People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
People liked AI art – when they thought it was made by humans
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
But people were bad at assessing whether images were made by artificial intelligence or an artist.
You're viewing part of a thread.
You've gotten art and beauty mixed up.
The natural world can be beautiful, but it isn't a work of art. Likewise, computer generated imagery can be pretty but it doesn't express any person's thoughts or feelings and therefore cannot be art.
You've gotten the artist and art tool and art mixed up. The artist is the one that makes the art, the art tool is what they use to make it, and the art is the final product.
it doesn't express any person's thoughts or feelings
You don't get to make that judgement. If I have an image in my head and I describe it in a prompt, I can look at the output and say if it represents what I'm thinking or feeling at the time. Same as if I picked up a paintbrush; I can reject the output of it doesn't match what's in my head and artists frequently do declare their work is "no good" even when it looks fine to others.
No one using AI image generation tools is making art. At best they are commissioning images or "art" from a computer program, to think otherwise is honestly silly and ridiculous. They are doing the exact same thing that's been done for centuries. They are describing the type of imagery they would like created and then someone else is doing the work. For AI tools the "someone doing the work" is the programers of the AI tool which is spitting out the image. Trust me I've used these tools you could monkey slap the keyboard and still get a usable image, I've tried it. AI image generation is just a faster form of emailing, calling, or writing to an artist and asking for them to paint their town chaple, or their portrait, or whatever else they desire if they have the money to pay the artist or in this instance AI tool.
The challenge is deciding if image generation tools are creating art or not and the answer is no they aren't. Art generation takes human hands because, as you've said, art is many things but one you mentioned was it's to be thought provoking. To create something thought provoking there must be themes, purpose, etc. and right now AI is not capable of injecting themes or purpose into it's work. Maybe in the future AI can do that but until then it's just image generation and it's totally fine to like it but it's not art. There are even plenty of people who are artists who aren't in museums, wanna know why? It's because they are just generating images they aren't creating art. Their work is not thought provoking, it doesn't have a theme, or purpose etc.
It's insanely obvious with these discussions who actually has and has not either studied art themselves or even just been to an art museum where they actually absorbed any information. Invoking emotion is like the bare minimum, barely even scratching the surface, of what constitutes art. And if you haven't studied art or spoken with someone who has that's totally okay! No shame in that, lots of people haven't but maybe nows a great time to jump into art it's really enjoyable and there's lots of incredible museums to visit that will have lots of information to provide visitors with context to the works so you have a better understanding of why whats in the museum is art.
Im not trying to argue with you here, I'm just giving you information so you are better informed and don't sound like a douche nozzle in public anymore.
I’m just giving you information so you are better informed and don’t sound like a douche nozzle in public anymore.
You think I'm the one that sounds like a douche nozzle, spewing this pompous self-righteous up-your-own-arse armchair bullshit?
Let me ask you this: if art has to be injected with meaning by its creator then why do people like you so often find meaning in art contrary to the intended message as stated by the artist? Could it be that people can find their own meaning in art, without any intention by the artist? How do you explain "found art"? Now, I admit I think "found art" is a load of bollocks but then I think Pollock is a hack too, neither of which changes the fact that there are large numbers of people who do consider both "found art" and Pollock's work to be actual real art. Additionally, neither of those opinions of mine invalidate those of anyone else, nor am I so narcissistic as to think they do.
You're one of those people who tells a researcher they're wrong and they really should read their own fucking work on the subject, and now you're getting blocked because fuck you, you suck.
Well I have a fine arts degree with minors in Art History and Art Theory so idk how much more qualified you'd like someone to be to weigh in on this. But I see you're clearly very emotionally invested in this so you have a good day, try to see some sun today ✌🏽
If a robot throwing a football isn’t an athlete, then a sentence punched into a computer isn’t art.
a sentence punched into a computer isn’t art
I'll be sure to inform all the writers I know. Also that art is very much like athletics, I'm sure that'll get a chuckle too.
ROFL! Everyone is so quick to make knee-jerk bad faith rebuttals to such a simple argument:
The writers are creating the art. Not a computer. If you ouch in a sentence and tell AI to write a novel based on said sentence, you’re NOT a writer.
So if the writers you know are not relying on a computer for subject matter/and actual work done- they’ve nothing to worry about. They’re writers.
Maybe consult with an AI and see if it can create a better argument for you.
ROFL! Everyone is so quick to make knee-jerk bad faith rebuttals
Ha! That's fair, I really wasn't taking you seriously because the robot arm analogy was a terrible fit. Maybe AI can help you come up with a better analogy :P
You're right though that simply punching a sentence into a computer isn't art. In the same way that a writer curates the words they use and refines their writing over time, a txt2img chat prompt is also refined over time by the prompter, and real-world skill and experience with photography or painting or whatever other media allows the prompter to create an extremely refined prompt very quickly.
Case in point: https://www.newsweek.com/ai-photography-contest-sony-art-1796455
Does this photographer, crafting a prompt based on his decades of photography experience, not do exactly what you are saying isn't art? And in so doing created an image that won an art competition against real photographs taken of and by real humans?
Frankly, I'm sick of the gatekeeping. Anyone claiming they know what makes art clearly doesn't, it's always accompanied by some forced and narrow interpretation of what art is and what is art. Give a shitty prompt, get a shitty image. Describe the technical details of what you want and that's what you'll get. Technical details, like focal length and ISO strength and so on, == subject matter knowledge, meaning the person has the skill already, so it's not really any different than going out and getting the shot themselves, except they don't have to freeze in the early morning cold or whatever else might be required.
AI does not make art. Period. End of argument. This is my opinion, and I’m keeping it.
No more than a paintbrush does, right. Honestly, this is kind of a surprising response from someone who complained about bad-faith arguments. I guess that's what I get for taking you seriously in even small measure 🤡
Humans use tools to make art.
AI uses art to make humans tools.
Okay. Good talk. Bye now.