If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that’s cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don’t even dare to try to express yourself.
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?
Using a camera doesn’t make you an artist either. Photography as art takes a lot of effort, just snapping a shot isn’t it. You aren’t very good at this.
Says you. I just don’t agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.
I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in “I’m an artist” are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day
If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that’s cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don’t even dare to try to express yourself.
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.
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?
Using a camera doesn’t make you an artist either. Photography as art takes a lot of effort, just snapping a shot isn’t it. You aren’t very good at this.
Says you. I just don’t agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.
I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in “I’m an artist” are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day
I’m not an artist,
I’m just better than you on a philosophical leveli just respect artists.