What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 6 of 11)
|
Originally Posted By Vexed: I think we are saying the same thing, though I would disagree, food can be art, it's just art that becomes poop. Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. I think we are saying the same thing, though I would disagree, food can be art, it's just art that becomes poop. Food is not art. It’s just food. Could you use food-making as a means to make “art”? Absolutely. But it wouldn’t be judged by how it tastes. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. It’s just food. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. I think we are saying the same thing, though I would disagree, food can be art, it's just art that becomes poop. Food is not art. It’s just food. I just took his food analogy as a metaphor. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: I just took his food analogy as a metaphor. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. I think we are saying the same thing, though I would disagree, food can be art, it's just art that becomes poop. Food is not art. It’s just food. I just took his food analogy as a metaphor. When trying to discern whether AI “art” is actually art, metaphors muddy the water. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
I asked grok to write a melodramatic plea against the use of AI tools. Oh, the very soul of humanity trembles at the brink of annihilation! To construct art with soulless AI tools is to drive a cold, mechanical dagger straight into the throbbing heart of creation itself where once the trembling hand of a suffering genius poured blood, tears, and divine fire onto canvas or page, now a hollow algorithm, void of anguish, ecstasy, or the sacred scars of lived experience, spews forth empty simulacra that mock the sacred act of making! Never, never must we surrender the holy forge of imagination to these digital demons that know neither heartbreak nor rapture, for in that dreadful moment the last pure ember of human spirit would be extinguished forever, leaving only a barren wasteland of perfect, passionless pixels where true beauty once wept and soared! |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Take that further… If a photograph is superior at capturing an image -why bother with painting? Photography and Painting are the same thing? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Originally Posted By cash50: Bc we want to see and feel the human spirit and not some mathematical guess at what humans should want  Whether it's a dude holding a brush, or a dude holding a mouse, either way, it's a human directing the tool.History repeats itself. Whether it’s fear of the invention of the automobile, mirrors , firearms. photography or a higher level understanding of the universe around them. Ignorant people will always be scared of what they don’t understand, and thus, feel like they have no control over it. No control = Fear. It’s most acutely seen in ghetto communities how they act to mitigate this, and it’s not self education. I’ve actually known a guy that believed gravity was a term scientists came up with so people would continue to give them money to study it when I mentioned trajectory formulas and how simple they were. Granted, the extent of his education was 7th or 8th grade and short bus classes at that. Not a mental defect, just didn’t have anyone at home to explain why understanding the world around him was important. It’s a movie comedy to see a caveman brought to, and introduced to modern technology. Even the least mentally capable among us understand a cell phone, tv, car, radio, so it’s funny to see the caveman go “Ooh ooh ahh ahh” and retreat in fear upon seeing these things for the first time. AI is the most recent paradigm shift, things just aren’t the way they always have been = Fear “Ooh ooh ahh ahh”. And thats why some fear AI, they see it more as unknown sorcery, versus a tool https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9873_jpeg-3827587.JPG Take that further… If a photograph is superior at capturing an image -why bother with painting? Photography and Painting are the same thing? You, or anyone else, would have to tell me your view on an artist, or anyone wanting to express their thoughts on canvas, what tools are acceptable. I’ve watched tools of the trade using oil to convey realistic images. I’ve used a camera with film and digital to show what I wanted to be seen. Lord there are so many tricks (yes, understanding depth of field, ISO are trick, or maybe it should be described as knowledge), long before usable digital photo editing was available. Then photoshop was a thing. AI adds the artist the ability to add words to the medium. I guess people have always been a subject to their tiny sliver of how things should be. Nothing before, nothing after, just what they knew yesterday. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: It all depends on how far the general viewing public allows its standards to slide. That really is the metric of most things if we're talking about money. Some of the best artists throughout time DGAF about money when it came to art though. |
|
Originally Posted By Vexed: That really is the metric of most things if we're talking about money. Some of the best artists throughout time DGAF about money when it came to art though. Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By macman37: It all depends on how far the general viewing public allows its standards to slide. That really is the metric of most things if we're talking about money. Some of the best artists throughout time DGAF about money when it came to art though. Up until the late 19th Century, art relied heavily upon the Wealthy Class (aristocracy, the Church, the powerful) for it to exist. What IS and is NOT art was decided by them. Later, it was decided by the Intellectual Elite. Now? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. It’s just food. Could you use food-making as a means to make “art”? Absolutely. But it wouldn’t be judged by how it tastes. Is art only quantified by it's visual characteristics? Music is art and to me A.I. music vs real music has the same argument. The food metaphor was only to put emphasis on the cheapness of the medium in A.I. vs analog. One takes years of skill to master, the other is a glorified speak and spell. |
|
Originally Posted By Vexed: Is art only quantified by its visual characteristics? Music is art and to me A.I. music vs real music has the same argument. The food metaphor was only to put emphasis on the cheapness of the medium in A.I. vs analog. One takes years of skill to master, the other is a glorified speak and spell. Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. It’s just food. Could you use food-making as a means to make “art”? Absolutely. But it wouldn’t be judged by how it tastes. Is art only quantified by its visual characteristics? Music is art and to me A.I. music vs real music has the same argument. The food metaphor was only to put emphasis on the cheapness of the medium in A.I. vs analog. One takes years of skill to master, the other is a glorified speak and spell. Concept is always a factor. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Up until the late 19th Century, art relied heavily upon the Wealthy Class (aristocracy, the Church, the powerful) for it to exist. What IS and is NOT art was decided by them. Later, it was decided by the Intellectual Elite. Now? What value are we trying to define with art? Monetary? Something intangible but equally/ more important? I would say now it is possible for a "nobody" to have their art appreciated more so than the tightly constrained framework of the past. If we are talking solely for profit, not much has changed. |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: There’s a crucial disconnect here. With a paint brush or a camera, you’re still capturing the moment yourself. You’re the artist. If I tell you - describe to you - a painting or photograph I want you to capture, and then you go create or capture it… am I the artist? Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Originally Posted By cash50: Bc we want to see and feel the human spirit and not some mathematical guess at what humans should want Whether it's a dude holding a brush, or a dude holding a mouse, either way, it's a human directing the tool.History repeats itself. Whether it’s fear of the invention of the automobile, mirrors , firearms. photography or a higher level understanding of the universe around them. Ignorant people will always be scared of what they don’t understand, and thus, feel like they have no control over it. No control = Fear. It’s most acutely seen in ghetto communities how they act to mitigate this, and it’s not self education. I’ve actually known a guy that believed gravity was a term scientists came up with so people would continue to give them money to study it when I mentioned trajectory formulas and how simple they were. Granted, the extent of his education was 7th or 8th grade and short bus classes at that. Not a mental defect, just didn’t have anyone at home to explain why understanding the world around him was important. It’s a movie comedy to see a caveman brought to, and introduced to modern technology. Even the least mentally capable among us understand a cell phone, tv, car, radio, so it’s funny to see the caveman go “Ooh ooh ahh ahh” and retreat in fear upon seeing these things for the first time. AI is the most recent paradigm shift, things just aren’t the way they always have been = Fear “Ooh ooh ahh ahh”. And thats why some fear AI, they see it more as unknown sorcery, versus a tool https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9873_jpeg-3827587.JPG There’s a crucial disconnect here. With a paint brush or a camera, you’re still capturing the moment yourself. You’re the artist. If I tell you - describe to you - a painting or photograph I want you to capture, and then you go create or capture it… am I the artist? Can you convey verbally or i writhing right no the same image as you have in your mind, the same way as your mind sees it? Now in that scenario, you are describing a thing in your mind with words. How would you describe it, what words or hand gestures would you use? Are you capable of blending the oil paint to get just the right color, have you described the composition just right, do you want everything other than the subject blown out, what depth of field are you looking for, motion blur. How do you get the perfect morning dew on a spiderweb just right? Describe what you have in your mind If you say whatever object with nothing else, a monkey can do that. If you’re versed in the how to do such things you would’ve done them on your own now, wouldn’t you? I really would love to hear how you describe the image in your mind that you asked the question about. It will give a small insight to you and everybody else what it means to understand art vs generate randomness |
|
Originally Posted By Vexed: This. The missing ingredient generally, is talent. A.I. requires none. Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By dp1one: Art is created. AI is generated. There is a difference. This. The missing ingredient generally, is talent. A.I. requires none. Show your skills along the the prompts given. |
|
Originally Posted By Redman556: Art is as much about the creativity of it's creator, about the creator's soul and passion, as it is about the art. AI has no creator, no soul, and no passion. There is no artist. Show your work, and I’ll show you that assertion, for you, is correct. Any medium. Show your art. |
|
Originally Posted By Vexed: What value are we trying to define with art? Monetary? Something intangible but equally/ more important? I would say now it is possible for a "nobody" to have their art appreciated more so than the tightly constrained framework of the past. If we are talking solely for profit, not much has changed. Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Up until the late 19th Century, art relied heavily upon the Wealthy Class (aristocracy, the Church, the powerful) for it to exist. What IS and is NOT art was decided by them. Later, it was decided by the Intellectual Elite. Now? What value are we trying to define with art? Monetary? Something intangible but equally/ more important? I would say now it is possible for a "nobody" to have their art appreciated more so than the tightly constrained framework of the past. If we are talking solely for profit, not much has changed. Art was on a trajectory. It was moving forward and the boundary was directional. The Avant Garde were those who were the tip of the spear in terms of pushing and leading the way. That was a good thing. We had a a shared culture that unified us in terms of Art and Western Civilization. Boundaries are now in all directions, and they tend to be corrupt. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
The art can be pretty neat. Looks like some of the sci-fi or fantasy paperback book cover art from the late 70s and 80s I think the trepidation is more about AI deciding it not longer needs carbon units walking around and potentially going insane thinking they will unplug the AI and then murder us all with terminator units it is secretly building in factories across the globe. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. Food is food. A chef is not an artist. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “Talent” does not matter. More to the point… talent at doing what? Rendering an image? Talent doesn't matter? I guess 5 star michelin restaurants should just start using a microwave for their main courses. Talent at art. Art is many things but the difference between talent ( and accompanying skill ) and someone giving a computer prompts is the artist can do both but someone with no talent can only lean on a program to do the heavy lifting. Food is not art. Food is food. A chef is not an artist. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. Show a unique beauty picture you’ve created that you think is representative of you. Then show the prompts to get it there. |
|
Nice try but she has brown eyes. Should be green or blue. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: When trying to discern whether AI “art” is actually art, metaphors muddy the water. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Food is not art. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. I think we are saying the same thing, though I would disagree, food can be art, it's just art that becomes poop. Food is not art. It’s just food. I just took his food analogy as a metaphor. When trying to discern whether AI “art” is actually art, metaphors muddy the water. As if it wasn’t muddy enough  |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Show a unique beauty picture you’ve created that you think is representative of you. Then show the prompts to get it there. Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “Talent” does not matter. More to the point… talent at doing what? Rendering an image? Talent doesn't matter? I guess 5 star michelin restaurants should just start using a microwave for their main courses. Talent at art. Art is many things but the difference between talent ( and accompanying skill ) and someone giving a computer prompts is the artist can do both but someone with no talent can only lean on a program to do the heavy lifting. Food is not art. Food is food. A chef is not an artist. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. Show a unique beauty picture you’ve created that you think is representative of you. Then show the prompts to get it there. No. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Can you convey verbally or i writhing right no the same image as you have in your mind, the same way as your mind sees it? Now in that scenario, you are describing a thing in your mind with words. How would you describe it, what words or hand gestures would you use? Are you capable of blending the oil paint to get just the right color, have you described the composition just right, do you want everything other than the subject blown out, what depth of field are you looking for, motion blur. How do you get the perfect morning dew on a spiderweb just right? Describe what you have in your mind If you say whatever object with nothing else, a monkey can do that. If you’re versed in the how to do such things you would’ve done them on your own now, wouldn’t you? I really would love to hear how you describe the image in your mind that you asked the question about. It will give a small insight to you and everybody else what it means to understand art vs generate randomness Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Originally Posted By cash50: Bc we want to see and feel the human spirit and not some mathematical guess at what humans should want Whether it's a dude holding a brush, or a dude holding a mouse, either way, it's a human directing the tool.History repeats itself. Whether it’s fear of the invention of the automobile, mirrors , firearms. photography or a higher level understanding of the universe around them. Ignorant people will always be scared of what they don’t understand, and thus, feel like they have no control over it. No control = Fear. It’s most acutely seen in ghetto communities how they act to mitigate this, and it’s not self education. I’ve actually known a guy that believed gravity was a term scientists came up with so people would continue to give them money to study it when I mentioned trajectory formulas and how simple they were. Granted, the extent of his education was 7th or 8th grade and short bus classes at that. Not a mental defect, just didn’t have anyone at home to explain why understanding the world around him was important. It’s a movie comedy to see a caveman brought to, and introduced to modern technology. Even the least mentally capable among us understand a cell phone, tv, car, radio, so it’s funny to see the caveman go “Ooh ooh ahh ahh” and retreat in fear upon seeing these things for the first time. AI is the most recent paradigm shift, things just aren’t the way they always have been = Fear “Ooh ooh ahh ahh”. And thats why some fear AI, they see it more as unknown sorcery, versus a tool https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9873_jpeg-3827587.JPG There’s a crucial disconnect here. With a paint brush or a camera, you’re still capturing the moment yourself. You’re the artist. If I tell you - describe to you - a painting or photograph I want you to capture, and then you go create or capture it… am I the artist? Can you convey verbally or i writhing right no the same image as you have in your mind, the same way as your mind sees it? Now in that scenario, you are describing a thing in your mind with words. How would you describe it, what words or hand gestures would you use? Are you capable of blending the oil paint to get just the right color, have you described the composition just right, do you want everything other than the subject blown out, what depth of field are you looking for, motion blur. How do you get the perfect morning dew on a spiderweb just right? Describe what you have in your mind If you say whatever object with nothing else, a monkey can do that. If you’re versed in the how to do such things you would’ve done them on your own now, wouldn’t you? I really would love to hear how you describe the image in your mind that you asked the question about. It will give a small insight to you and everybody else what it means to understand art vs generate randomness Physician, heal thyself. I get that you’re trying to generate a discussion here and I love good cerebral talks, but you’ll need to clarify your stances and fix this post before I can engage. The bottom line is though, if you’re trying to defend the stance that someone can create art - and call themselves artists - by directing others to create the art, you’re going to have your hands full. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Art was on a trajectory. It was moving forward and the boundary was directional. The Avant Garde were those who were the tip of the spear in terms of pushing and leading the way. That was a good thing. We had a a shared culture that unified us in terms of Art and Western Civilization. Boundaries are now in all directions, and they tend to be corrupt. I agree in respect to the past. I would say the arbiters of what art is now has more to do with marketability vs any aspects that art was defined by originally and we are worse off for it. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here’s a poured paint interpretion of Dante’s Inferno, Canto 3 that I made in my garage. It’s 6x8 feet: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/IMG_0456-3775908.jpg Fuck you, AI! lol Awesome. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “Talent” does not matter. More to the point… talent at doing what? Rendering an image? Talent doesn't matter? I guess 5 star michelin restaurants should just start using a microwave for their main courses. Talent at art. Art is many things but the difference between talent ( and accompanying skill ) and someone giving a computer prompts is the artist can do both but someone with no talent can only lean on a program to do the heavy lifting. Food is not art. Food is food. A chef is not an artist. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. Show a unique beauty picture you’ve created that you think is representative of you. Then show the prompts to get it there. No. Fair 🤣 I used to make me wonder why people wouldn’t share their prompts to generate the images they created. After I stated poking around in it, it does take a little bit of self expression to create individual things, some less so Old 2000ish me Attached File Where I want to be in about a year. Not the best AI version of it Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Fair 🤣 I used to make me wonder why people wouldn’t share their prompts to generate the images they created. After I stated poking around in it, it does take a little bit of self expression to create individual things, some less so Old 2000ish me https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9686_jpeg-3827625.JPG Where I want to be in about a year. Not the best AI version of it https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/C516F212-42DA-404F-B1AA-C154465587E8_png-3827628.JPG Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Vexed: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “Talent” does not matter. More to the point… talent at doing what? Rendering an image? Talent doesn't matter? I guess 5 star michelin restaurants should just start using a microwave for their main courses. Talent at art. Art is many things but the difference between talent ( and accompanying skill ) and someone giving a computer prompts is the artist can do both but someone with no talent can only lean on a program to do the heavy lifting. Food is not art. Food is food. A chef is not an artist. A chef is a chef. Giving prompts to a computer is not art-making. It’s LITERALLY no different than giving prompts to ChatGPT to create a policy document or an effective plan for exterminating fleas. Show a unique beauty picture you’ve created that you think is representative of you. Then show the prompts to get it there. No. Fair 🤣 I used to make me wonder why people wouldn’t share their prompts to generate the images they created. After I stated poking around in it, it does take a little bit of self expression to create individual things, some less so Old 2000ish me https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9686_jpeg-3827625.JPG Where I want to be in about a year. Not the best AI version of it https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/C516F212-42DA-404F-B1AA-C154465587E8_png-3827628.JPG Here’s the last AI prompt I used as part of an art-making process: Make the pink parts of this picture of my painting look “greasy” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Physician, heal thyself. I get that you’re trying to generate a discussion here and I love good cerebral talks, but you’ll need to clarify your stances and fix this post before I can engage. The bottom line is though, if you’re trying to defend the stance that someone can create art - and call themselves artists - by directing others to create the art, you’re going to have your hands full. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Originally Posted By cash50: Bc we want to see and feel the human spirit and not some mathematical guess at what humans should want Whether it's a dude holding a brush, or a dude holding a mouse, either way, it's a human directing the tool.History repeats itself. Whether it’s fear of the invention of the automobile, mirrors , firearms. photography or a higher level understanding of the universe around them. Ignorant people will always be scared of what they don’t understand, and thus, feel like they have no control over it. No control = Fear. It’s most acutely seen in ghetto communities how they act to mitigate this, and it’s not self education. I’ve actually known a guy that believed gravity was a term scientists came up with so people would continue to give them money to study it when I mentioned trajectory formulas and how simple they were. Granted, the extent of his education was 7th or 8th grade and short bus classes at that. Not a mental defect, just didn’t have anyone at home to explain why understanding the world around him was important. It’s a movie comedy to see a caveman brought to, and introduced to modern technology. Even the least mentally capable among us understand a cell phone, tv, car, radio, so it’s funny to see the caveman go “Ooh ooh ahh ahh” and retreat in fear upon seeing these things for the first time. AI is the most recent paradigm shift, things just aren’t the way they always have been = Fear “Ooh ooh ahh ahh”. And thats why some fear AI, they see it more as unknown sorcery, versus a tool https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9873_jpeg-3827587.JPG There’s a crucial disconnect here. With a paint brush or a camera, you’re still capturing the moment yourself. You’re the artist. If I tell you - describe to you - a painting or photograph I want you to capture, and then you go create or capture it… am I the artist? Can you convey verbally or i writhing right no the same image as you have in your mind, the same way as your mind sees it? Now in that scenario, you are describing a thing in your mind with words. How would you describe it, what words or hand gestures would you use? Are you capable of blending the oil paint to get just the right color, have you described the composition just right, do you want everything other than the subject blown out, what depth of field are you looking for, motion blur. How do you get the perfect morning dew on a spiderweb just right? Describe what you have in your mind If you say whatever object with nothing else, a monkey can do that. If you’re versed in the how to do such things you would’ve done them on your own now, wouldn’t you? I really would love to hear how you describe the image in your mind that you asked the question about. It will give a small insight to you and everybody else what it means to understand art vs generate randomness Physician, heal thyself. I get that you’re trying to generate a discussion here and I love good cerebral talks, but you’ll need to clarify your stances and fix this post before I can engage. The bottom line is though, if you’re trying to defend the stance that someone can create art - and call themselves artists - by directing others to create the art, you’re going to have your hands full. I don’t have the ability to direct anyone here to do anything, nor would I want to. It’s more of a challenge to preconceived notions. Art is a very subjective thing. There was a direct post about a urinal laid down with the “artist” signature, bananas taped to a wall. All original, I don’t find it creative. This thread was started with the question of AI art. What is art to you. Some say the AI medium isn’t. I asked some to show their work in this medium. They either stand by position, anyone can create something that the masses appreciate, or cant in that medium. You either will , or won’t follow through with your assertions. I don’t think many will care what you do, or don’t in an hour from now. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here’s a poured paint interpretion of Dante’s Inferno, Canto 3 that I made in my garage. It’s 6x8 feet: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/IMG_0456-3775908.jpg Fuck you, AI! lol Very nice work! |
|
Originally Posted By Lexington: It's a frickin' masterpiece! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/30012/AI_Mona_Lisa-3827637.jpg Attached File maybe make her look sexy, low cut top, a little bit mod is, like a vampire without much teeth m. Remove the chest tattoo, that’s nasty. Add lots of people on pikes in her background. |
|
Originally Posted By ARCNA442: At this point AI art is more art than a ton of stuff you'll find in an art museum. I'd rather have art from a guy at a computer trying to make something that is pleasing to look at than some "artist" trying to "push boundaries" or make a statement." AI looked at your post and compared it to Clement Greenberg’s definition of kitsch (thanks AI!). A perfect description of “AI Art” from 1939: Clement Greenberg defined kitsch in his 1939 essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" as a mechanical, formulaic, and low-brow "ersatz culture" that simulates genuine art while demanding no critical thought. Characteristics of Kitsch: Mechanical and Formulaic: It operates by fixed recipes and formulas rather than genuine creative expression. Faked Sensations: It provides ready-made, vicarious experiences and instant emotional gratification. Imitation of Effect: While the avant-garde focuses on the genuine process and causes of art, kitsch skips straight to the pre-determined effect, telling the viewer exactly how to feel. Product of Industrialization: It emerged alongside mass literacy and industrial capitalism as cheap, marketable entertainment for the masses. Anti-Avant-Garde: Greenberg saw kitsch as the direct opposite of high, progressive art—acting as a parasitic drain that cheapens true cultural values. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: AI looked at your post and compared it to Clement Greenberg’s definition of kitsch (thanks AI!). A perfect description of “AI Art” from 1939: Clement Greenberg defined kitsch in his 1939 essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" as a mechanical, formulaic, and low-brow "ersatz culture" that simulates genuine art while demanding no critical thought. Characteristics of Kitsch: Mechanical and Formulaic: It operates by fixed recipes and formulas rather than genuine creative expression. Faked Sensations: It provides ready-made, vicarious experiences and instant emotional gratification. Imitation of Effect: While the avant-garde focuses on the genuine process and causes of art, kitsch skips straight to the pre-determined effect, telling the viewer exactly how to feel. Product of Industrialization: It emerged alongside mass literacy and industrial capitalism as cheap, marketable entertainment for the masses. Anti-Avant-Garde: Greenberg saw kitsch as the direct opposite of high, progressive art—acting as a parasitic drain that cheapens true cultural values. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By ARCNA442: At this point AI art is more art than a ton of stuff you'll find in an art museum. I'd rather have art from a guy at a computer trying to make something that is pleasing to look at than some "artist" trying to "push boundaries" or make a statement." AI looked at your post and compared it to Clement Greenberg’s definition of kitsch (thanks AI!). A perfect description of “AI Art” from 1939: Clement Greenberg defined kitsch in his 1939 essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" as a mechanical, formulaic, and low-brow "ersatz culture" that simulates genuine art while demanding no critical thought. Characteristics of Kitsch: Mechanical and Formulaic: It operates by fixed recipes and formulas rather than genuine creative expression. Faked Sensations: It provides ready-made, vicarious experiences and instant emotional gratification. Imitation of Effect: While the avant-garde focuses on the genuine process and causes of art, kitsch skips straight to the pre-determined effect, telling the viewer exactly how to feel. Product of Industrialization: It emerged alongside mass literacy and industrial capitalism as cheap, marketable entertainment for the masses. Anti-Avant-Garde: Greenberg saw kitsch as the direct opposite of high, progressive art—acting as a parasitic drain that cheapens true cultural values. Do you not see math as art? I think you’ve been bested by lack of ability to see beyond what you can understand. Kinda the point I made when jumping into this thread.  TOOL - Lateralus (Official Audio) Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Do you not see math as art? I think you’ve been bested by lack of ability to see beyond what you can understand. Kinda the point I made when jumping into this thread.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JG63IuaWshttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9891_png-3827677.JPG Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By ARCNA442: At this point AI art is more art than a ton of stuff you'll find in an art museum. I'd rather have art from a guy at a computer trying to make something that is pleasing to look at than some "artist" trying to "push boundaries" or make a statement." AI looked at your post and compared it to Clement Greenberg’s definition of kitsch (thanks AI!). A perfect description of “AI Art” from 1939: Clement Greenberg defined kitsch in his 1939 essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" as a mechanical, formulaic, and low-brow "ersatz culture" that simulates genuine art while demanding no critical thought. Characteristics of Kitsch: Mechanical and Formulaic: It operates by fixed recipes and formulas rather than genuine creative expression. Faked Sensations: It provides ready-made, vicarious experiences and instant emotional gratification. Imitation of Effect: While the avant-garde focuses on the genuine process and causes of art, kitsch skips straight to the pre-determined effect, telling the viewer exactly how to feel. Product of Industrialization: It emerged alongside mass literacy and industrial capitalism as cheap, marketable entertainment for the masses. Anti-Avant-Garde: Greenberg saw kitsch as the direct opposite of high, progressive art—acting as a parasitic drain that cheapens true cultural values. Do you not see math as art? I think you’ve been bested by lack of ability to see beyond what you can understand. Kinda the point I made when jumping into this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JG63IuaWshttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9891_png-3827677.JPG You are mistaken. Read more Plato. Art is the creation of man. The beauty in Math is not created, it is discovered. Math is not art. It might be beautiful, but that doesn’t make it art. Truth is Beauty, but neither are in and of themselves, “art.” Fibonacci did not create the sequence, he discovered it. The Mandelbrot Set was discovered, not invented. Just as Pythagoras did not create anything - he discovered the theorems and rules and ways of measuring the universe which existed before man. Harmony and chords existed before there were ears to hear them. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: I don’t have the ability to direct anyone here to do anything, nor would I want to. It’s more of a challenge to preconceived notions. Art is a very subjective thing. There was a direct post about a urinal laid down with the “artist” signature, bananas taped to a wall. All original, I don’t find it creative. This thread was started with the question of AI art. What is art to you. Some say the AI medium isn’t. I asked some to show their work in this medium. They either stand by position, anyone can create something that the masses appreciate, or cant in that medium. You either will , or won’t follow through with your assertions. I don’t think many will care what you do, or don’t in an hour from now. Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Originally Posted By cash50: Bc we want to see and feel the human spirit and not some mathematical guess at what humans should want Whether it's a dude holding a brush, or a dude holding a mouse, either way, it's a human directing the tool.History repeats itself. Whether it’s fear of the invention of the automobile, mirrors , firearms. photography or a higher level understanding of the universe around them. Ignorant people will always be scared of what they don’t understand, and thus, feel like they have no control over it. No control = Fear. It’s most acutely seen in ghetto communities how they act to mitigate this, and it’s not self education. I’ve actually known a guy that believed gravity was a term scientists came up with so people would continue to give them money to study it when I mentioned trajectory formulas and how simple they were. Granted, the extent of his education was 7th or 8th grade and short bus classes at that. Not a mental defect, just didn’t have anyone at home to explain why understanding the world around him was important. It’s a movie comedy to see a caveman brought to, and introduced to modern technology. Even the least mentally capable among us understand a cell phone, tv, car, radio, so it’s funny to see the caveman go “Ooh ooh ahh ahh” and retreat in fear upon seeing these things for the first time. AI is the most recent paradigm shift, things just aren’t the way they always have been = Fear “Ooh ooh ahh ahh”. And thats why some fear AI, they see it more as unknown sorcery, versus a tool https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9873_jpeg-3827587.JPG There’s a crucial disconnect here. With a paint brush or a camera, you’re still capturing the moment yourself. You’re the artist. If I tell you - describe to you - a painting or photograph I want you to capture, and then you go create or capture it… am I the artist? Can you convey verbally or i writhing right no the same image as you have in your mind, the same way as your mind sees it? Now in that scenario, you are describing a thing in your mind with words. How would you describe it, what words or hand gestures would you use? Are you capable of blending the oil paint to get just the right color, have you described the composition just right, do you want everything other than the subject blown out, what depth of field are you looking for, motion blur. How do you get the perfect morning dew on a spiderweb just right? Describe what you have in your mind If you say whatever object with nothing else, a monkey can do that. If you’re versed in the how to do such things you would’ve done them on your own now, wouldn’t you? I really would love to hear how you describe the image in your mind that you asked the question about. It will give a small insight to you and everybody else what it means to understand art vs generate randomness Physician, heal thyself. I get that you’re trying to generate a discussion here and I love good cerebral talks, but you’ll need to clarify your stances and fix this post before I can engage. The bottom line is though, if you’re trying to defend the stance that someone can create art - and call themselves artists - by directing others to create the art, you’re going to have your hands full. I don’t have the ability to direct anyone here to do anything, nor would I want to. It’s more of a challenge to preconceived notions. Art is a very subjective thing. There was a direct post about a urinal laid down with the “artist” signature, bananas taped to a wall. All original, I don’t find it creative. This thread was started with the question of AI art. What is art to you. Some say the AI medium isn’t. I asked some to show their work in this medium. They either stand by position, anyone can create something that the masses appreciate, or cant in that medium. You either will , or won’t follow through with your assertions. I don’t think many will care what you do, or don’t in an hour from now. You’re missing the point. I’ve made it twice now and you continue to wander. Edit: and after seeing more of your posts I’m starting to think you don’t have a point so that makes sense. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By detharin: A computer generated 80% or higher solution is going to be well beyond the threshold of "good enough" for most peoples purposes versus a 100% artist created solution that requires dealing with artists. “Solution” to what? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “Solution” to what? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By detharin: A computer generated 80% or higher solution is going to be well beyond the threshold of "good enough" for most peoples purposes versus a 100% artist created solution that requires dealing with artists. “Solution” to what? His dislike of artists
|
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: His dislike of artists Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By detharin: A computer generated 80% or higher solution is going to be well beyond the threshold of "good enough" for most peoples purposes versus a 100% artist created solution that requires dealing with artists. “Solution” to what? His dislike of artists Oh! The FINAL Solution. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Oh! The FINAL Solution. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By detharin: A computer generated 80% or higher solution is going to be well beyond the threshold of "good enough" for most peoples purposes versus a 100% artist created solution that requires dealing with artists. “Solution” to what? His dislike of artists Oh! The FINAL Solution. “80%? Good enough. At least I don’t have to talk to one of those *dry heaving sounds* artsy types…” |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Hadrian: If you can't tell whether something is produced by AI or a human, what difference does it make? |
|
Originally Posted By Lexington: It's a frickin' masterpiece! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/30012/AI_Mona_Lisa-3827637.jpg |
 Cream Of The Slop There's a line in the above AI song. Where they state the person is the art themselves not the medium. Which is where the line is. If you see the art as the expression of the person. As opposed to the effort of creating the expression. It's easy to hate on AI creations. As they are largely generated without any real human involvement. But is copying an idea of another person via a painting or drawing in and of itself art. In some ways it may be if the expression is how that work effected you. But if it's just the replication of the design for self gain. Is copying a painting with hand more artistic than just putting the thing in a copier. People hate AI art largely because it will have a way of removing the incentives from art. People won't do it to make money. There is a fear in that. When the truth is Art will still have a place just less prevalent as a way to make money. |
|
Originally Posted By Windustsearch: Because real people want real art made by a real human instead of a glorified computer program gonk. AI art has no value to them, real art does. Originally Posted By Windustsearch: Originally Posted By Hadrian: If you can't tell whether something is produced by AI or a human, what difference does it make? |