Gregory's Server@pre I respectfully disagree. AI art is a composite construct of human efforts across the entire race, spanning centuries of work. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and it matters very little what hand guided the brush. What matters more is how do we feel, what have we learned, and where will this new tool of art creation take us? You are focusing too much on the semantics.
|
9 comments
@pre As a point of discussion, and evidence pointing to the oddity of your statement, take Mark Rothko's work as an example. Saying simply that "Art is what artists do" begs the question, what is art, exactly? Rothko is known for absurdly simple work, nothing more than blobs of color on canvas. No knowledge of anatomy, nature, color, or any of the skills commonly associated with the masters convey, even in deconstructed or abstract expression. (continued p1) @pre (p2) Why is AI generated imagery not a valid tool? What makes it less important, less authentic than people literally standing behind a jet engine flinging paint onto a canvas? We are looking at the first steps towards anyone being able to share what they see in their mind to the world. If this isn't a valid form of creation, then art as a medium of visual expression needs to be redefined.  @gumwars But the image isn't art, the image is just a mashup caused by the flow of electrons in response to the art of the prompt, rather than the passion or rage of a human being being human. And an artist may use these machines in their work. If they have a story to tell, and illustrate the story with photographs or a collection of pebbles or a film of a plastic bag floating, or the pixels that fall out of a pixel grinder that's all cool and legit. But the art is in the story there, the human communication, mind to mind, not the pebbles or pixels. @pre So, you're saying it's art if and only if an artist does it. Then who is and who can be an artist? I've got more than a decade of professional training as a classical artist, but I work for a railroad, am I an artist? Is what I do through stable diffusion art, while a layperson doing the same isn't? Do you see how arbitrary your definition is? |
@gumwars Yep. Sounds like we do indeed disagree.
Art is what artists do, far from being in the eye of the beholder, the beholders are generally ignorant proles who wouldn't know art if you smacked them around the face with it. 😆
An artist may use whatever they find, including large pixel models, but just typing out a prompt and selecting from the results isn't expression or feeling.
It's not art, it's just iconography.