What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 7 of 11)
|
Its multiple pages into the thread, so I'm sure all of these things probably have been covered already, but, I've actually thought about this question a bit (so this post will probably end up as a wall of text). As a non-artist, there are two things about art that make it good: 1) When it looks good (this is very subjective, and is personal taste based). 2) When even my untrained ass can tell it takes physical skill to produce. Having one or the other is okay. Having both is required for something to be amazing IMHO. A lot of human "art" in the last multiple decades doesn't have either of these things (I am reminded when I went to an art museum and saw two bags of fertilizer sitting in plexiglass boxes partially filled with bright colored paint. Symbolized "man's impact on the environment" or some other bullshit on a similar level). It looked retarded, and I literally could fabricate those boxes and pour in some paint myself if I wanted to. Or the whole "banana duct taped to a wall" thing. Sorry, "creativity" isn't enough for me. Said another way, when it comes to art skills: I'm pretty shit. If you tell me your idea and I can make your art, then its not impressive. On the flip side, I am never going to be able to paint like Rembrandt or Picasso (even if I think some of his art looks like absolute shit). Thus, those things ARE impressive regardless if I personally think they look "good" or not. I view AI art the same way. Some of it looks good. Some of it looks okay. Plenty of it looks like shit. It takes no physical skill to produce (and no, prompting your vision and doing some modifications in photoshop, and reprocessing it through AI isn't sufficient skill to impress me...even if the result ends up looking pretty damned good). So with that said, that means AI art can NEVER be "GREAT" in my mind. At best it is just okay (and acceptable for its purpose, whatever that purpose may be). It is not "inspiring". It is just "good enough for what its for". Same with music, I want: 1) Sounds good and or catchy 2) Takes physical skill to produce. AI at best, can only do #1, thus, it can be good, but never great. BTW a lot of human musicians can't pass this test either (at least, IMHO). One great comparison is something I am very familiar with: redneck engineering/fabrication vs. mass produced equipment. I've seen some amazing hand made work in my day. Elegant, well executed solutions to problems using limited tools/materials to fabricate. Some of them are genuinely impressive, and far and above what I could do (even if I had the same idea & tools). A factory produced equivalent product purchased at harbor freight for $259 is not impressive. Part of the reason is that the factory produced item involves organizations of people working in the industry (or various industries), all doing one or two small parts to produce the thing (actually, millions of the identical thing). Having the entirety of industrialized society behind you to produce a thing is less inspiring (on a personal level), than one dude, with an idea, a handful of tools, coming up with something few other people you know could pull off. Diffusion of responsibility/skill/ability makes it less impressive. We take it for granted actually. THAT is why AI art has no "soul" (as people are saying), even if it can be good (and can be better than plenty of human art). One more analogy: Think about a hand forged knife vs. a high end factory produced knife. The hand forged knife is more impressive. The factory produced knife may actually be a better knife. The hand forged knife is a piece of art as much as it is a tool. The factory knife is just a tool (even if it is a really, really nice tool). Human art is art. AI art is a tool that serves the same purpose as human art. Sometimes it might even do that better than the human produced equivalent. That doesn't make them the same. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149983
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
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. 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. Could you use food-making as a means to make “art”? Absolutely. But it wouldn’t be judged by how it tastes. 
|
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Great reference.
|
|
Originally Posted By dneal33: new age cartoons... nothing more More like, new age factories using machines to mass assemble goods that formerly could only be made in limited quantities by artisans. Think, industrial revolution type shit. Is it "as good"? In some cases no. In some cases yes, it is better than equivalent human "slop". If an image it works for a purpose, then it works for a purpose. Not everything has to be hipster artisan level quality. I'd rather hang a beautiful AI generated picture on my wall that fits more with things that I like and find beautiful, than a print of "The Persistence of Memory", even if I can recognize that the image behind "The Persistence of Memory" was originally art, and the AI picture is not. ETA::Sticking with human produced pictures: I have two pictures on my wall in my living room: 1) is a painting of a ship that my grandmother purchased in the 70's at a starving artist's sale, 2) is a paint by number painted by someone in the 50's. I like them both. They both serve their purpose. Is one more valid as living room art than the other? |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? |
|
The last true art according to the no tool can be man made doctrine. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? No one said ANY of that besides you. Good God you make the silliest arguments. You argue as one would if they had zero education in Philosophy or Logic. Your “math is art” argument collapsed under the weight of its own silliness, so you moved on? YOU are the perfect consumer of “AI Art” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: The last true art according to the no tool can be man made doctrine. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9883_jpeg-3827826.JPG You’re literally the only person making that silly argument. You created a weak straw-man, and then slayed it like a champ! lol |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re literally the only person making that shitty argument. You created a weak straw-man, and then slayed it like a champ! lol Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: The last true art according to the no tool can be man made doctrine. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9883_jpeg-3827826.JPG You’re literally the only person making that shitty argument. You created a weak straw-man, and then slayed it like a champ! lol You have repeatedly stated art it isn’t art unless its man made. I have pointed out that AI as a medium is a tool like any other. Your assertion falls apart when your strawman argument gets called out. “So painting should just go away blah blah blah”. Which side of the coin are you arguing? If you are just against AI, say that, but you can’t argue it’s not a man made tool like every other man made tool used to create. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: You have repeatedly stated art it isn’t art unless its man made. I have pointed out that AI as a medium is a tool like any other. Your assertion falls apart when your strawman argument gets called out. “So painting should just go away blah blah blah”. Which side of the coin are you arguing? If you are just against AI, say that, but you can’t argue it’s not a man made tool like every other man made tool used to create. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9896_jpeg-3827853.JPG Yes. You are wrong. Again. AI is not “just a tool” -whether it is visual art, music, poetry, or writing an essay to get into college. Your quote of me proves you don’t really know what we are talking about. The point of painting -in art- is not to generate accurate images of nature. Those cave paintings were not painted to create a record of the local flora and fauna. Do YOU make any art? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Art isn't one thing. Art is a pretty diverse collection of things humans do. Broadly speaking, I believe art is characterized by how many people are required to produce the art. Individual scale art. Small group scale art. Community scale art. Society scale art. Each scale has different considerations which distinguish it from other human endeavors with occur at the same scale. Image creation has historically been, by in large, an individual art form. The more human skill that it takes to create the image, the more impressive an image is. The more it can be mass produced (or in AI's case, automated), the less impressive it becomes. To the point where it is no longer art, just a commodity. 4000 years ago if an artist made an object that looks identical to a P51 can opener, it would be impressive to individuals of the era due to the tools and time needed to make such a small, useless item, given the technology of the era. it likely would be a novel enough that someone would likely wear on a necklace or carry it around as a conversation piece. Today most people would see a P51 can opener on the ground and think it was junk, since our society is capable of producing so many things like that its not even notable. AI does the same thing with images. If AI gets to the point that "most people" can produce (or even just obtain) a beautiful AI generated picture, then beautiful AI generated pictures become just another throw away commodity that people won't even bend down to take the time to pick up off the street. This is in contrast to say, a painting, that most people could not create, regardless of how many paint brushes you give them. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes. You are wrong. Again. AI is not "just a tool" -whether it is visual art, music, poetry, or writing an essay to get into college. Your quote of me proves you don't really know what we are talking about. The point of painting -in art- is not to generate accurate images of nature. Those cave paintings were not painted to create a record of the local flora and fauna. Turning "art" (or at least, a substitute for it) into a cheap, readily available commodity. Respect will still be given to those who can do it 'the old fashioned way', but for common every day use, the "old fashioned way", won't be as needed anymore, at least for low end things. ETA::Said another way, in the future, I will be able to see AI generated images and think they look good, but they will not impress me. Just as I now, and in decade past, could see a hideous painting that looks like absolute shit due to the ascetics involved, and still be impressed because by the quality of the painting ability. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: But AI images can, and do, fulfill the same purposes as art. Turning "art" into a cheap, readily available commodity. Respect will still be given to those who can do it 'the old fashioned way', but for common every day use, the "old fashioned way", won't be as needed anymore, at least for low end things. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes. You are wrong. Again. AI is not "just a tool" -whether it is visual art, music, poetry, or writing an essay to get into college. Your quote of me proves you don't really know what we are talking about. The point of painting -in art- is not to generate accurate images of nature. Those cave paintings were not painted to create a record of the local flora and fauna. Turning "art" into a cheap, readily available commodity. Respect will still be given to those who can do it 'the old fashioned way', but for common every day use, the "old fashioned way", won't be as needed anymore, at least for low end things. You’re confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That’s not art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You're confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That's not art. I am talking about using AI to fulfill the same purposes as art, which it can do. Still not art. But it CAN do the same thing. |
I have AI "art" in my kitchen. I definitely wouldn't pay an actual painter to commission these  Attached File |
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-Benjamin Franklin
-Benjamin Franklin
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: I'm not talking about using AI to generate illistrations. I am talking about using AI to fulfill the same purposes as art, which it can do. Still not art. But it CAN do the same thing. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You're confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That's not art. I am talking about using AI to fulfill the same purposes as art, which it can do. Still not art. But it CAN do the same thing. I disagree. It’s like saying a blow up doll serves the same purpose as a prostitute. 
|
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. |
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 Wolverine1776: I have AI "art" in my kitchen. I definitely wouldn't pay an actual painter to commission these https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326493/727_jpg-3827893.JPG They’re fun! Nothing wrong with them if they make you smile. |
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 Wolverine1776: I have AI "art" in my kitchen. I definitely wouldn't pay an actual painter to commission these https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/326493/727_jpg-3827893.JPG I have AI "art" as a desktop background of my computer. Its good enough for me, as it fulfill 90% of the purpose of what actual art would do for me in the same application. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Bingo. I have AI "art" as a desktop background of my computer. Its good enough for me, as it fulfill 90% of the purpose of what actual art would do for me in the same application. Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be “90% of the purpose of art.” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I disagree. It's like saying a blow up doll serves the same purpose as a prostitute. Does a factory made knife serve the same purpose as a hand made one? Yes. Yes it does. Are some hand made ones terrible? Definitely. Are hand made ones more impressive than factory made one of similar quality? Absolutely. Just due to the skill involved. Are some factory made ones better than many hand made ones? Definitely. Are there plenty of factory made ones that are absolute shit? Of course. This is what we are talking about. The mass production of images that do the vast majority of what "art" does for MOST PEOPLE. Hipster connoisseurs of art are the exception, not the rule. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be "90% of the purpose of art." Hipster connoisseurs not withstanding. ETA::Also, keep in mind, humans using AI to generate images can have all the same "concepts" and "ideas" and "evoke emotions in their viewers" and whatever other nonsense you want to attach as a requirement as what is "the true purpose of art". The ONLY two things a human using AI to generate images lacks compared to your standard individual scale artist is: 1) complete control over the image (they will get something approximately what they want, but probably not exactly), 2) a demonstration of the technical human skills required to generate the image (painting, drawing, whatever)...now it becomes something "anyone" can do. Its basically shifting image creation to "society scale" form of "art". Making it more akin to something like architecture, where the concept is most of the art component, and the actual execution may get changed due to various technical problems outside of the architects control, all he can do it mitigate the effect of them. AI is like that, for pictures, but more random deviance from "the vision" rather than being constrained by physics and technology .
|
|
Originally Posted By macman37: How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. I didn’t make an assertion it is or isn’t art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There’s just a few of you that continue to draw a line. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be “90% of the purpose of art.” Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Bingo. I have AI "art" as a desktop background of my computer. Its good enough for me, as it fulfill 90% of the purpose of what actual art would do for me in the same application. Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be “90% of the purpose of art.” Okay, I better understand. The world has to consult with Cincinnatus, the god of art, before things can be considered art, check. Straw man argument you say? |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: I didn’t make an assertion it is or isn’t art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There’s just a few of you that continue to draw a line. Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. I didn’t make an assertion it is or isn’t art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There’s just a few of you that continue to draw a line. OK. Something approaching a response - I’ll take it. You need to address completely the question I posed before… about whether I’m an artist if I commission an artist to create art, or if there’s no limit to what constitutes an artist. You went very flaccid when I asked that before. |
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: I didn't make an assertion it is or isn't art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There's just a few of you that continue to draw a line. But if AI get sufficiently good at it, such that it takes pretty much no mastery of the tool, and just a simple prompt that anyone can do (or obtain), it still serves the purpose of art, but it is not impressive in the way art used to be. We are surrounded by non-electronic consumer goods that 150 years ago would be damned near PRIZED possessions. In todays world? They are throw away items that fill dumps. If AI can do "art", by doing the vast majority of what art can do in the digital realm, and potentially do it at massive scale. It stops being novel, and just a thing that exists and is taken for granted. ETA::Think about political propaganda. Art has always been a major component of that. Looking at it from a historical and artistic perspective, some of it is genuinely impressive as to how effective it can be. It is interesting to think about the artists behind those posters, their thoughts, their motivations, their design choices. All of these were thoughts another human being was having when they were creating it. Interesting stuff. But, if a random political hack can use AI can make "art" that is effective for use in political propaganda in the moment to achieve their goal, it doesn't really matter what someone 100 years in the future looking back thinks about the artist (or lack there of). If their party gains power, it doesn't really matter if it was a simple prompt, or a painstakingly thought out, manually drawn poster. The purpose was served regardless. |
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: The last true art according to the no tool can be man made doctrine. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9883_jpeg-3827826.JPG This is why I don't really read or post here anymore. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Not really. Does a factory made knife serve the same purpose as a hand made one? Yes. Yes it does. Are some hand made ones terrible? Definitely. Are hand made ones more impressive than factory made one of similar quality? Absolutely. Just due to the skill involved. Are some factory made ones better than many hand made ones? Definitely. Are there plenty of factory made ones that are absolute shit? Of course. This is what we are talking about. The mass production of images that do the vast majority of what "art" does for MOST PEOPLE. Hipster connoisseurs of art are the exception, not the rule. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I disagree. It's like saying a blow up doll serves the same purpose as a prostitute. Does a factory made knife serve the same purpose as a hand made one? Yes. Yes it does. Are some hand made ones terrible? Definitely. Are hand made ones more impressive than factory made one of similar quality? Absolutely. Just due to the skill involved. Are some factory made ones better than many hand made ones? Definitely. Are there plenty of factory made ones that are absolute shit? Of course. This is what we are talking about. The mass production of images that do the vast majority of what "art" does for MOST PEOPLE. Hipster connoisseurs of art are the exception, not the rule. Your premise is based on your definition of art and your definition of the purpose of art. Have you considered for a moment that your definitions are flawed? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Its what most people use it for. Like it or not. Hipster connoisseurs not withstanding. ETA::Also, keep in mind, humans using AI to generate images can have all the same "concepts" and "ideas" and "evoke emotions in their viewers" and whatever other nonsense you want to attach as a requirement as what is "the true purpose of art". The ONLY two things a human using AI to generate images lacks compared to your standard individual scale artist is: 1) complete control over the image (they will get something approximately what they want, but probably not exactly), 2) a demonstration of the technical human skills required to generate the image (painting, drawing, whatever)...now it becomes something "anyone" can do. It’s basically shifting image creation to "society scale" form of "art". Making it more akin to something like architecture, where the concept is most of the art component, and the actual execution may get changed due to various technical problems outside of the architects control, all he can do it mitigate the effect of them. AI is like that, for pictures, but more random deviance from "the vision" rather than being constrained by physics and technology .Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be "90% of the purpose of art." Hipster connoisseurs not withstanding. ETA::Also, keep in mind, humans using AI to generate images can have all the same "concepts" and "ideas" and "evoke emotions in their viewers" and whatever other nonsense you want to attach as a requirement as what is "the true purpose of art". The ONLY two things a human using AI to generate images lacks compared to your standard individual scale artist is: 1) complete control over the image (they will get something approximately what they want, but probably not exactly), 2) a demonstration of the technical human skills required to generate the image (painting, drawing, whatever)...now it becomes something "anyone" can do. It’s basically shifting image creation to "society scale" form of "art". Making it more akin to something like architecture, where the concept is most of the art component, and the actual execution may get changed due to various technical problems outside of the architects control, all he can do it mitigate the effect of them. AI is like that, for pictures, but more random deviance from "the vision" rather than being constrained by physics and technology .99% of the population would not know what to do with an anvil. It would become an end table or a door stop. That does not change the definition or purpose of an anvil. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Okay, I better understand. The world has to consult with Cincinnatus, the god of art, before things can be considered art, check. Straw man argument you say? Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Bingo. I have AI "art" as a desktop background of my computer. Its good enough for me, as it fulfill 90% of the purpose of what actual art would do for me in the same application. Decoration does not = art, just because you consider that to be “90% of the purpose of art.” Okay, I better understand. The world has to consult with Cincinnatus, the god of art, before things can be considered art, check. Straw man argument you say? Actually, YOU say. Again. Are you even aware? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your premise is based on your definition of art and your definition of the purpose of art. Have you considered for a moment that your definitions are flawed? As do you. Have you considered yours is flawed? ETA:What is your definition of "the true purpose of art"? Then we can see if AI, or a person using AI, can do most of it. |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: OK. Something approaching a response - I’ll take it. You need to address completely the question I posed before… about whether I’m an artist if I commission an artist to create art, or if there’s no limit to what constitutes an artist. You went very flaccid when I asked that before. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. I didn’t make an assertion it is or isn’t art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There’s just a few of you that continue to draw a line. OK. Something approaching a response - I’ll take it. You need to address completely the question I posed before… about whether I’m an artist if I commission an artist to create art, or if there’s no limit to what constitutes an artist. You went very flaccid when I asked that before. To be a little more.. erect, if your face with definitions if you will. If you ask me to plaster your face with goo and I agree, you would be the client, I would be the artist, and I would do it how I see fit. If you didn’t like the work you had previously saw me produce, you would have asked a different artist. If you wanted to do it yourself, I guess you would have to ask the god of all art what they thought of your work. If he likes it, I guess you would then be an artist. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 99% of the population would not know what to do with an anvil. It would become an end table or a door stop. That does not change the definition or purpose of an anvil. So people can't do personal art installations in their house with old equipment anymore? Geeze. Seems harsh.
|
|
Art is conceived in the mind of the artist. All the rest of it, from fingers to brushes to tools, words, instruments and computers is simply the mechanical means of putting the conception into a form where the artist can share it with others. Like any other form of human expression, very little of what is created with AI is good quality, praiseworthy or will last long enough to be noticed. And like all things human taste varies considerably. |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: To be a little more.. erect, if your face with definitions if you will. If you ask me to plaster your face with goo and I agree, you would be the client, I would be the artist, and I would do it how I see fit. If you didn’t like the work you had previously saw me produce, you would have asked a different artist. If you wanted to do it yourself, I guess you would have to ask the god of all art what they thought of your work. If he likes it, I guess you would then be an artist. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9907_jpeg-3827938.JPG Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By YourAlterEgo: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. A race isn’t a race unless it’s barefoot men running to see who’s fastest. You’re confusing tools designed by man as being the creator of the things man uses those tools for as being other than man created. Is a modern plane not a plane if it was designed by a man using software designed by a man? Did the software make the plane? Can you right now design the next gen 6 fighter jet, with the use of the software. Can anyone? If no, does that mean planes aren’t real? Is anything real if a man made tool is used to create it? See, your idea of what’s real or not gets silly when forced to try and describe AI as anything other than another man made tool. Or do you view AI as witchcraft? How is this an all-or-nothing thing to you? You’ve created such a strawman it’s not even funny. You’re not even debating with real points, just making things up. Borderline trolling the thread. I didn’t make an assertion it is or isn’t art based on the tool used or what line can or cannot be crossed. Art is art, a .. insert anything, is that thing, no matter what was used to create it. The only difference is the mastery the operator has of the tool. There’s just a few of you that continue to draw a line. OK. Something approaching a response - I’ll take it. You need to address completely the question I posed before… about whether I’m an artist if I commission an artist to create art, or if there’s no limit to what constitutes an artist. You went very flaccid when I asked that before. To be a little more.. erect, if your face with definitions if you will. If you ask me to plaster your face with goo and I agree, you would be the client, I would be the artist, and I would do it how I see fit. If you didn’t like the work you had previously saw me produce, you would have asked a different artist. If you wanted to do it yourself, I guess you would have to ask the god of all art what they thought of your work. If he likes it, I guess you would then be an artist. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/334456/IMG_9907_jpeg-3827938.JPG Good heavens you deliberately miss the point every time. Done with you, troll. |
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
|
Buddy has been an artist for 30 years. He abhors AI. I don’t mind it. Now, if you saw some of his stuff, you probably wouldn’t like it. Not because he is a bad artist, it’s not going to be 90% of peoples cup of tea. Most artists barely make a living. Are people paying for AI art yet? |
|
Originally Posted By Stump70: Buddy has been an artist for 30 years. He abhors AI. I don't mind it. Now, if you saw some of his stuff, you probably wouldn't like it. Not because he is a bad artist, it's not going to be 90% of peoples cup of tea. Most artists barely make a living. Are people paying for AI art yet? |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Originally Posted By Torf: Art is conceived in the mind of the artist. All the rest of it, from fingers to brushes to tools, words, instruments and computers is simply the mechanical means of putting the conception into a form where the artist can share it with others. Like any other form of human expression, very little of what is created with AI is good quality, praiseworthy or will last long enough to be noticed. And like all things human taste varies considerably. But here is the thing. Plenty of us can conceive of all sorts of things in our minds. This is not a thing unique to artists. This is a fairly common human ability (if I have it, it can't be that rare. I ain't special). What many of us lack is, the skills to bring those concepts to life. THAT is what is, and always has been for me, IMPRESSIVE about artists. Have the vision, and create it. If all of a sudden "anyone" can start bringing their concepts to life, then, it all gets lost in the wash. Like 10,000 manufactured widgets make you miss the hand made one laying in amongst them in the scrap pile. Impressive, but ultimately, un-noticeable in the "new world". |
|
The hard-on comes from campanies scraping millions of indivdually human made works and training their AIs to replicate it without acknowledging the sources, let alone paying for the use of said art. Sure, you left it out there for the world to see but prior to 2010, nobody reasonably expected mass produced dirivitive work based on your abilities to not simply be reproduced, but reproduced enmass and often attempting to charge you for it. The same for any writing based modules. Hundreds of thousands of IPs are being strip mined without any sort of compensation or attribution. Now do software development. Dont be naive and pipe up about how it let you do it for free. You should know how search engines work by now-- somebody is getting paid for your visit and data. Thats the argument, at least. Otoh, is that piece of furry art you drew worth the $200 asking price youre shilling? On its surface, AI is the introduction to Atlas Shrugged. |
|
Originally Posted By PikeSlayer: The "I want to paint crappy pictures and sell them at the farmer's market/trendy town" crowd has been rendered replaceable. Rendered. Human culture is 100% replaceable with AI slop... Like synthetic diamonds...soon no one will be able to tell the difference...but many will claim to the great replacement. |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: Human culture is 100% replaceable with AI slop... Like synthetic diamonds...soon no one will be able to tell the difference...but many will claim to the great replacement. But, 90% of "pop culture"? Maybe. Remember, humans produce a lot of garbage too (like continuing to rape the dead corpse of an IP to get as much money out of it as possible), so you have AI "slop" competing against essentially low effort, unoriginal human generated crap. So why not automate the unoriginal crap and cut out the middle man?
|
|
There’s a place for it. But people shouldn’t use it in “historical sense” like the newly remodeled diner I went to. It had a pin up girl next to a fighter plane. She was ok. But the plane was all jacked up six ways from Sunday. Like she was supposed to be standing next to it. But her head is above the cowl. The propeller isn’t right and it’s coming out of the top of the cowl. Humans need to edit it before releasing it to the public for sale. But the AI art for AI arts sake, I don’t mind it. People that aren’t artists can come up with some cool looking stuff. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: But here is the thing. Plenty of us can conceive of all sorts of things in our minds. This is not a thing unique to artists. This is a fairly common human ability (if I have it, it can't be that rare. I ain't special). What many of us lack is, the skills to bring those concepts to life. THAT is what is, and always has been for me, IMPRESSIVE about artists. Have the vision, and create it. If all of a sudden "anyone" can start bringing their concepts to life, then, it all gets lost in the wash. Like 10,000 manufactured widgets make you miss the hand made one laying in amongst them in the scrap pile. Impressive, but ultimately, un-noticeable in the "new world". Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Torf: Art is conceived in the mind of the artist. All the rest of it, from fingers to brushes to tools, words, instruments and computers is simply the mechanical means of putting the conception into a form where the artist can share it with others. Like any other form of human expression, very little of what is created with AI is good quality, praiseworthy or will last long enough to be noticed. And like all things human taste varies considerably. But here is the thing. Plenty of us can conceive of all sorts of things in our minds. This is not a thing unique to artists. This is a fairly common human ability (if I have it, it can't be that rare. I ain't special). What many of us lack is, the skills to bring those concepts to life. THAT is what is, and always has been for me, IMPRESSIVE about artists. Have the vision, and create it. If all of a sudden "anyone" can start bringing their concepts to life, then, it all gets lost in the wash. Like 10,000 manufactured widgets make you miss the hand made one laying in amongst them in the scrap pile. Impressive, but ultimately, un-noticeable in the "new world". So what has changed is nothing other than the novelty of just another easy to produce form of expression. People do crank them out. 99% of it is total garbage. Just like 99% of pictures taken with a phone or camera, 99% of the pencil drawings, paintings, musical recordings, poems, books, etc. I'm not trying to expand the definition of art to encompass a banana taped to a wall, or elephant shit, or extoll the virtues of all art for its own sake, or even to make the point that all art is great. Realistically, most will never be great. Most is even potentially worthy of reproach. There is an enormous gulf between a skilled artist and a hack in terms of vision practice and skill, but very little in their tools. A random guy with a Canon Rebel can take a photo of the same thing as a professional art photographer. The tool can be exactly the same. But the random guy will submit a crappy pic and call it art, while the pro will work with it, be creative, hunt for angles and proportions, capture hues and contrast, perhaps even come up with a unique angle or presentation and everyone would know the difference. At most levels, AI is the same. |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149989
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Smells like a whole bunch of gatekeeping up in here:  The funniest thing about that fur-tastic insanity was the bullshit AI-created scam ads before and after. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
I fear what man thinks AI can do far more than what AI can actually do, once man thinks a custom chopper can be made in 3 days fabrication is devalued, once man thinks a custom kitchen can be remodeled and installed in 10 days the trades are devalued, once a man thinks a graphic artist using a computer should be able to render a custom logo in 4 mouse clicks (1994) the profession is cheapened. AI as a tool will make a 30 dollar hour position a 12 dollar position and the 12 dollar laborer will be doing the job of 4 people. You will never convince a person once they are convinced and sold something should be easy and cheap. If your a professional charge top dollar and don't train your replacement but also recognize when there is no more value in your trade. |
|
Originally Posted By HeckThomas: I fear what man thinks AI can do far more than what AI can actually do, once man thinks a custom chopper can be made in 3 days fabrication is devalued, once man thinks a custom kitchen can be remodeled and installed in 10 days the trades are devalued, once a man thinks a graphic artist using a computer should be able to render a custom logo in 4 mouse clicks (1994) the profession is cheapened. AI as a tool will make a 30 dollar hour position a 12 dollar position and the 12 dollar laborer will be doing the job of 4 people. You will never convince a person once they are convinced and sold something should be easy and cheap. If your a professional charge top dollar and don't train your replacement but also recognize when there is no more value in your trade. Battling perceptions is a huge aspect of this. Just because someone can type “paint my wife in the style of Rembrandt” into ChatGPT and it costs them nothing, doesn’t mean the entire enterprise of art is worth nothing. It just means that type of illustration has been devalued thanks to AI. The concepts behind things like designs and illustrations are important to remember and are still the ephemera that eludes AI. The choices an artist makes, also are beyond AI. Ask why that is. |
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
|
Will some of you ar-teests out there explain to me the difference between CGI and AI, except that AI is faster with text-driven prompts? CGI came into use in the early '90s and had its problems, which were quickly sorted out. Galloping horses was one. IIRC, Disney's was one of the first with "Beauty And The Beast", where CGI was used for backgounds and the animation overlaid using hand-drawn transparent cells. The CGI backgrounds had a 3-dimentional effect that was subtle, but noticeable. Watch the background carefully where Belle and The Beast are dancing. ETA: That's Angela Landsbury (Murder She Wrote) singing. David Ogden Stiers (M*A*S*H) voiced the clock.  Beauty and the Beast - The Ballroom Scene (HDR) |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill