AI generated images are results that aren’t created.
Neither are particle effects from pixar films, but it doesn’t stop people saying they are/were masterpieces (before the disney acquisition). People also like rougelike games.
Photography is an extremely difficult art that involves multiple skills. If your analogy made any sense then painters would also need to create their pigments and paintbrushes to be considered artists.
When the one thing you do is provide a prompt in a matter of seconds, without even knowing what the output might be, you’re not really creating. It’s much more passive than anything else someone might call an art. If photographers just had to write down a sentence and then a photo would appear on paper, I doubt anyone would’ve ever considered photos special, at least once we got over the magic of it being possible. The same has already happened with AI “art”. People instantly recognize it and despise it. Most of those people probably first said “wow, cool!”
Photography is an extremely difficult art that involves multiple skills
I’m not saying “photography isn’t art or expression” I’m saying “by your statement of ‘Art is creation and process not result.’ you are setting a restrictive definition that puts photography outside of art”.
When the one thing you do is provide a prompt in a matter of seconds, without even knowing what the output might be, you’re not really creating.
Have you ever read a book? Or listened to a piece of live music that had an improvised component? Or one with a non determined outcome (running the output of a radio into an effects system to add another layer to the piece being composed). Played a game with randomised elements?
Are you saying the non deterministic pieces by Cage and Eno aren’t art?
When you write prose, you are not in charge of how the reader imagines what you’re putting out. Writing a prompt is creating a piece of technical prose, the setup of the particular AI image generation with loras and data sets is akin to setting up settings for a camera with lenses and exposure times and etc.
And the overarching point that is relevant here is that AI allows those without the skills in visual art to be able to participate in the arts because most people WANT TO be able to create some form of visual or auditory expression, but don’t have the skills to be able to.
Yeah, it’s cheating. 100%. But guess what :
“I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I programmed drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.”
Except ai artists didn’t do anything to help create said art. It’s the equivalent of me messaging a friend and telling him about a story idea I’ve had. Then that friend goes to a library and starts taking bits and pieces from other people’s stories and putting them together. Am I an artist now?
So… yeah. Either we need to stop accepting existing human art forms as art, or we need to accept that when someone writes prose and puts it into a computer, they are expressing theirselves.
Yeah, those are all techniques which require actual work from the artist. Except the last one which is a one off tongue in cheek piece by a guy known for his hyperrealistic work. You go call a museum curator and ask him to smash a pumpkin to put on display. If you can get them to do that for you, then I’ll concede my point and call you and every ai prompter artists.
I’ll write a script that takes AskReddit prompts and sends them automatically to chatgpt and then I post them. Do I become an artist?
Yeah, those are all techniques which require actual work from the artist.
Can you differenciate (explain to me/us) the difference betwee prose, poetry and prompt writing? Also, how is the setup of a local AI different to buying paints?
Prose requires skill. Poetry requires skill. Prompt requires you to press one button ad infinitum until you get a result that you like.
Do you really think typing “give me 1000 paintings with mountains” and then picking 2-3 which you think will sell makes you an artist?
The whole point of art is to take something from yourself and show it to the world. Yeah, there’s generative and randomly generated art, that’s what people do, take things to extremes. But there’s a reason only The first few people to do that are mentioned. Because the rest aren’t creating. If I take a banana and duct tape it to a wall, that’s not art. That’s just me copying someone. That’s what AI art is.
I’m saying “by your statement of ‘Art is creation and process not result.’ you are setting a restrictive definition that puts photography outside of art”.
And I am disputing this strongly. Photography being compared to writing a prompt for AI is insulting as fuck to photography. I think you would understand the point I’m making if you weren’t intending not to understand it. I seriously doubt you actually think that there is no composition, lighting, thematic concerns, choice of subject, color choices, etc, etc etc in photography. Even one of these concerns would make photography 10 times closer to art than writing an AI prompt.
Are you saying the non deterministic pieces by Cage and Eno aren’t art?
Maybe? I don’t care enough to research those artists further as every time I listened to either I was bored, and also this question is normally not one I find interesting. I just find it fuckin’ baffling that someone can think typing a half-assed sentence and waiting for an output could ever be considered “art”. Hell, you can only sometimes fool people into even thinking it’s not obviously AI.
I seriously doubt you actually think that there is no composition, lighting, thematic concerns, choice of subject, color choices, etc, etc etc in photography
Yes, that’s my point. Both AI based art generation and photography rely on technical skills in order to process events that ocurr that are outside of the creators’ control.
I just find it fuckin’ baffling that someone can think typing a half-assed sentence and waiting for an output could ever be considered “art”.
Yeah, the same way you could reductively say that someone taking a photo with a cellphone camera isn’t art. But both statements are wrong.
My point is that there are ways that are analogous to steps taken by professional photographers and those that have worked on their craft as a phographer in the field of AI art, and you need to work on those skills to get similar results. Things from managing Loras ,training models, writing better prompts, creating images to serve as starting points, post processing of generated images to purely technical things like system setups, paramater management, hardware choice etc etc.
You need to understand that there are actions akin to setting up lights and selecting the correct lenses that impact both fields.
someone taking a photo with a cellphone camera isn’t art
Yes, 99.99% of the time that would be entirely true and fair. Art would require a creative intent. Most mobile phone photos are just someone wanting to capture a moment, or now with social media, attention. Nothing creative about almost any of that.
Notice I mentioned nothing about technical setup about photography because none of those technical things are creative. Knowing how to setup lights to achieve emotional impact is different from “derp I know I need a lit subject, I setup light now”.
None of the things you’re saying about AI are necessary for generating images, and further I’ll never ever accept any of those as resembling anything like even the ghost of a creative choice. You’re wrong. AI image gen is not art, photography is art by anyone’s definition who has the first idea about what art is or isn’t.
ok, so this post indicates that you are basically grabbing any “common idea” about art wholesale, not interpreting any of it, and regurgitating it. There is no actual interaction to be had here, nor logic being processed.
Nope. I actually used to argue with snobby people who would call something not art if they didn’t personally get it. You’re just wrong here. You understand the point I’m making but you won’t acknowledge it. Had you said “the AI process could be creative if…” you might get some conditional agreement. But what you’re instead doing is lazily saying “well photos are technical and so is this so BAM: art.”
had you said “the AI process could be creative if…” you might get some conditional agreement. But what you’re instead doing is lazily saying “well photos are technical and so is this so BAM: art.”
I’ll bite :
AI art is art when you have an actual vision and feeling you are trying to express, and you lack the craftmanship to be able to do it through traditional mediums and use prose, which itself is art, to get a tool to assist you in rendering out that vision and feeling you have. It’s a bit less direct than traditional creativity, but it’s fun and fulfilling, and that’s the entire point of art in the first place.
Not anymore : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork)
Also, photography in general. You’re not making the landscape or person the portrait is of.
Neither are particle effects from pixar films, but it doesn’t stop people saying they are/were masterpieces (before the disney acquisition). People also like rougelike games.
Photography is an extremely difficult art that involves multiple skills. If your analogy made any sense then painters would also need to create their pigments and paintbrushes to be considered artists.
When the one thing you do is provide a prompt in a matter of seconds, without even knowing what the output might be, you’re not really creating. It’s much more passive than anything else someone might call an art. If photographers just had to write down a sentence and then a photo would appear on paper, I doubt anyone would’ve ever considered photos special, at least once we got over the magic of it being possible. The same has already happened with AI “art”. People instantly recognize it and despise it. Most of those people probably first said “wow, cool!”
I’m not saying “photography isn’t art or expression” I’m saying “by your statement of ‘Art is creation and process not result.’ you are setting a restrictive definition that puts photography outside of art”.
Have you ever read a book? Or listened to a piece of live music that had an improvised component? Or one with a non determined outcome (running the output of a radio into an effects system to add another layer to the piece being composed). Played a game with randomised elements?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage#Chance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Eno#Generative_music
Are you saying the non deterministic pieces by Cage and Eno aren’t art?
When you write prose, you are not in charge of how the reader imagines what you’re putting out. Writing a prompt is creating a piece of technical prose, the setup of the particular AI image generation with loras and data sets is akin to setting up settings for a camera with lenses and exposure times and etc.
And the overarching point that is relevant here is that AI allows those without the skills in visual art to be able to participate in the arts because most people WANT TO be able to create some form of visual or auditory expression, but don’t have the skills to be able to.
Yeah, it’s cheating. 100%. But guess what :
Except ai artists didn’t do anything to help create said art. It’s the equivalent of me messaging a friend and telling him about a story idea I’ve had. Then that friend goes to a library and starts taking bits and pieces from other people’s stories and putting them together. Am I an artist now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedian_(artwork) (this “artwork” , which has been in museums, involves giving instructions to a curator to tape a banana to a wall.)
So… yeah. Either we need to stop accepting existing human art forms as art, or we need to accept that when someone writes prose and puts it into a computer, they are expressing theirselves.
Yeah, those are all techniques which require actual work from the artist. Except the last one which is a one off tongue in cheek piece by a guy known for his hyperrealistic work. You go call a museum curator and ask him to smash a pumpkin to put on display. If you can get them to do that for you, then I’ll concede my point and call you and every ai prompter artists.
I’ll write a script that takes AskReddit prompts and sends them automatically to chatgpt and then I post them. Do I become an artist?
Can you differenciate (explain to me/us) the difference betwee prose, poetry and prompt writing? Also, how is the setup of a local AI different to buying paints?
Prose requires skill. Poetry requires skill. Prompt requires you to press one button ad infinitum until you get a result that you like. Do you really think typing “give me 1000 paintings with mountains” and then picking 2-3 which you think will sell makes you an artist? The whole point of art is to take something from yourself and show it to the world. Yeah, there’s generative and randomly generated art, that’s what people do, take things to extremes. But there’s a reason only The first few people to do that are mentioned. Because the rest aren’t creating. If I take a banana and duct tape it to a wall, that’s not art. That’s just me copying someone. That’s what AI art is.
And I am disputing this strongly. Photography being compared to writing a prompt for AI is insulting as fuck to photography. I think you would understand the point I’m making if you weren’t intending not to understand it. I seriously doubt you actually think that there is no composition, lighting, thematic concerns, choice of subject, color choices, etc, etc etc in photography. Even one of these concerns would make photography 10 times closer to art than writing an AI prompt.
Maybe? I don’t care enough to research those artists further as every time I listened to either I was bored, and also this question is normally not one I find interesting. I just find it fuckin’ baffling that someone can think typing a half-assed sentence and waiting for an output could ever be considered “art”. Hell, you can only sometimes fool people into even thinking it’s not obviously AI.
Yes, that’s my point. Both AI based art generation and photography rely on technical skills in order to process events that ocurr that are outside of the creators’ control.
Yeah, the same way you could reductively say that someone taking a photo with a cellphone camera isn’t art. But both statements are wrong.
My point is that there are ways that are analogous to steps taken by professional photographers and those that have worked on their craft as a phographer in the field of AI art, and you need to work on those skills to get similar results. Things from managing Loras ,training models, writing better prompts, creating images to serve as starting points, post processing of generated images to purely technical things like system setups, paramater management, hardware choice etc etc.
You need to understand that there are actions akin to setting up lights and selecting the correct lenses that impact both fields.
Yes, 99.99% of the time that would be entirely true and fair. Art would require a creative intent. Most mobile phone photos are just someone wanting to capture a moment, or now with social media, attention. Nothing creative about almost any of that.
Notice I mentioned nothing about technical setup about photography because none of those technical things are creative. Knowing how to setup lights to achieve emotional impact is different from “derp I know I need a lit subject, I setup light now”.
None of the things you’re saying about AI are necessary for generating images, and further I’ll never ever accept any of those as resembling anything like even the ghost of a creative choice. You’re wrong. AI image gen is not art, photography is art by anyone’s definition who has the first idea about what art is or isn’t.
ok, so this post indicates that you are basically grabbing any “common idea” about art wholesale, not interpreting any of it, and regurgitating it. There is no actual interaction to be had here, nor logic being processed.
Bye.
Nope. I actually used to argue with snobby people who would call something not art if they didn’t personally get it. You’re just wrong here. You understand the point I’m making but you won’t acknowledge it. Had you said “the AI process could be creative if…” you might get some conditional agreement. But what you’re instead doing is lazily saying “well photos are technical and so is this so BAM: art.”
I’ll bite :