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”.
They are different but they share characteristics.
I brought it up because some guy said that art made without direct human input and knowledge of the end result is not art. And while different in many other things both AI art and generative art share that characteristic.
Imagine the next example, some people may want to say that pixel art is not real art because it does not allow for complex detailing. The. i may ask if they think that watercolor is also “not art” because it also doesn’t allow for great detailing .
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.
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?
They are different but they share characteristics.
I brought it up because some guy said that art made without direct human input and knowledge of the end result is not art. And while different in many other things both AI art and generative art share that characteristic.
Imagine the next example, some people may want to say that pixel art is not real art because it does not allow for complex detailing. The. i may ask if they think that watercolor is also “not art” because it also doesn’t allow for great detailing .
Oh, would you look at that, intentionality. Maybe they don’t share that characteristic.
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.