things that made me appreciate art.
So, the answer to your question, is a resounding yes.