Does AI-generated art posted on lemmy bother you?
Does AI-generated art posted on lemmy bother you?
I find that i can spot AI Images fairly easily these days, especially the sort of fantastical tableaus that get posted to the various AI communities around lemmy. I'm tired of seeing them; it all looks the same to me. Was wondering if im being too sensitive, or if other people are similarly bored of the constant unimaginative AI spam...
For the record, I block any explicit AI Art communities that pop up in the feed, but there are more every day...
You're viewing a single thread.
I can’t stand anything AI generated, but people are free to post it wherever they want. I just block/filter it when I see it.
I’ll also add: it’s not art. No one punching a sentence into a text field is EVER going to be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless images ever be called art.
Funnily enough people said the same thing when photography was first invented ("No one pressing a button and getting a perfect representation of the real world will EVER be called an artist by me, nor will their heartless imitations be called art.")
I wonder how often this has happened in history. Imagine the first person making a handprint on a cave wall being told that it only counts as art if you make stacks of animal bones.
But even this application is limited to the mere reduction of copying of works previously engraved or drawn; for, however ingenious the process or surprising the results of photography, it must be remembered that this art only aspires to copy, it cannot invent. The camera, it is true, is a most accurate copyist, but it is no substitute for original thought or invention.
-The Crayon, 1855
In particular, art historians are wary of the "high-tech" look of computer-generated images, and they tend to keep away from them for that reason alone. In a sense, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: as long as the majority of art historians shy away from computer art, the historical discourse surrounding the new images will remain an impoverished "ghetto"... ... It is true, I would point out, that any new technology seems at first to have an overwhelming, often irrelevant meaning that comes from the peculiarities of its medium. When prints first appeared in the fifteenth century, they had such a different "look" that they were segregated from more traditional media.
-James Elkins, Art Institute of Chicago, 1993
Freaken crazy. I admit I was being a bit cheeky, I didn't think anyone ever wrote something like that and published it. It just feels so obvious, of course photography and computer generated art is art. Thanks for doing the homework!
it's not art
Oooh, a chance to ask my favourite question!
Why not?
See, I have never really gotten what most would call "art". I've been to museums across the world, big and small; I can appreciate skill in creating a complex piece. But I'm not "good" with art. Most of what I saw in the MoMA I wouldn't call art. Two solid black circles on a white page, I wouldn't call art; nor "found art" like an unmade bed or a broken toilet; nor the seizure that is Pollock's work. But others do, and I accept that they find something in it even though I don't understand how someone can pick up a bucket with a hole in it from the curb and put it on a stool under a spotlight, and call it "art".
So yeah, what makes AI art not art? And who made you the arbitrator?
It’s not art. Accept it or don’t. I don’t care, but it’s not up for debate.
Why isn't it up for debate? Pretty sure every idea can be challenged. Maybe it isn't up for debate because you don't want to exert the effort to defend your viewpoint and want us to take you on faith
Punching a short sentence into a text field and expecting to be called an artists is the same as asking a computer to write a song for you and saying you’re a musician.
It’s an affront to art, and cringey as fuck when these AI “artists” think they’ve accomplished something.
I hope all those traditional artists are paying royalties to the people who invented their instruments and brushes and pencils. I hope they are paying royalties to Monet for being inspired by his work, and to Neaderthal Tregg the first to sharpen a stick, et al.
It’s amusing that you think this is an argument.
Please produce the person who did this. I want a name and a date.
Everyone that creates shit. You want me to name everyone? Check instagram. There’s plenty of these talentless wannabes posting their garbage there.
I want a name and a date.
Sorry about your luck, kiddo. Consider this a lesson on not getting what you want.
Pretty typical when something doesn't exist. I should have known from dealing with theists all my life.
My refusal to answer your stupid question is in no way the proof you needed to make your ridiculous point. I saw your “gotcha” a million miles away kiddo. And it’s dumb. Therefore I am refusing to let you lead the discussion in that direction.
Oh, and by the way…
The whole- yu diDn’T aNsWeR me sO tHaT mEaNs i’M riGhT!” trope has never worked on people that actually know that that isn’t how things work. I get that your friends in school kick rocks over shit like that, but it doesn’t work in the real world.
I’m not obligated to answer dumb questions by immature children trying to create an argument out of my opinion.
AI isn’t art.
Deal with it.
Lastly, how exactly am I a theist? I’d love to know how you made that leap. Should be hilarious.
Yeah, reasonable people have reasons for believing the things they do, so I think I'll just label you unreasonable and move on with my day, random internet stranger.
That’s fine. I can be unreasonable to you. Just like you accusing me of being unreasonable, while seemingly not accepting that I can have an opinion is both ironic and hypocritical.
I don't want to defend current ai art but writing sentences falls under art for me even if they get adapted on their way to the final product.
Though I also think programmers, knitters... can create art.
An AI use case I think is OK and is art. Is using your own sketches and ideas and taking them to the finish by filling in the background or coloring/shading it.
Edit: On another note. Let's look at it from the perspective of an indie game developer using Godot. He programs his game logic finishes his sketches with ai. Generates materials with ai and maybe even 3d models in the future.
He won't hire artists. So they don't get paid. However he also uses insane amounts of open source libraries written by thousands of programmers. They don't get anything either. If he is kind they get attribution maybe some will even get donations. The indie dev could create something he would not have been able to create without these technologies.
A big corporation creating AAA games can also cut costs massivly. Absuing the work of artists by using their data without paying. These companies also take from open source and give nothing back.
I think the abuse of artists that is starting to happen, is very similar to the abuse open source has been suffering for a long time.
It's very much art, it's just not very good art if it's not well-directed, but you can certainly get there. I don't understand this gatekeeping like it takes anything away from human-generated art. It is, after all, still based on works made by people.
That said, I've met a couple of artists who could learn a thing or two from the AI stuff. 😅
It’s not art. Period.
That is a claim, can you provide the evidence?
I don’t need to. Art is subjective. And I subjectively deny AI as legitimate art.
You are correct in a way. You don't actually need good arguments to backup your claims. You are allowed to make bad ones. Might be easier if you lower you expectations accordingly.
It is. Periodt. 💅
it is.
'its not art." But here it is making you talk about it and feel emotions.
I think there can never be a standard definition of art - and that's the beauty of it. Perhaps some broad characteristics, namely that art conveys emotions. Nevertheless, I think it is unfortunately true that creativity has never been accorded the status it deserve in most societies, at least if monetary remuneration is the measure of appreciation, as is the consensus in most societies. Unfortunately, this seems to me to be a persistent social grievance - not the result of a particular technology. For me, technology is first of all value-free - it is not the technical capability that is bad in itself, it is what we make of it.
For me, technology is first of all value-free -
North Korea has artillery canisters loaded with bioweapons. If it is all a question of what we make of things what positive thing would you make out of a canister full of anthrax designed to be fit in an artillery gun?
The canister could be used for research into a vaccination.
How? How can you possibly use an artillery shell for vaccine research? I want to see you do it
Anthrax is an infection caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. If you had a canister full of that bacterium, you could use it for vaccine research - or as a weapon if you are straight up evil. Why are you asking me random questions?
You are allowed to walk back a claim. It is fine.
It's also initiated and selected by a human. Just because they aren't placing every pixel or wiping a brush on a medium doesn't mean it's not expression.
It’s not art.
It is. You don't need to deny reality, we can see it with our own eyes.
It’s still not art. Sorry, but not everyone thinks that you punching a sentence into a text field makes you an artist.
It's very much art, and I'm here to tell you that just because you can punch a sentence into a Lemmy comment, you won't convince everyone to deny reality with you.
And for some reason you're arguing that prompt engineers are artists when they're not engineers either. I'm not sure why you'd ever being this up but ok.
It’s not art. I don’t care what how you chose to present it. It’s not art. I hope you can be okay with this.
It is, because you don't get to decide what is and isn't art. I know you're not OK with this, too bad.
ROFL!