i am hugely suspicious of anyone suggesting that “AI art” is art in the first place, and that it can replace real art made by actual people. just shows a fundemantal lack of understanding of arts and values.
imagine that someone bought the Mona Lisa from a seller for a bajillion dollars. they carefully study it, and agree to the seller’s claim that it is the original by LDV. then it goes through a third party examination and they tell the buyer that it’s a replica. do you think the buyer would just say “oh well” or will they sue the seller?
mind that they looked at it, studied it, and concluded that this money is what it’s worth. but there’s no way they would think it’s worth the same after the revelation, even though it’s still the same painting that they bought.
no matter what these numbskulls think, we care about where art comes from. we care about intent, source and the conditions in which a piece of art is made as much as the contents of it. anyone who thinks a bunch of RNGs taped together can come up with “art” doesn’t pass the human test for me.
Yeah I strongly disagree. AI is just an instrument that humans use to make art. That you don’t like the instrument or the results doesn’t make a difference. You’re just being conservative about what art should be. It wouldn’t surprise me if people said similar things about digital art when it first appeared. It’s very legitimate to prefer tangible art or non-AI-art or whatever. But that doesn’t the deny the other stuff being art as well. Saying those who disagree with you aren’t humans doesn’t make your point any more convincing, just more bizarre or elitist.
you’re talking about something else entirely. AI art isn’t art. well it isn’t intelligent either but that’s what you get with marketing, 2 of the 3 words are a lie, big surprise. but what you’re talking about is generative technology possibly helping speed up some processes (like removing an object, or recoloring or whatever). those are tools.
telling some RNG to “paint a ship in a storm” and thinking whatever comes out the other end is art is, yes, inhuman. that isn’t art the same way the dirt and rust that builds up on a surface isn’t art. it’s random gunk. it has no artistic merit.
You realize ready-mades like Marcel Duchamp’s fountain are considered art as well? Random gunk to you, art to others. What makes you the authority on what is and isn’t art?
the fountain is not random gunk, wth are you talking about? it’s not “ready-made” lol; it’s not like we consider all urinals art, and Duchamp just took one of them and said here you go. no, his act of taking it and turning it into a piece of art is what makes it art. again, context, origin and intent. it couldn’t be further from what “AI art” is.
AI art is not lacking in any of those, context, origin and intent are all related to art. AI art generators were created by humans with the intent to create art and are displayed in the context of art or at the very least are used with such intent. Everything about it is art. Even the randomness is far from uncommon in art, for example musique concrète has randomness built in to many of it’s pieces, those are basically RNG-mechanisms that create the music.
Never implied anything about social media. Of course the creation of art is important. I myself like painting not for the result but for the hypnotic flow I experience while doing so. Nothing is stopping her from doing so. Just because people will use AI to make art does not mean people can’t make art anymore. It’s just that their is some artificial competition and there is nothing wrong with that.
Wow found the bitter one here guys!
The creation of art is as important as the art itself for many (most?) artists. If not more.
Everything isn’t about posting stuff on social media lol.
i am hugely suspicious of anyone suggesting that “AI art” is art in the first place, and that it can replace real art made by actual people. just shows a fundemantal lack of understanding of arts and values.
imagine that someone bought the Mona Lisa from a seller for a bajillion dollars. they carefully study it, and agree to the seller’s claim that it is the original by LDV. then it goes through a third party examination and they tell the buyer that it’s a replica. do you think the buyer would just say “oh well” or will they sue the seller?
mind that they looked at it, studied it, and concluded that this money is what it’s worth. but there’s no way they would think it’s worth the same after the revelation, even though it’s still the same painting that they bought.
no matter what these numbskulls think, we care about where art comes from. we care about intent, source and the conditions in which a piece of art is made as much as the contents of it. anyone who thinks a bunch of RNGs taped together can come up with “art” doesn’t pass the human test for me.
Yeah I strongly disagree. AI is just an instrument that humans use to make art. That you don’t like the instrument or the results doesn’t make a difference. You’re just being conservative about what art should be. It wouldn’t surprise me if people said similar things about digital art when it first appeared. It’s very legitimate to prefer tangible art or non-AI-art or whatever. But that doesn’t the deny the other stuff being art as well. Saying those who disagree with you aren’t humans doesn’t make your point any more convincing, just more bizarre or elitist.
you’re talking about something else entirely. AI art isn’t art. well it isn’t intelligent either but that’s what you get with marketing, 2 of the 3 words are a lie, big surprise. but what you’re talking about is generative technology possibly helping speed up some processes (like removing an object, or recoloring or whatever). those are tools.
telling some RNG to “paint a ship in a storm” and thinking whatever comes out the other end is art is, yes, inhuman. that isn’t art the same way the dirt and rust that builds up on a surface isn’t art. it’s random gunk. it has no artistic merit.
You realize ready-mades like Marcel Duchamp’s fountain are considered art as well? Random gunk to you, art to others. What makes you the authority on what is and isn’t art?
the fountain is not random gunk, wth are you talking about? it’s not “ready-made” lol; it’s not like we consider all urinals art, and Duchamp just took one of them and said here you go. no, his act of taking it and turning it into a piece of art is what makes it art. again, context, origin and intent. it couldn’t be further from what “AI art” is.
AI art is not lacking in any of those, context, origin and intent are all related to art. AI art generators were created by humans with the intent to create art and are displayed in the context of art or at the very least are used with such intent. Everything about it is art. Even the randomness is far from uncommon in art, for example musique concrète has randomness built in to many of it’s pieces, those are basically RNG-mechanisms that create the music.
Never implied anything about social media. Of course the creation of art is important. I myself like painting not for the result but for the hypnotic flow I experience while doing so. Nothing is stopping her from doing so. Just because people will use AI to make art does not mean people can’t make art anymore. It’s just that their is some artificial competition and there is nothing wrong with that.
Fair enough, but 1) it’s a meme joke 2) you reacted like artists should do her dishes.
Paint on fellow painter!