|
Top-level
@yogthos Did photos displace artists from some professions? Yes, certainly, portraits and still life, for instance, by proportion, are taken as photos more than they are hand-painted these days. But I reckon still easily an order of magnitude more portraits are _still_ painted today than in the past, despite photos eclipsing them for the purpose. Art can be art without displacing or cannibalizing other art entirely. 5 comments
@yogthos @jupiter There was something similar with film cameras. They used to have an operator turning a crank to make the film go through. Adding a motor was described as something completely wrong, "because the operator can adjust the filming speed as required by the scene, and the motor cannot".  @Uilebheist @jupiter There's this weird notion that making it easy to express your ideas is somehow detrimental. If there isn't a lot of technical skill involved then somehow it's not real art anymore. But seems to me that this is a really misguided way to look at things. Art is fundamentally about expression, and it doesn't matter how it's produced at the end of the day. When you look at a piece of art and find it evocative that's all that matters. @Uilebheist @jupiter I see AI generation as a tool that will allow countless people to express themselves in ways they weren't able to before, and I think that's a great thing. |
Gregory's Server
@jupiter yeah exactly, people do art because they enjoy doing it and they want to express themselves, this fear that AI medium is going to somehow diminish art is pure nonsense in my opinion.
And photography in particular is a very good analogy because the photographer simply has an eye for finding scenes that look interesting. This is the same task that a person crafting prompts to feed to the AI is doing.