What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 8 of 10)
|
Originally Posted By Stump70: If people are paying for it, wouldn’t that redefine the definition of art? Originally Posted By Stump70: Originally Posted By Torf: Yes. All the time. If people are paying for it, wouldn’t that redefine the definition of art?  |
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 Frank_B: 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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OElUWCKsPgMCGI is a tool for humans to use for animating the feature. AI is more the equivalent of directing an animation studio in your analogy. See the difference? |
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
|
Ha! |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: CGI is a tool for humans to use for animating the feature. AI is more the equivalent of directing an animation studio in your analogy. See the difference? And it's computer, driven with a stylus and graphics pad rather than pencils or brushes. So, is animation, such as The Roadrunner cartoons, art? What about Fantasia?  Night On Bald Mountain - Fantasia (1941) (Theatrical Cut) |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
|
Originally Posted By Stump70: If people are paying for it, wouldn't that redefine the definition of art? Originally Posted By Stump70: Originally Posted By Torf: Yes. All the time. If people are paying for it, wouldn't that redefine the definition of art? |
"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 Stump70: Ha! Originally Posted By Stump70: Ha! 
|
"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 Frank_B: And it's computer, driven with a stylus and graphics pad rather than pencils or brushes. So, is animation, such as The Roadrunner cartoons, art? What about Fantasia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCuL-K39eQOriginally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By macman37: CGI is a tool for humans to use for animating the feature. AI is more the equivalent of directing an animation studio in your analogy. See the difference? And it's computer, driven with a stylus and graphics pad rather than pencils or brushes. So, is animation, such as The Roadrunner cartoons, art? What about Fantasia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLCuL-K39eQSay more. Talk out what it is you’re trying to convince me of. Just asking for specifics. Using mass market entertainment as your example is not helping and is a bad foundation for a persuasive argument. Edit: BTW I am not looking for a “gotcha” here, just a good discussion. |
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
|
I made a painting this year that included an image of an elephant. It was just one of many elements of the overall painting. Not the subject, just an image in the background. I hand drew the elephant, threw some paint at it, and made an explosion around it. I know how to make a good looking explosion from my imagination. But an elephant? No. I needed a reference image. If this was 30-70 years ago, I would have grabbed the “E” volume of the Encyclopedia and found an image. Maybe it would have been a photo, maybe an illustration. Doesn’t matter. I just need a picture of an elephant. Should I have gone down to the zoo and painted from a live elephant? Of course not. That would be a silly waste of time. So I Googled “charging elephant.” Google gave me several images from which to choose. The one I used may or may not have been generated by AI. Don’t know, don’t care. The image is not art. It’s just a picture of an elephant. Had I presented the elephant image as my “art” -that would be a problem. But I did something with it. It became mine, just like collage art.  “The Elephant” 2026. 77”x48”. Mixed media on wood. Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that’s not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. “Art” is created by Man. It isn’t defined by how it is used, it’s defined by who, how and why it was created. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Say more. Talk out what it is you’re trying to convince me of. Just asking for specifics. Using mass market entertainment as your example is not helping and is a bad foundation for a persuasive argument. Edit: BTW I am not looking for a “gotcha” here, just a good discussion. It's really about the definition of art, which is something that can go on ad infinitum. Is this art? Or this? This? Maybe this? Incidentaly, "Blucifer" killed his creator. LINK (Like you, I'm having fun with this thread. As far as art is concerned, to me it's in the eye -- and mind -- of the beholder. The means via which it is created is not a factor.) |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
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: Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that's not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. "Art" is created by Man. |
|
Originally Posted By Hadrian: So, according to your argument, if you asked AI to create the image above, that's not art. But if you took that image as your reference and painted it by hand to look exactly the same, that's art? Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that's not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. "Art" is created by Man. There’s no need to say “So, according to your argument…” That’s not my argument. My argument is what I said, not what you said. Just address my exact words without reinterpreting them via poor critical thinking. You could have said, “So, what if…” THAT would be a proper discussion. But to address your imaginary argument that no one made -NO, that would not be art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: NO, that would not be art. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that's not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. "Art" is created by Man. |
|
Originally Posted By Hadrian: OK, got it, thanks. Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that's not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. "Art" is created by Man. Your welcome!  |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who or what creates it. It must be created by Man to be Art. A beautiful tree is not Art. A sunset is not Art. A picture of a sunset or a tree generated by AI Is not Art. Art must be created by Man -otherwise it is not Art. Right, and it should evoke a feeling, at least in some observers. For instance, to me, as an engineer... The Chrysler Building Brooklyn Bridge In furniture: Atwater Kent radio "Lion's Claw" table For the same reason, as a example, the works of Ansel Adams is also art. Not only does they involve composition and framing, but work in the darkroom in manipulating the exposure and contrast. |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
|
Originally Posted By guns762: Interesting discussion. "What is Art?" is definitely something I spent a lifetime examining. Fun to see all the different opinions. Get the F in the ring, TEACHER OF ART...  @guns762 we are interested in your take. |
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: Get the F in the ring, TEACHER OF ART... @guns762 we are interested in your take.  I'm not a very good artist, or expert at all on the subject. I've been faking it till I make it, my entire career . Opinions are just that. My own opinion is that composition is probably more important than the tool used to create it. |
|
Originally Posted By guns762: I'm not a very good artist, or expert at all on the subject. I've been faking it till I make it, my entire career . Opinions are just that....Many of us will disagree on that first sentence, but then perhaps teaching your classes is your form of art. |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
|
Originally Posted By guns762: I'm not a very good artist, or expert at all on the subject. I've been faking it till I make it, my entire career . Opinions are just that. My own opinion is that composition is probably more important than the tool used to create it. Originally Posted By guns762: Originally Posted By macman37: Get the F in the ring, TEACHER OF ART... @guns762 we are interested in your take. I'm not a very good artist, or expert at all on the subject. I've been faking it till I make it, my entire career . Opinions are just that. My own opinion is that composition is probably more important than the tool used to create it. You do realize you're talking art on Arfcom, right?  The place that only appreciates and respects engineers? There are but a few of us who can actually speak with authority (read: not just opinions) on this subject and you're one of them. But I respect your right to opt out. |
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 LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
|
Originally Posted By Frank_B: Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. You're describing a shortcut, not true art. There is a crucial difference I'm conveying to you. AI is not just another paint brush or medium. |
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
|
Simply typing the prompts is not enough to justify YOU being considered an “artist.” If you give 1000 people the same prompt, and they each type it into their ChatGPT app, each one will result in a different image. The prompt is not special, neither is the typing of the prompt. The fact that each app creates a unique image with the same prompt does not convey “specialness” onto the typist. Nor does it make the author of the prompt a “prolific artist.” It is literally no different that a student using the app to write his college application essay. No credit is given to that student for the prompt. It is simply fraud. People are fooled because the AI images “look” like real art, just as AI academic papers read like real work. You can look at the image or the paper and be impressed with the product. However, the people who wrote the prompts are neither artists nor scholars. All that said, a compilation of those 1,000 images displayed on the wall as a conceptual art piece ABOUT AI art? That might work. But it’s just another banana duct taped to the wall. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Simply typing the prompts is not enough to justify YOU being considered an “artist.” that's where i am on it. even if the output of generative ai is art (which i don't dispute), the person prompting the ai is not an artist. he's a commission. |
|
Originally Posted By sirensong: that's where i am on it. even if the output of generative ai is art (which i don't dispute), the person prompting the ai is not an artist. he's a commission. Originally Posted By sirensong: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Simply typing the prompts is not enough to justify YOU being considered an “artist.” that's where i am on it. even if the output of generative ai is art (which i don't dispute), the person prompting the ai is not an artist. he's a commission. If the prompt typist isn’t an artist (he isn’t), then it isn’t art. The AI is not an artist -only Man makes art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
Personally, I feel like AI Art is still art. Where it differs from what most people probably consider 'real' or 'normal' art is:
To me, that first item is really saying 'the painter didnt paint so its not really a painting', but really it just means the medium is different; descriptive rather than brushstrokes. The second item ignores that artists often (maybe always) are inspired by the work of others, and include elements of their style. AI Art may be a little more directly adoptive than an artist's inspiration but this is a difference of degrees I think. The one criticism I would lend more credence to is the 'sameness' of much AI art. The creator chooses or identifies a style, and then describes the desired content, but the end results within that particular chosen style often look very much like any other creation where that style was chosen; far more so than a human artist's work within a certain style in a more traditional medium or approach. |
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." Jean Dutourd
|
Originally Posted By AzSteven: Personally, I feel like AI Art is still art. Where it differs from what most people probably consider 'real' or 'normal' art is:
To me, that first item is really saying 'the painter didnt paint so its not really a painting', but really it just means the medium is different; descriptive rather than brushstrokes. The second item ignores that artists often (maybe always) are inspired by the work of others, and include elements of their style. AI Art may be a little more directly adoptive than an artist's inspiration but this is a difference of degrees I think. The one criticism I would lend more credence to is the 'sameness' of much AI art. The creator chooses or identifies a style, and then describes the desired content, but the end results within that particular chosen style often look very much like any other creation where that style was chosen; far more so than a human artist's work within a certain style in a more traditional medium or approach. Michelangelo is not the “artist” who created the Sistine Ceiling -it was the Catholic Church who described what they wanted? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Michelangelo is not the “artist” who created the Sistine Ceiling -it was the Catholic Church who described what they wanted? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AzSteven: Personally, I feel like AI Art is still art. Where it differs from what most people probably consider 'real' or 'normal' art is:
To me, that first item is really saying 'the painter didnt paint so its not really a painting', but really it just means the medium is different; descriptive rather than brushstrokes. The second item ignores that artists often (maybe always) are inspired by the work of others, and include elements of their style. AI Art may be a little more directly adoptive than an artist's inspiration but this is a difference of degrees I think. The one criticism I would lend more credence to is the 'sameness' of much AI art. The creator chooses or identifies a style, and then describes the desired content, but the end results within that particular chosen style often look very much like any other creation where that style was chosen; far more so than a human artist's work within a certain style in a more traditional medium or approach. Michelangelo is not the “artist” who created the Sistine Ceiling -it was the Catholic Church who described what they wanted? That's a great analogy. |
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
Purge the Commie, Abhor the Vegan
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
18853
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Hadrian: So, according to your argument, if you asked AI to create the image above, that's not art. But if you took that image as your reference and painted it by hand to look exactly the same, that's art? Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Had I asked AI to make me a painting, and it resulted in the above image, that's not art -even if I drafted a very complex prompt. "Art" is created by Man. That wouldn't be "art" by Kant's definition as it would be imitation as opposed to using a generated image to spark one's own originality. Cinc's use of an image of an elephant is the later. |
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
Purge the Commie, Abhor the Vegan
Joined:
Oct 2013
Posts:
18854
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Frank_B: Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. Originally Posted By Frank_B: Originally Posted By LamePostCount: Art requires intent. That intent is driven by emotion thus requiring a human consciousness. Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard. There's also cinematic art, which involves the efforts hundred, even thousands of people who create such masterpieces as "Metropolis", "Citizen Kane", "Fantasia", "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", and "2001...". Disney's animated films required tens of thousands of hand-drawn transparent "cells" and the composition and performance of the music to accompany them. "Fantasia" went in the other direction as the animation was drawn to interpret the work of numerous masters, performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's availaible on Disney+ and well worth watching. "Which is what is driving the fingers that are tapping on the computer keyboard." Under Kant, fine art requires exercising both taste combined with genius. Genius being defined as flowing through the facilities of a person, as nature working through a mind. One could make a plausible case, imo, that you could say a person working through prompts to refine and shape a generated image in a certain direction is exercising judgement/taste. You could push it a bit further and use Kant's measure of inexplicability, which is "Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given. Genius itself cannot describe or indicate scientifically how it brings about its products." Arguing that due to the opacity of how a LLM generates an image, there isn't a determinate rule, so may have the same quality of inexplicability. However, the generated image is still not a product of nature running through a mind. No mind, not art. It's could potentially possess "free beauty"(devoid of source consideration) but assuredly not "apparent beauty"(where what created it, for what purpose are important.) |
Shit like this is why you don't give typewriters to monkeys. - L_JE
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
Colonialism, bringing ethnic diversity to a continent near you. - My Father
Me being brief, this is like seeing a comet - Geralt55
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If the prompt typist isn’t an artist (he isn’t), then it isn’t art. The AI is not an artist -only Man makes art. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By sirensong: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Simply typing the prompts is not enough to justify YOU being considered an “artist.” that's where i am on it. even if the output of generative ai is art (which i don't dispute), the person prompting the ai is not an artist. he's a commission. If the prompt typist isn’t an artist (he isn’t), then it isn’t art. The AI is not an artist -only Man makes art. i don't give a fuck as to anyone else's definition of the lexical unit 'art.' that lexical unit is based on a pre-existing lexical unit that more or less means 'created.' people can quibble about how many arts can dance on the head of an art, and i don't give a shit. but we know that there is a difference between the one that does the creating and the one the commissions the one that does the creating. if i ask you to paint me a thing, i'm not the artist of that thing. I'm mindful of ellsworth kelly as i write this. |
| Complaint? Personally, I think all AI images of hot women should feature tasteful nipple and antinomically correct camel toeage. Some side boob when appropriate wouldn't hurt either. |
Political correctness is a devious weapon designed to silence those whose arguments cannot be refuted.
Embracing the "Progressive" American democratic party is akin to volunteering your time to erect the gallows you will one day swing from.
Embracing the "Progressive" American democratic party is akin to volunteering your time to erect the gallows you will one day swing from.
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Simply typing the prompts is not enough to justify YOU being considered an “artist.” If you give 1000 people the same prompt, and they each type it into their ChatGPT app, each one will result in a different image. The prompt is not special, neither is the typing of the prompt. The fact that each app creates a unique image with the same prompt does not convey “specialness” onto the typist. Nor does it make the author of the prompt a “prolific artist.” It is literally no different that a student using the app to write his college application essay. No credit is given to that student for the prompt. It is simply fraud. People are fooled because the AI images “look” like real art, just as AI academic papers read like real work. You can look at the image or the paper and be impressed with the product. However, the people who wrote the prompts are neither artists nor scholars. All that said, a compilation of those 1,000 images displayed on the wall as a conceptual art piece ABOUT AI art? That might work. But it’s just another banana duct taped to the wall. So what if someone uses AI to generate 6 second video clips, dialogue, and a song? They come up with the visual prompts, the dialogue, and the lyrics for the song. Then takes those clips and puts them in a video editor and manually edits those clips, adds SFX, the Dialogue, and the song? How many hours does the person have to spend editing the video to make it human touched enough? Or is it all fruit of the poisonous tree since they're using AI at all? @Cincinnatus |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
Member
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
8127
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
Boy, this thread sure blew up.  I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond; lots of good stuff here.Tho I am still of the mind that whether you use pencil, brush, or AI program, what you create is "art". That is, if we ever really could get a valid, set-in-concrete definition of that word; this is much like trying to define pornography. You are inevitably left with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: <snip> 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. |
|
Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Boy, this thread sure blew up. I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond; lots of good stuff here.Tho I am still of the mind that whether you use pencil, brush, or AI program, what you create is "art". That is, if we ever really could get a valid, set-in-concrete definition of that word; this is much like trying to define pornography. You are inevitably left with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Does typing a prompt into ChatGPT makes the typist an “artist”? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Does typing a prompt into ChatGPT makes the typist an "artist"? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Boy, this thread sure blew up. I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond; lots of good stuff here.Tho I am still of the mind that whether you use pencil, brush, or AI program, what you create is "art". That is, if we ever really could get a valid, set-in-concrete definition of that word; this is much like trying to define pornography. You are inevitably left with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."  |
|
Originally Posted By M1907Sling: I think we're gonna get stuck with the "agree to disagree" thing, b/c it really is "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Art must be made by Man for it to be Art. Not every thing made by Man is Art. Is typing a prompt into ChatGPT “making Art”? Is the Man who types the prompt an “Artist”? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Does typing a prompt into ChatGPT makes the typist an “artist”? About as much as taping a banana onto a piece of drywall. I have absolutely no delusions about being an artist because of the images I cause to appear on my monitor screen. I'm just a old fart hunting and pecking on a keyboard and enjoying the Hell out of it. If some people like what I make, that's fine. If they don't, I could not care less. |
"...Capitalism...shares its blessings unequally; ...Socialism...shares its miseries equally."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
| It may come down to one's perspective. As an consumer of art, if two pieces are identical, it doesn't matter whether a human or AI produced it. But as a producer of art, one can hardly express one's self simply by typing a prompt and letting the AI produce it. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
150051
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Boy, this thread sure blew up. I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond; lots of good stuff here.Tho I am still of the mind that whether you use pencil, brush, or AI program, what you create is "art". That is, if we ever really could get a valid, set-in-concrete definition of that word; this is much like trying to define pornography. You are inevitably left with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." The need to create art is what makes it art. AI is not capable of making art on its own, for its own reasons. It requires an input to sift through its scanned archive of other people’s art. That doesn’t make AI a paintbrush though, you typing in a prompt does not make you an artist. It makes you the commissioner of an illustration. Apply that same logic to other things - writing books, making videos… You are a requester of a service, not a practitioner of that service. Agree about this being a good discussion though.
|
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: The need to create art is what makes it art. AI is not capable of making art on its own, for its own reasons. It requires an input to sift through its scanned archive of other people’s art. That doesn’t make AI a paintbrush though, you typing in a prompt does not make you an artist. It makes you the commissioner of an illustration. Apply that same logic to other things - writing books, making videos… You are a requester of a service, not a practitioner of that service. Agree about this being a good discussion though. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By M1907Sling: Boy, this thread sure blew up. I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond; lots of good stuff here.Tho I am still of the mind that whether you use pencil, brush, or AI program, what you create is "art". That is, if we ever really could get a valid, set-in-concrete definition of that word; this is much like trying to define pornography. You are inevitably left with, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." The need to create art is what makes it art. AI is not capable of making art on its own, for its own reasons. It requires an input to sift through its scanned archive of other people’s art. That doesn’t make AI a paintbrush though, you typing in a prompt does not make you an artist. It makes you the commissioner of an illustration. Apply that same logic to other things - writing books, making videos… You are a requester of a service, not a practitioner of that service. Agree about this being a good discussion though. Agreed. …the AI is not an “artist,” and the prompt-typer is not an “artist.” Therefore, the byproduct is not “art.” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Smashy: Same with the hate for AI music. Be prepared for lots of lectures about "soul." I've listened to a lot of AI music lately. Mostly blues and jazz stuff. It's all very well done, and makes for excellent driving music. I don't know how it's made, they just make vague references to AI tools. But there are humans behind the tools. However it's done, I like the AI music on You Tube. |
|
Originally Posted By Torf: Why would it? Some might pay for "art services", but c'mon. Most art is never sold. Originally Posted By Torf: Originally Posted By Stump70: Originally Posted By Torf: Yes. All the time. If people are paying for it, wouldn't that redefine the definition of art? Maybe AI makes more difficult to "sell paintings" as the pedophile's son (and several other "artists") do to launder money? |
What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 8 of 10)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter