The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
The arts or creative arts are a vast range of human practices of creative expression, storytelling, and cultural participation. The arts encompass diverse and plural modes of thinking, doing, and being in an extensive range of media.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don’t make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don’t even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art.
What’s difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.
To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that’s being perceived. It’s a way to look at what art it that it’s truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:
Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare’s version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?
Microwaving a premade meal doesn’t make me a chef. Generative AI is able to make fake copies and imitations of art, but it isn’t an artist. The prompters are just that, they’re reheating someone else’s creation and calling themselves chefs.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
In all those cases you are reheating someone’s else creation.
Let’s be precise here.
In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
None of these apply here. All of these are transformative.
You know what’s interesting?
A collage made by a person? Yeah, that’s art.
A collage made by my apple photo album? Nah, that’s stupid. Don’t really want to see it. I think it’d be weird if someone insisted I look at the collage their phone made.
You people never seem to grasp the personality and intimacy that makes art what it is. Yes, even when you flick your brush at a canvas like pollack.
Same as you don’t know what generative art is. You don’t know how AI art is made.
And sorry but I don’t have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.
But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me.
Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.
And please, just please, don’t give yourself vibes of “knowing the grasp of art” when you clearly don’t know much about art. Once again you didn’t know what generative art was, and you didn’t even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was “AI” because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.
The only reason you care about the wikipedia article you linked me is because it is a technical defense of the modern thing people are obviously pissed about.
So you’re right, I don’t really care; it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
I’ve been into generative art since before generative AI was a thing. And for the record I do like generative art much more than I like AI art. I don’t actually even specially like AI art as a form of artistic expression. But the fact that I don’t like an art style or more specifically a way of doing art is just my particular taste.
Generative art have great differences with AI art. As generative algorithms are hand made by the artist, while in AI art the algorithms are made as a generic tool and artists change the initial inputs but don’t really change the algorithm that much, specially on a deeper level. Also AI art is “based” on other art, while generative art is it’s own thing, is not “pre-trained”.
But it’s an interesting point of discussion, as it’s also computer made with great randomisation, and once the algorithm is made an almost infinite works can be made with little effort without an human “opera”.
It’s not really super interesting for me to argue what’s art and what’s not. Literally anything can be art. For me personally good art comes from self. It has meaning, soul, it often takes great efforts and time to make, and good art makes me feel and think and learn, good art is awesome and impressive.
I’ll admit that I’m biased when it comes to AI generated content. Sure it makes me feel (mostly annoyed, but also scared and frustrated) and AI stuff in general IS interesting from a technology viewpoint. I see it’s application as a tool, even though it’s not for me. But AI art doesn’t come from self or soul or whatever. It might be art but it’s shit art. Slop. Often also ugly to look at, full of mistakes and nonesense details. It’s lazy, it’s without imagination and requires no talent whatsoever.
If some piece of art is bad is bad, there’s no denying that.
There’s a particular style I really dislike and probably is why I’m also bias to defend AI, which is what I call twitter commissioner art. Which is a particular style of very badly made digital art, all look the same, very little detail or work in each piece, uninspired, and the spice of the cake is that people making it tend to ask for a lot of money to do commissions of that. And they tend to guilt trip a lot with them being “small artists” and nowadays they are some of the most aggressive pushing against AI (and I can see why, why would anyone pay for such badly drawn something when you can get it for free elsewhere).
BIG note here, I’m not referring to all small artists, most of them are cool, and a lot of them make really nice pieces of amazing art that’s better than anything an AI can produce (but for some reason I don’t see those being worried or being too militant against AI). I’m only referring to those whose work is actually worse than AI output but they refuse to acknowledge that.
But it’s true that I have never seen a 10/10 AI made piece. Some of them are ok though, I specifically enjoy those who make art of very small niches, like dark fantasy on a style that I’ve come to known a tik tok style (I literally know no traditional artists that do those ik that particular style, and I’ve look for). Or folk music about geek topics in my language (for instance I have a playlist of AI made songs about Warhammer 40k that I really enjoy, and no music group do those so that dude making them with AI is my only choice for these).
I’m not against using AI for personal entertainment or education or anything, although paying for AI software does benefit companies I don’t support. As a principle I’m against ripping off artists. To me the recent news of Meta using Libgen to teach their AI is the worst kind of offence. Private lives have been ruined because of piracy and now the richest companies in the world are abusing the works of others.
We agree on that to some part. I don’t disagree with piracy, I’m a free culture person. But I hate that big companies took images for free and then charge money for the result. I’ll never pay for any AI tool or to any AI company in my life, because of that. I think the moral philosophy here would be “taken for free, offered for free”. Thus I only have used tools that are “open sourced” (not 100% but close enough) and that I can self host for free. And I would never charge money for anything done with those tools.
People with cameras choose what they take photos of.
People using AI also choose what they want to create.
And generative artists for instance, a lesser clue of what the final result will be than a AI artist.
Generative art is not art?
Collages are art?
Art gatekeepers are always funny, full of inconsistencies.
The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
So generative art is not art?
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
The public has largely decided that it’s not. That’s why it’s controversial to use. Don’t waste my time.
Typical, talking all that much about art and don’t know shit about art.
Here, for your knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
Well, it’s a shame that chatgpt through sheer corporate momentum has completely erased whatever branch of artistic expression this is.
You should be pissed at Sam Altman for appropriating your culture.
I’m not into identity politics, sorry. Can’t say I’am surprised anti-AI people having an overlap with indentity-politics.
You “can’t say you’re surprised” that anti-AI people are left of the overton window? Amazing.
This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.
That seems a convoluted disticntion.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
No, they do not. That is, in fact, the point of having a decision engine make decisions for you. I would know, I’ve used it.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don’t make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don’t even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
But it does make you an artist.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art. What’s difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
Sorry, those aren’t people. The Grand Canyon might be awe-inspiring, but it’s not art.
This is what it always comes down to. Every single one of you thinks that art is spectacle. It’s very consumerist of you.
That we disagree.
And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.
To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that’s being perceived. It’s a way to look at what art it that it’s truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:
Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare’s version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?
Yes. For the same reason that training a chatbot on your mom’s happy birthday texts will never be good enough.
Microwaving a premade meal doesn’t make me a chef. Generative AI is able to make fake copies and imitations of art, but it isn’t an artist. The prompters are just that, they’re reheating someone else’s creation and calling themselves chefs.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
In all those cases you are reheating someone’s else creation.
Let’s be precise here.
In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.
None of these apply here. All of these are transformative.
You know what’s interesting?
A collage made by a person? Yeah, that’s art.
A collage made by my apple photo album? Nah, that’s stupid. Don’t really want to see it. I think it’d be weird if someone insisted I look at the collage their phone made.
You people never seem to grasp the personality and intimacy that makes art what it is. Yes, even when you flick your brush at a canvas like pollack.
Same as you don’t know what generative art is. You don’t know how AI art is made.
And sorry but I don’t have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.
But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me. Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.
And please, just please, don’t give yourself vibes of “knowing the grasp of art” when you clearly don’t know much about art. Once again you didn’t know what generative art was, and you didn’t even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was “AI” because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.
The only reason you care about the wikipedia article you linked me is because it is a technical defense of the modern thing people are obviously pissed about.
So you’re right, I don’t really care; it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
I’ve been into generative art since before generative AI was a thing. And for the record I do like generative art much more than I like AI art. I don’t actually even specially like AI art as a form of artistic expression. But the fact that I don’t like an art style or more specifically a way of doing art is just my particular taste. Generative art have great differences with AI art. As generative algorithms are hand made by the artist, while in AI art the algorithms are made as a generic tool and artists change the initial inputs but don’t really change the algorithm that much, specially on a deeper level. Also AI art is “based” on other art, while generative art is it’s own thing, is not “pre-trained”.
But it’s an interesting point of discussion, as it’s also computer made with great randomisation, and once the algorithm is made an almost infinite works can be made with little effort without an human “opera”.
So, you agree they’re different.
I feel compelled to ask this, as if I am pulled into it by the sheer gravity of this question: why did you bring it up, then?
It’s not really super interesting for me to argue what’s art and what’s not. Literally anything can be art. For me personally good art comes from self. It has meaning, soul, it often takes great efforts and time to make, and good art makes me feel and think and learn, good art is awesome and impressive.
I’ll admit that I’m biased when it comes to AI generated content. Sure it makes me feel (mostly annoyed, but also scared and frustrated) and AI stuff in general IS interesting from a technology viewpoint. I see it’s application as a tool, even though it’s not for me. But AI art doesn’t come from self or soul or whatever. It might be art but it’s shit art. Slop. Often also ugly to look at, full of mistakes and nonesense details. It’s lazy, it’s without imagination and requires no talent whatsoever.
If some piece of art is bad is bad, there’s no denying that.
There’s a particular style I really dislike and probably is why I’m also bias to defend AI, which is what I call twitter commissioner art. Which is a particular style of very badly made digital art, all look the same, very little detail or work in each piece, uninspired, and the spice of the cake is that people making it tend to ask for a lot of money to do commissions of that. And they tend to guilt trip a lot with them being “small artists” and nowadays they are some of the most aggressive pushing against AI (and I can see why, why would anyone pay for such badly drawn something when you can get it for free elsewhere). BIG note here, I’m not referring to all small artists, most of them are cool, and a lot of them make really nice pieces of amazing art that’s better than anything an AI can produce (but for some reason I don’t see those being worried or being too militant against AI). I’m only referring to those whose work is actually worse than AI output but they refuse to acknowledge that.
But it’s true that I have never seen a 10/10 AI made piece. Some of them are ok though, I specifically enjoy those who make art of very small niches, like dark fantasy on a style that I’ve come to known a tik tok style (I literally know no traditional artists that do those ik that particular style, and I’ve look for). Or folk music about geek topics in my language (for instance I have a playlist of AI made songs about Warhammer 40k that I really enjoy, and no music group do those so that dude making them with AI is my only choice for these).
I’m not against using AI for personal entertainment or education or anything, although paying for AI software does benefit companies I don’t support. As a principle I’m against ripping off artists. To me the recent news of Meta using Libgen to teach their AI is the worst kind of offence. Private lives have been ruined because of piracy and now the richest companies in the world are abusing the works of others.
We agree on that to some part. I don’t disagree with piracy, I’m a free culture person. But I hate that big companies took images for free and then charge money for the result. I’ll never pay for any AI tool or to any AI company in my life, because of that. I think the moral philosophy here would be “taken for free, offered for free”. Thus I only have used tools that are “open sourced” (not 100% but close enough) and that I can self host for free. And I would never charge money for anything done with those tools.