|
Top-level
 @Gargron I remember film photographers saying the same thing about digital. Then when digital became the preferred art form of photography, they all said the same thing about photoshop and digital manipulation. It’s interesting to behold this cycle of fear about new technology somehow invalidating the status quo, but it doesn’t. Film is still art. Digital is still art. Photoshopping and digital tweaking is the gold standard now. AI has a place in the arts, it just makes you uncomfortable. 3 comments
@Gargron when people take shots at AI, they almost always conveniently ignore that of course having an AI 100% generate an image is not art. The same way uploading someone else’s picture onto my camera isn’t art. But a camera is still an artistic tool. An AI that an artist works alongside is still an artistic tool. If you label the whole of AI as “not art”, without specifying that depends on how it’s used, maybe it’s not about art. It’s just popular to attack the low hanging fruit. @Gargron @owlchemist 100% there has to be physics and chemistry in play, that can’t be learnt. My daughters clearly have more talent than either of their parents. And we are making a living from ours. |
Gregory's Server
@owlchemist People say lots of things. The work of a photographer is inspiration, composition, framing, choice of medium, being in the right place at the right time. When that is reduced to "Generate a stunning photo of the Sistine Chapel" there is indeed nothing there left, and I for one have absolutely no interest wasting any time at all viewing an image that no human spent time and effort creating.