I respectfully disagree. At the end of the day, generative art is the same thing as googling an image to search for the end user, in as your aren't creating anything, but rather, you are asking for something to be produced for you based on typed or entered criteria. You are a patron waiting for the engine to produce something for you.
If you want to say there is an art to prompting, that's fine.
To add a bit more precision to my previous reply: You're interpreting "generative" in the way that AI companies have tried to hog the term, which happened only in the last 2-3 years. It's the hyped definition, not the historically rich definition.
Generative art as a general concept has a long, long history, that we can date back at least to performance events like Musikalisches Würfelspiel in the 1700s.
I respectfully disagree. let's think from a first principle point of view, what is the definition of art in the first place? But whatever the answer is, art is just a way of structuring/representing a mix of multiple arts into one single art, and it's not limited to painting arts. historically people have been taking inspiration from nature, other people, the environment, and more. That's what an AI does as well, but with much more creativity than a human.
I did. It's trying to play off randomness as art, hence the generative part, and trying to subtly relate that to AI through use of abstract artists like Pollock.
It's also not new. If you've taken any modern art history class before, this is article/website is the same content. Every generation of art/artist tries to justify their existence to the last.
