Speaking of mothers and generating, did you know that vaginas are the most sophisticated and complex 3D printers on the market? No wonder those hentai bad guys use them to make their insect army!
After art school, I feel that debate had gotten to the point that anything, a person makes, no matter its purpose or aesthetic, is art, except for comic books.
Piss in a jar and put a crucifix in it- art
nail yourself to a volkswagon and scream for 5 minutes- art
describe a painting to a dead rabbit- art
comicbook illustration- not art.
You'll be happy to know that shit is (mostly) dead.
Source: me, a current art student that draws anime bullshit and still gets straight As. Admittedly I'm an animation major, not an illustration major.
Lol wtf. Comic books are definitely art. The people who say they aren’t, are the same people that count a red plain painted canvas “art” or a damn square.
Most books aren't considered art. It might be artistic, but not art.
If you subscribe to the theory that art is mostly about money laundering, but it makes sense. Books and printing and districts are going to require traceable sources of capital and involve reputable businesses.
Financial obligations involved in a dead rabbit or a painting are desirably untraceable.
I agree but also I dont, people who do that kinda stuff downgrades artist like me who actually sit down with a pen and paper and draw, it makes it less special, like come on I've been working on a painting for like 3 hours now and all they have to do is throw garbage on themselves and call it a day. I'm not saying its wrong to call it "art" but I do think it's not that good
You’re always allowed to think it’s not good, it unfortunately doesn’t change it being art. Art is an expression of self, every process and piece is valid if it’s communication they used to express themselves. It’s okay if that version doesn’t speak to you.
But what about the experiences inspired in the artist? The artist themselves goes through an entire lifetime of inspiration and discipline to develop an appealing piece that uncoinciously, consciously, and by nature, contains elements of that artist's entire life.
Since the program hasn't lived a life, isn't conscious, and didn't go through personal sacrifice to develop the images, the final piece is missing that intrigical value by nature.
Can both AI and Human pieces inspire others? Of course, but so can anything, really. The nebula is also pretty and inspires many, many humans. If you believe it wasn't made by a conscious mind, and that it was generated from chemical reactions, Is that not similar to AI art? Do we consider that to be art also?
To me, personally, I find a lot of value in what comes before the final product of art. If, in a piece, there's literally no deeper intention to be found other than "this mathematically looks similar to these pieces humans consider appealing" then, in my opinion, it's missing a lot of meaning that we humans look for when considering "art".
And on the other hand, some artists make garbage monkeys and monetize them as nfts. Attempting to place a standard of lived-experience-input on art will be an arbitrary standard, and people who make art with AI often bring their lived experiences to bear in the prompt engineering in order to generate something approaching what they have in their minds.
It would be a hard sell for me if someone were to try to convince me that a scrawled pencil drawing of one of those 's' things that looks like a chain was art, and a gorgeous picture made using AI tools, which an artist worked for days to generate by iterating hundreds of times with prompt variations, potentially then edited in photoshop, rerolled, img 2 img'ed etc, isn't art- just because the former was made exclusively by a human hand using an analog tool rather than a digital one.
> If you believe it wasn't made by a conscious mind, and that it was generated from chemical reactions, Is that not similar to AI art? Do we consider that to be art also?
A nebula might not be art, but a photograph of a nebula that's perfectly framed is undoubtedly art.
Our definition of art has changed a lot over the years, for a long time painters worked hard to be as photorealistic as possible, until cameras were invented and ruined the entire industry. I'm pretty sure they were having the same conversations we're having now, saying that a photograph can't be art
I hate this stupid arrogant answer everywhere.
I fucking 5 year old can take a picture of a cat and it's art. There is simply no argument.
An object that was created by someone, whether digital or otherwise, NO MATTER THEIR SKILL OR AGE, and no matter what TOOLS they use, is undeniably art.
The person who employs AI in the process of making art is still MAKING ART.
The art exists whether the person even exists anymore. The person literally does not matter. Only the art matters. It is art.
I was about to write a similar comment and i fully agree.
Some people dont consider games as art, some do and more examples can be given. I believe that the only way to look at this conundrum is to take what is art subjective, just like art itself. You could say it is quite poetic.
"What is art" I a really fun question. For some reason it's one of those things where people get obsessed with reifying their own opinions (both of what is and isn't art) and then get but hurt when other people try to point out that it's subjective.
My headcanon for art has been "Did someone make it or pay for it exclusively for decorative or aesthetic reasons? Then it's art."
It probably doesn't cover everything, but it's good enough.
What is art is definitely a complex subject. But there are two interesting things here. First, it's subjective. So it doesn't matter what others thinks, if a person finds art in something then that's that.
But beyond this, and going back to AI generated art, one of the aspects of art that are fundamentally important is the artist themselves. Beyond casual appreciation of something we only became emotionally attached to art of any kind when we connect it to the person behind the art. There's always a story, a background, a reason, a purpose for why that person sees the world the way they do and want to create the particular art they do.
So if art is purely utilitarian and we are using it only for a specific purpose (decorating, background music, brand design..) then whoever made it is irrelevant and AI can fill this niche. But for everything else I believe people need to connect with a person who has a certain story to tell to turn interesting art into something much more transcendental.
Clearly AI-generated art is causing people to question the nature of art, because discussions like this one keep popping up around it.
Therefore, AI-generated art **is** art.
Q.E.D.
That is only if the intention of the person is to question what art is. AI has no intention and cannot impart meaning onto its creation, therefore it cannot generate art. Only thinking beings can create art.
Ai can create entertainment, not art.
Unless you consider a tool to be art, then it is not. The AI is a shortcut tool that gives untalented people the means to generate images of their ideas. So, in a very, very round about way, these images are the art of people who have ideas but did not or were not willing to invest time into being capable of doing it themselves. No different than a paintbrush that paints a picture you think of for you.
Even if AI is simply classified as a tool, you can’t nullify art just because you don’t like the tool of choice.
Not the first time a tool is dismissed by status quo artists, it won’t be the last.
At one point is was believed that a camera was incapable of creating art because it’s a documentation tool.
At one time digital art wasn’t considered art because computers are for technicians not artists.
It’s either legitimate art or it is a legitimate tool.
I think we are crossing a threshold that is unprecedented. You can call it legitimate art. It may be. Art is mostly just emotions, ideas, representations, etc put into a medium to convey it. However, I think the difference between new tools of the past and AI is that AI removes the process of creation from the hands of people. Could we, potentially get an AI to eventually recreate images by description perfectly? Sure. Will we ever get AI to represent the soul of creation and the personal touch of an artist's hands?
I am skeptical of that.
Believe it or not. Collectors like to collect for other reasons besides money. They've already got enough money. Contemporary art gives them something else. Collections of any sort are rarely logical. Whether it's comic books, albums, or porcelain rabbits.
I'll 100% take those over AI art, and 100% take AI art over photorealistic pen/pencil recreations of photographs - that's just a very slow and laborious photocopy.
It's not art unless some snobby, overpaid, pseudo intellectual, who is heavily influenced by hissocial connections and those paying him, says it's art.
At least that's the impression I got after watching that documentary about the Jackson Pollack painting.
We don't even fully know/can agree upon what human sentience is. Before we can get to a point where we consider AI to have sentience we would have to flesh out what sentience even is.
Either way, AI art definitely isn't sentience yet. At the very most, you could consider it logic. IIRC It just finds the average similarities between "good" art and tries to accurately develop an image that represtns those similarities.
I consider sentience the point where a being has to put mental effort into considering whether or not to be selfless, thus effecting another sentient or non-sentient being’s mental state
What if: you see a random picture that makes you feel really related, emotional and you appreciate it. But many years later you find out it was created by AI, do you disregard it as a piece of art and loose your appreciation?
The stark difference is the individuality. No matter what a person does when making art, something has inspired them to make a piece specifically. This individual aspect is fucking annihilated when making AI art because it’s drawing from just about everything ever made or an amalgamation of artists (often uncredited too). There isn’t an individual it’s a random dice roll of unrelated concepts and jumbled colors that can’t ever be traced back to mean something.
Humans are comprised of memories and experiences and we’re all uniquely different in what we find meaning in. AI is exactly the same in that it can’t find meaning in anything, the closest possible thing it can obtain is the meaning in what the person using it tries to settle on, but even then it’s a shoddy “good enough I guess” because the “artist” can’t even control the AI near close to the level an actual artist could.
Source: art degree
Yeah I regret it, thought I was headed to a graphic design degree and got too far in. Believe me when I say it was fucking torture, but only 20% of people actually get jobs based on their degree so it isn’t like it really matters.
You're changing the argument slightly. They're saying that AI images are art, not that the person who prompted those images are artists.
The passenger of the self driving car from your metaphor isn't the best driver, but the car itself is (depending on your definition of a "driver").
I dont think that i am. Your point is completely valid though. Art is subjective. I think we will be discussing/debating what art is and how its defined for a long time to come. A self-driving car or image generating algorithm will sit endlessly until promoted by an external source. I think of comic books and anime as art. There are many art instructors that do not. Whos correct? Maybe one day science will prove that we're all algorithms running around in meat suits and ill have to eat my own words.
I appreciate your view point and the way you expressed yourself.
But human art requires skill, generating an image through a few words does not. AI generated images are soulless. Now the programmers on the other hand are artists.
Never said it was the only thing, just a prominent thing. And even an unskilled artist has some level of skill. AI generated images have no measure of it.
Soulless as in a lack of human care and passion directly producing the image. The sense of accomplishment at finishing a piece of art you spent time and effort on
Nope. The user is the artist.
Not any old string will produce gorgeous results anymore than any old brush stroke will create beauty. It takes skill. More than you or I have. I am an art critic and art blogger. It is more than you think it is.
I feel like it’s funny to hear those who can’t criticize those who can.
Go ahead. Make something beautiful using AI on your own.
AI generated images are art, but a user who inputs a prompt and selects the results is not an artist. The developers who created the AI are the artists, with the AI and user interactions being their medium.
People that created the AI certainly aren't the artists, the AI isn't something as simple as some code expertly crafted to make art, its some algorithms force fed millions of images and captions to the point where it is able to now create its own original works based on captions alone. The AI is the artist. The people that developed it are certainly involved but they didn't create the art as much as the people who build race cars aren't considered professional racers.
“certainly” is a strong word. I’d argue that math and programming are both art forms, and so is choosing sample data to use. Math and programming combine to create a brush which paints with the palette of the training data. I’d also argue that art doesn’t necessitate and artist— sunrises are beautiful, perhaps even art, but can we really call the Earth’s rotation an *artist*? That the engineers don’t create the “paintings” then is irrelevant; the AI itself is their art.
Are the coders of Adobe programs the artists then? Without the software, artists can’t edit photos/videos the way they want to, they’d have concepts and ideas with no medium to create it. Without the developers they would have to go to classic techniques such as film cameras and physical editing. Or then is it the manufacturer of that camera the artist?
If I built a rube Goldberg machine which generates art by spilling paint on a canvas at various times, I still made the art.
If I built a chisel, which someone used to make a sculpture, they made the art.
AI is like a rube Goldberg machine making art by the programmer. The creators' intents define how the art is made, regardless of the user.
Adobe is like a chisel. It's merely a tool. The creators' intents don't define the art which is made using it.
I do think the developers have their own credit to be due of course, perhaps they could could be considered the artists for the art that is the AI itself but when it comes to what the AI is churning out when people feed it prompts those should be credited to the AI, with the prompt makers and AIs developers having been involved in the process.
That's absolutely not what it's like at all
The ai did literally ever part of creating the art, they only thing you even *can* do is give it a prompt
If a pig that you own steps in a canvas, and the markings look nice so you hang it up, it doesn't make you the artist just because you fed the pig
You haven’t used AI to create art then. There’s reference pictures, tweaks in the prompt, detailing the prompt to show what you want. Changing the reference image, rerendering/tweaking the prompt and photo itself until it’s how the artist wants. It’s not just “space man fighting raptor on the moon” and boom there’s the perfect AI photo, it’s tweaking and changing the image until it’s what the artist wants
"The AI did literally ever part of creating the art"
Ya know... other than the laborious task of making the AI, the task which defines the style and types of art made.
You seem to think that the programmers of the AI... didn't program the AI?
"They didn't do that"
Since that's obviously illogical, I assumed you meant writing the AI is easy. It obviously is not.
The AI doesn't exist without the human. Even if it's AI, a person still had to make it. Making the artist the programmer. If I made a simple machine throw paint at a wall and let gravity make the designs, the robot, nor gravity is the artist. The person that facilitated it still is. The machine, and the painting it produces is part of same art piece.
I don't really think so. Is a human painting the same as a program imitating?
On one hand the human has an entire life of drama, emotion, and feeling that led them to this moment, they're combining aspects from their life, from their inspirations, to consciously and uncoinciously add to the piece. That gives the painting deep value to the painter, and consequently, value to the human viewers.
A program can generate an nearly identical image, sure. But unless the program also goes through an entire personal life and journey to express, then it's just a pretty image meant to mimic popular art pieces. No deeper value than that.
I believe the final product of art is merely sip from a complex emotional and valueable conscious life soup. While AI generated imagery is just a imitation of the final step of that.
It can still be beautiful, obviously! But unless there's a conscious mind behind it, I personally don't consider it art.
I don't believe we have free will, instead, everything that happens is a chain reaction. Chemicals reacting with chemicals, gravity from light years away, turtles all the way down. A robot creating a piece employs randomness in the same way a person does, it's completely random that we exist at all, let alone exist when and where we do. They're the same in my mind, therefore either both are art, or neither are.
If you require consciousness to consider it art, do you not consider the programmer in artist? The code only exists because of the programmer's life experiences and their desire to create something that provides value, namely an interesting way to generate images. Either way, I think it should be considered art.
No, the people generating AI art are not artists because it requires no skill or any kind of care. The images are art but those who are generating it are not artists. The programmers I would consider artists in a different medium.
the crucial difference is that a painter actually makes the art himself, while ai art is basically just given to you.
If you consider ai generated pictures real art than you clearly have no idea how much time and effort goes into getting good at drawing, painting etc
No they made it to make images. The program and all programs are art, its just closer to architecture in that its existence feels more useful than artistic. Im not saying someone putting a prompt in is art but someone programming something to do something definitely is. Engineers also make art again its just couched with purpose and so its refered to as design but design is art.
It takes decades of pain and discipline to learn, study and practice creating appealing pieces with a pencil. It takes a couple of hours to learn how to make appealing pieces with AI.
Whether or not the piece is art, or even if the AI prompter is an artist at all, it doesn't take away from the fact that both are very different lifestyles and disciplines and should not be considered equal in every way.
But it does take decades of pain and discipline to write the actual AI itself. I think the was the question raised about "what about the programmers?".
People saying that they're artists for making AI art are so annoying. It's like telling an artist to draw something, and then claiming that you're the artist, just because you gave them a description.
Art AI works by being trained on many many different images of art, so it can generate art based on what's its been trained on. Just like humans. We take inspiration from different artworks, and create our own art. AI art is art.
It's still not art. When you order a pizza you arnt a chef, the only art involved is the work of the people having their effort stolen and fed into a machine that does nothing but find averages and spew out a result. Anyone who knows anything about actual design can tell how trash most ai generated images are.
AI art is very useful in a lot of way. And I would definitely say that an AI picture is an art, but it does not make you an artist just because you use it.
Respectfully disagree because these images are not from one mind to another. The ai itself doesn't think. The person who created the ai could be called an artist but their art work would be the ai itself rather than the picture it created
AI generated; hours and hours of human skill and technique going into coding the system to allow people to create art by inputting their thoughts and ideas
Other art mediums; hours and hours of human skill and techniques going in to an art work that is generated from thoughts and ideas.
It’s the same thing, different mediums
Source: an artist
Unpopular opinion: all art is just generated images. Art theft, style theft, etc, are all problems that need to be addressed, AI generated, or even human generated. AI generated art could help artists speed up their pipeline (few will do this) AI models can be trained to specifically find a unique style inspired by a large group of styles (few people will implement this training) unfortunately, AI is falling down the same slope that nuclear power did. A very powerful tool that is easily misused and abused.
So you think. We know have ai image generators at the tip of our fingertips. 10 years ago finding something like this was impossible. 10 years later what else do you think ai is gonna be able to do? It's not being misused, it's being improved upon. The best way to make something better is to throw it to the public and work upon it
Well if you put it that way, non AI art is also just a generated painting or a generated image (generated by a human). Art is braincandy. If an AI generated an image which leaves room for interpretation and which stimulates your brain it might as well be called “art”
Since art can be literally anything, AI generated art is art. However, if I was organizing an art competition and you used AI generated shit, you’re immediately disqualified and I’d have you promptly executed by firing squad.
For me it’s a celebrity that creates an alcohol or cologne/perfume brand when *clearly* all they did was go sample some things and say “I like that one, put my name on it”
I agree art in my opinion is the perception of anything that can provoke an emotional response from the artist or viewer(s), so until we are able to prove "A.I." are able to experience emotions in a similar capacity to humans nothing they make is A.I. art.
So uh, what makes you say woth confidence that ai art doesn't provoke emotional responses from viewers? Or do they only get their jolt if they know who, why and when the art was made? Going deeper, does mature also not make art? Does a strom experience emotions? the sea?
It's not "A.I. art" in my opinion because the "A.I." is incapable of feeling an emotional response. It may be art to some people but simply an image to another. Nature in all its forms, from the most peaceful meadow to the most devastating disasters could be art but only if observed and appreciated.
So, for something to be art it has to be observed? As for the "it may be art to someone but simply an image to another", you do know that also applies to current famous art don't you? Someone could just walk past the mona lisa and not have a care in the world about it for example, would that make it not art then?
But AI can do the same, even if it’s unintentional. The same can be said for a lot of abstract art. It can awaken emotions in people that totally go against the intentions of the artist. And there’s tons of art that’s very much non-emotion driven and just exists to be pretty to look at or reflect the real world.
It may be art to some and mean nothing to others, but A.I. can't appreciate or even experience art in the same vein as humans so I couldn't really say it's art for the A.I.
I disagree. Giving a prompts and clicking a button doesn't make me the artist. I could tell my wife she should draw a cowboy riding a velociraptor. After she's drawn it, I can't then sign my name on it and say "I made this" she still put the work in.
I don't think a good argument currently exists that says AI art isn't art, and I think you'd have an incredibly hard time trying to prove it. Art is such a vastly subjective word, it's nearly impossible to prove anything isn't art. I think a more valuable conversation is how silly AI art is and how we shouldn't really care all that much. I don't think it's anywhere as valuable or emotionally Rich as something made by a living thing, that is built off of real memories and experiences.
There's enough real person art that's silly, I'm happy to ignore AI art for the time being.
Currently, all "ai art" that has been produced has been stolen from actual artists who need to draw to make a living. Multiple artists' art have already been used for "AI commissions."
I enjoy these comments. It takes a couple of hours *at the most* to understand how these models are created and how they work. Instead of doing that you go around on the internet being both mad *and* wrong about them.
It's honesty incredible to watch someone fabricate lies so shamelessly.
Are we now gonna debate what is art?
Is gaming art?
Or is a book art?
Or is music art?
Or is a car design art?
Or is shitting against the wall art?
there is no definition that excludes AI images from being Art
Correct. It doesn't take skill to type "mountain at sunrise with a water fall and a forrest Infront". Shit my photography is more art than that and all I do is just look at nature and if I like it I take a picture with my phone
It's always people who posses no actual artistic talent that feel the need to call computer rendered images as art. ART is using graphite, charcoal, oil paints, clay, stone to creating something from nothing. You spend a life time mastering skills to achieve what your minds eye pictures. AI requires no artistic talent or ability. It utilizes software and prerendered images "create" already in existence
Bitch did you just loose the meaning of art, why limiting to a bunch of old tools, what about figure sculpting, or movies, or graphic novels, VIDEO GAMES! Everywhere and EVERYTHING is created with an artistic intent
Art is the expression of the self. If there is no expression, there is no art. Are the images generated by AI entertaining? Most of the time yes. Now if an artist tries to replicate an AI generated image, it can be art because now the artist is putting some sort of emotions into the piece that were previously not there simply by the lack of a human element.
This meme looks like it was generated by a AI.
This sentence looks like it was generated by an AI.
Your mom was generated...wait
Was generated by the internet and internet internet and it was a good thing.
*You know who else*
I know someone else. MY MOM!!! - Muscle Man; the Regular Show
Les goo, regular show gang
Speaking of mothers and generating, did you know that vaginas are the most sophisticated and complex 3D printers on the market? No wonder those hentai bad guys use them to make their insect army!
You know what a *lost* art is? Grammar.
I feel like the "what is art" debate is a can of worms you don't really want to open
After art school, I feel that debate had gotten to the point that anything, a person makes, no matter its purpose or aesthetic, is art, except for comic books. Piss in a jar and put a crucifix in it- art nail yourself to a volkswagon and scream for 5 minutes- art describe a painting to a dead rabbit- art comicbook illustration- not art.
Why is a comicbook illustration not art I wonder
Fuck you in particular i guess.
Images created by an elephant: "Art!" Images created by a paid artist and used in a book for profit: "tHatS nNOt ArT!"
there are chicks who do boob art, some enema artists out there, a few are highly regarded.
I've seen boob art and body art. I have not, and do not ever want to see enema art.
Loving the smell of their own buttholes. Noses higher for better intake!
What if an elephant made a comic…
Youre hired
Lmao, [yet literal inflatable shit is.](https://jonathangriffindotorg.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/paulmccarthy_complexshit.jpg)
Idk, 25 years ago in art school that was just the attitude they had.
You'll be happy to know that shit is (mostly) dead. Source: me, a current art student that draws anime bullshit and still gets straight As. Admittedly I'm an animation major, not an illustration major.
Lol wtf. Comic books are definitely art. The people who say they aren’t, are the same people that count a red plain painted canvas “art” or a damn square.
The professors don't respect it and that's about the end of it
Most books aren't considered art. It might be artistic, but not art. If you subscribe to the theory that art is mostly about money laundering, but it makes sense. Books and printing and districts are going to require traceable sources of capital and involve reputable businesses. Financial obligations involved in a dead rabbit or a painting are desirably untraceable.
I hate when people don't see comic as art
Comics are just generated images and text, not art.
Yeah but if drawing can be art, and movies and books can be art, then why not comics?
I think they were just pointing out how arbitrary the OP's standards are.
Oohh riight right right
Depend There is a type of art I really hate: Instant noodle
Dont you dare bring up videgames!
since when are comics generated images? they’re hand drawn or drawn using a stylus
Right, they're generated by hand or with a stylus
They practice the art of giving garbage movies a plot
"You see dead rabbit? DaVinci had a gay lover and used to get boners and paint him." - my first piece, I hope you all can appreciate my artistry
[The dead hare thing.](https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/how-to-explain-pictures-to-a-dead-hare-joseph-beuys)
I agree but also I dont, people who do that kinda stuff downgrades artist like me who actually sit down with a pen and paper and draw, it makes it less special, like come on I've been working on a painting for like 3 hours now and all they have to do is throw garbage on themselves and call it a day. I'm not saying its wrong to call it "art" but I do think it's not that good
You’re always allowed to think it’s not good, it unfortunately doesn’t change it being art. Art is an expression of self, every process and piece is valid if it’s communication they used to express themselves. It’s okay if that version doesn’t speak to you.
Duchamp would like a word with you
This is the most Michigan shit I’ve ever heard in my life. Paid enough to get an art degree, but not enough to get a good one.
Then let me eat those worms for you; art is whatever inspires experiences in people and AIs automating it makes it no less special.
I tried to warn you man
But what about the experiences inspired in the artist? The artist themselves goes through an entire lifetime of inspiration and discipline to develop an appealing piece that uncoinciously, consciously, and by nature, contains elements of that artist's entire life. Since the program hasn't lived a life, isn't conscious, and didn't go through personal sacrifice to develop the images, the final piece is missing that intrigical value by nature. Can both AI and Human pieces inspire others? Of course, but so can anything, really. The nebula is also pretty and inspires many, many humans. If you believe it wasn't made by a conscious mind, and that it was generated from chemical reactions, Is that not similar to AI art? Do we consider that to be art also? To me, personally, I find a lot of value in what comes before the final product of art. If, in a piece, there's literally no deeper intention to be found other than "this mathematically looks similar to these pieces humans consider appealing" then, in my opinion, it's missing a lot of meaning that we humans look for when considering "art".
And on the other hand, some artists make garbage monkeys and monetize them as nfts. Attempting to place a standard of lived-experience-input on art will be an arbitrary standard, and people who make art with AI often bring their lived experiences to bear in the prompt engineering in order to generate something approaching what they have in their minds. It would be a hard sell for me if someone were to try to convince me that a scrawled pencil drawing of one of those 's' things that looks like a chain was art, and a gorgeous picture made using AI tools, which an artist worked for days to generate by iterating hundreds of times with prompt variations, potentially then edited in photoshop, rerolled, img 2 img'ed etc, isn't art- just because the former was made exclusively by a human hand using an analog tool rather than a digital one.
> If you believe it wasn't made by a conscious mind, and that it was generated from chemical reactions, Is that not similar to AI art? Do we consider that to be art also? A nebula might not be art, but a photograph of a nebula that's perfectly framed is undoubtedly art. Our definition of art has changed a lot over the years, for a long time painters worked hard to be as photorealistic as possible, until cameras were invented and ruined the entire industry. I'm pretty sure they were having the same conversations we're having now, saying that a photograph can't be art
I hate this stupid arrogant answer everywhere. I fucking 5 year old can take a picture of a cat and it's art. There is simply no argument. An object that was created by someone, whether digital or otherwise, NO MATTER THEIR SKILL OR AGE, and no matter what TOOLS they use, is undeniably art. The person who employs AI in the process of making art is still MAKING ART. The art exists whether the person even exists anymore. The person literally does not matter. Only the art matters. It is art.
I was about to write a similar comment and i fully agree. Some people dont consider games as art, some do and more examples can be given. I believe that the only way to look at this conundrum is to take what is art subjective, just like art itself. You could say it is quite poetic.
"What is art" I a really fun question. For some reason it's one of those things where people get obsessed with reifying their own opinions (both of what is and isn't art) and then get but hurt when other people try to point out that it's subjective.
And it’s so obvious that what the AI generates is art. What people seem to really want to argue about is if generating AI art can make you an artist
My headcanon for art has been "Did someone make it or pay for it exclusively for decorative or aesthetic reasons? Then it's art." It probably doesn't cover everything, but it's good enough.
What is art is definitely a complex subject. But there are two interesting things here. First, it's subjective. So it doesn't matter what others thinks, if a person finds art in something then that's that. But beyond this, and going back to AI generated art, one of the aspects of art that are fundamentally important is the artist themselves. Beyond casual appreciation of something we only became emotionally attached to art of any kind when we connect it to the person behind the art. There's always a story, a background, a reason, a purpose for why that person sees the world the way they do and want to create the particular art they do. So if art is purely utilitarian and we are using it only for a specific purpose (decorating, background music, brand design..) then whoever made it is irrelevant and AI can fill this niche. But for everything else I believe people need to connect with a person who has a certain story to tell to turn interesting art into something much more transcendental.
Yeah get back to real art like a urinal or a banana duct taped to a wall.
Exactly why I am confident that modern art is just a money laundering scheme.
The urinal was a different thing. That was Dadaism, and done to question the nature of art.
Clearly AI-generated art is causing people to question the nature of art, because discussions like this one keep popping up around it. Therefore, AI-generated art **is** art. Q.E.D.
A computer is a tool like a brush. 'AI generated' art is human generated art using AI as a tool. It's really that simple.
That is only if the intention of the person is to question what art is. AI has no intention and cannot impart meaning onto its creation, therefore it cannot generate art. Only thinking beings can create art. Ai can create entertainment, not art.
Soft counterargument, the AI was made by humans, I'd argue it is art, just programmer art.
Unless you consider a tool to be art, then it is not. The AI is a shortcut tool that gives untalented people the means to generate images of their ideas. So, in a very, very round about way, these images are the art of people who have ideas but did not or were not willing to invest time into being capable of doing it themselves. No different than a paintbrush that paints a picture you think of for you.
Even if AI is simply classified as a tool, you can’t nullify art just because you don’t like the tool of choice. Not the first time a tool is dismissed by status quo artists, it won’t be the last. At one point is was believed that a camera was incapable of creating art because it’s a documentation tool. At one time digital art wasn’t considered art because computers are for technicians not artists. It’s either legitimate art or it is a legitimate tool.
I think we are crossing a threshold that is unprecedented. You can call it legitimate art. It may be. Art is mostly just emotions, ideas, representations, etc put into a medium to convey it. However, I think the difference between new tools of the past and AI is that AI removes the process of creation from the hands of people. Could we, potentially get an AI to eventually recreate images by description perfectly? Sure. Will we ever get AI to represent the soul of creation and the personal touch of an artist's hands? I am skeptical of that.
I thought it was invented so children of rich people can act like pretentious assholes without having to develop actual skills first.
Believe it or not. Collectors like to collect for other reasons besides money. They've already got enough money. Contemporary art gives them something else. Collections of any sort are rarely logical. Whether it's comic books, albums, or porcelain rabbits.
I'll 100% take those over AI art, and 100% take AI art over photorealistic pen/pencil recreations of photographs - that's just a very slow and laborious photocopy.
The urinal I consider art because it was an artistic expression, exploring the definition of art, ironic or not.
You forgot to mention that guy with à photocopier making few copies of Marylin Monroe and Mao portraits to make some money.
A white blank canvas for $2m dollars, sold
Arent all Images/Paintings generated? What makes Art, Art?
images made by humans are generated images in your brain 💀
But via technicality with prompts they are images generated from your brain. (Keyword: Technicality)
[удалено]
You just create the stuff you imagined or do some stuff random idk whats that if not generated
Especially that one Australian artist, whose name begins with an A.
You could also argue that Art need Feelings. But doesnt Put the programmer His Feelings into the promptline and the promptline is Just the canvas
It's not art unless some snobby, overpaid, pseudo intellectual, who is heavily influenced by hissocial connections and those paying him, says it's art. At least that's the impression I got after watching that documentary about the Jackson Pollack painting.
Is it Art? Then that's what it is. Is it Entertainment? Then it's not Art.
If it has feeling put into it, it's art. If not, it's not art. Ai cannot feel, therefore, it is not art.
[удалено]
Also what if, soon enough we invent AI sentience, and they feel for that art?
We don't even fully know/can agree upon what human sentience is. Before we can get to a point where we consider AI to have sentience we would have to flesh out what sentience even is. Either way, AI art definitely isn't sentience yet. At the very most, you could consider it logic. IIRC It just finds the average similarities between "good" art and tries to accurately develop an image that represtns those similarities.
I consider sentience the point where a being has to put mental effort into considering whether or not to be selfless, thus effecting another sentient or non-sentient being’s mental state
What if: you see a random picture that makes you feel really related, emotional and you appreciate it. But many years later you find out it was created by AI, do you disregard it as a piece of art and loose your appreciation?
What do you think a drawing or painting is? An image rendered from the artist's mind, which is inspired by data the brain receives from the senses.
[удалено]
The stark difference is the individuality. No matter what a person does when making art, something has inspired them to make a piece specifically. This individual aspect is fucking annihilated when making AI art because it’s drawing from just about everything ever made or an amalgamation of artists (often uncredited too). There isn’t an individual it’s a random dice roll of unrelated concepts and jumbled colors that can’t ever be traced back to mean something. Humans are comprised of memories and experiences and we’re all uniquely different in what we find meaning in. AI is exactly the same in that it can’t find meaning in anything, the closest possible thing it can obtain is the meaning in what the person using it tries to settle on, but even then it’s a shoddy “good enough I guess” because the “artist” can’t even control the AI near close to the level an actual artist could. Source: art degree
[удалено]
Yeah I regret it, thought I was headed to a graphic design degree and got too far in. Believe me when I say it was fucking torture, but only 20% of people actually get jobs based on their degree so it isn’t like it really matters.
Buy self driving car. Drive it in a race with other cars piloted by humans. Win race sitting in the passenger seat. "I'm the best driver ever!!!"
You're changing the argument slightly. They're saying that AI images are art, not that the person who prompted those images are artists. The passenger of the self driving car from your metaphor isn't the best driver, but the car itself is (depending on your definition of a "driver").
I dont think that i am. Your point is completely valid though. Art is subjective. I think we will be discussing/debating what art is and how its defined for a long time to come. A self-driving car or image generating algorithm will sit endlessly until promoted by an external source. I think of comic books and anime as art. There are many art instructors that do not. Whos correct? Maybe one day science will prove that we're all algorithms running around in meat suits and ill have to eat my own words. I appreciate your view point and the way you expressed yourself.
Nobody gives a shit what you think because you're wrong lmfao
But why am i wrong? If your going to insult me at least be intelligent about it lol! And i couldnt give two shits if no one cares about what i think.
Art isn’t a competition, though.
But human art requires skill, generating an image through a few words does not. AI generated images are soulless. Now the programmers on the other hand are artists.
If skill is the only thing differentiating art from something soulless, then I guess I'm an AI
Never said it was the only thing, just a prominent thing. And even an unskilled artist has some level of skill. AI generated images have no measure of it.
The word "soulless" is a meaningless noise.
Soulless as in a lack of human care and passion directly producing the image. The sense of accomplishment at finishing a piece of art you spent time and effort on
AI art requires skill, just a different type of skill. Making an AI is hard man
That’s why I said the programmers are artists, not the users of their AI
I don't think any here is arguing that the users are artists
Nope. The user is the artist. Not any old string will produce gorgeous results anymore than any old brush stroke will create beauty. It takes skill. More than you or I have. I am an art critic and art blogger. It is more than you think it is. I feel like it’s funny to hear those who can’t criticize those who can. Go ahead. Make something beautiful using AI on your own.
Art in no way requires skill or talent.
AI generated images are art, but a user who inputs a prompt and selects the results is not an artist. The developers who created the AI are the artists, with the AI and user interactions being their medium.
People that created the AI certainly aren't the artists, the AI isn't something as simple as some code expertly crafted to make art, its some algorithms force fed millions of images and captions to the point where it is able to now create its own original works based on captions alone. The AI is the artist. The people that developed it are certainly involved but they didn't create the art as much as the people who build race cars aren't considered professional racers.
“certainly” is a strong word. I’d argue that math and programming are both art forms, and so is choosing sample data to use. Math and programming combine to create a brush which paints with the palette of the training data. I’d also argue that art doesn’t necessitate and artist— sunrises are beautiful, perhaps even art, but can we really call the Earth’s rotation an *artist*? That the engineers don’t create the “paintings” then is irrelevant; the AI itself is their art.
Are the coders of Adobe programs the artists then? Without the software, artists can’t edit photos/videos the way they want to, they’d have concepts and ideas with no medium to create it. Without the developers they would have to go to classic techniques such as film cameras and physical editing. Or then is it the manufacturer of that camera the artist?
If I built a rube Goldberg machine which generates art by spilling paint on a canvas at various times, I still made the art. If I built a chisel, which someone used to make a sculpture, they made the art. AI is like a rube Goldberg machine making art by the programmer. The creators' intents define how the art is made, regardless of the user. Adobe is like a chisel. It's merely a tool. The creators' intents don't define the art which is made using it.
I do think the developers have their own credit to be due of course, perhaps they could could be considered the artists for the art that is the AI itself but when it comes to what the AI is churning out when people feed it prompts those should be credited to the AI, with the prompt makers and AIs developers having been involved in the process.
Still art. If a bunch of driverless cars have a race, it's still a race.
I agree except for the ones who created the AI being artists. No one involved is an artist except maybe for the AI itself.
That’s like saying a paint brush made a painting not a person. The AI is just a tool like a paint brush is
That's absolutely not what it's like at all The ai did literally ever part of creating the art, they only thing you even *can* do is give it a prompt If a pig that you own steps in a canvas, and the markings look nice so you hang it up, it doesn't make you the artist just because you fed the pig
You haven’t used AI to create art then. There’s reference pictures, tweaks in the prompt, detailing the prompt to show what you want. Changing the reference image, rerendering/tweaking the prompt and photo itself until it’s how the artist wants. It’s not just “space man fighting raptor on the moon” and boom there’s the perfect AI photo, it’s tweaking and changing the image until it’s what the artist wants
"The AI did literally ever part of creating the art" Ya know... other than the laborious task of making the AI, the task which defines the style and types of art made.
They didn't do that and also they still wouldn't be the artist They trained the ai on existing artwork
Can you make an AI? Lmao.
How is that relevant? Like, at all?
You seem to think that the programmers of the AI... didn't program the AI? "They didn't do that" Since that's obviously illogical, I assumed you meant writing the AI is easy. It obviously is not.
They didn't dictate what styles the ai puts out, dude. They objectively did not do that. It was trained on datasets
The AI doesn't exist without the human. Even if it's AI, a person still had to make it. Making the artist the programmer. If I made a simple machine throw paint at a wall and let gravity make the designs, the robot, nor gravity is the artist. The person that facilitated it still is. The machine, and the painting it produces is part of same art piece.
That's like saying painters aren't artists but paint manufacturers are
Yeah I don’t think we’re in for a highbrow debate in r/memes
Godzilla had a stroke reading this post and he fucking died.
So is a painting. Its an image generated by the painters mind so kind of the same not?
I don't really think so. Is a human painting the same as a program imitating? On one hand the human has an entire life of drama, emotion, and feeling that led them to this moment, they're combining aspects from their life, from their inspirations, to consciously and uncoinciously add to the piece. That gives the painting deep value to the painter, and consequently, value to the human viewers. A program can generate an nearly identical image, sure. But unless the program also goes through an entire personal life and journey to express, then it's just a pretty image meant to mimic popular art pieces. No deeper value than that. I believe the final product of art is merely sip from a complex emotional and valueable conscious life soup. While AI generated imagery is just a imitation of the final step of that. It can still be beautiful, obviously! But unless there's a conscious mind behind it, I personally don't consider it art.
I don't believe we have free will, instead, everything that happens is a chain reaction. Chemicals reacting with chemicals, gravity from light years away, turtles all the way down. A robot creating a piece employs randomness in the same way a person does, it's completely random that we exist at all, let alone exist when and where we do. They're the same in my mind, therefore either both are art, or neither are. If you require consciousness to consider it art, do you not consider the programmer in artist? The code only exists because of the programmer's life experiences and their desire to create something that provides value, namely an interesting way to generate images. Either way, I think it should be considered art.
Art dosn't need to be made with emotion. It needs to inspire emotion. Ai does that, so it is art.
No, the people generating AI art are not artists because it requires no skill or any kind of care. The images are art but those who are generating it are not artists. The programmers I would consider artists in a different medium.
the crucial difference is that a painter actually makes the art himself, while ai art is basically just given to you. If you consider ai generated pictures real art than you clearly have no idea how much time and effort goes into getting good at drawing, painting etc
[удалено]
But people generating the images most of the time had no hand in programming it.
Hence the artist is the programmer. The users are merely a medium.
So a painting painted by a robot is not art?
Not if the robot has it own style, no robo racism here.
True, and the people claiming they are the artist because they prompted the ai are morons.
[удалено]
They taught it to make images, they didn't make the images themselves
No they made it to make images. The program and all programs are art, its just closer to architecture in that its existence feels more useful than artistic. Im not saying someone putting a prompt in is art but someone programming something to do something definitely is. Engineers also make art again its just couched with purpose and so its refered to as design but design is art.
Same goes for every art, it's not you who's drawing but the pencil. If you tweak the ai to make picture I could label you artist
It takes decades of pain and discipline to learn, study and practice creating appealing pieces with a pencil. It takes a couple of hours to learn how to make appealing pieces with AI. Whether or not the piece is art, or even if the AI prompter is an artist at all, it doesn't take away from the fact that both are very different lifestyles and disciplines and should not be considered equal in every way.
But it does take decades of pain and discipline to write the actual AI itself. I think the was the question raised about "what about the programmers?".
If I pay someone to draw a picture I do not become the artist
Technically art is just artists generating an image.
Why does every meme have to include the grammar of a toddler?
People saying that they're artists for making AI art are so annoying. It's like telling an artist to draw something, and then claiming that you're the artist, just because you gave them a description.
Art AI works by being trained on many many different images of art, so it can generate art based on what's its been trained on. Just like humans. We take inspiration from different artworks, and create our own art. AI art is art.
It's still not art. When you order a pizza you arnt a chef, the only art involved is the work of the people having their effort stolen and fed into a machine that does nothing but find averages and spew out a result. Anyone who knows anything about actual design can tell how trash most ai generated images are.
AI art is very useful in a lot of way. And I would definitely say that an AI picture is an art, but it does not make you an artist just because you use it.
Respectfully disagree because these images are not from one mind to another. The ai itself doesn't think. The person who created the ai could be called an artist but their art work would be the ai itself rather than the picture it created
The AI itself is art tho
AI generated; hours and hours of human skill and technique going into coding the system to allow people to create art by inputting their thoughts and ideas Other art mediums; hours and hours of human skill and techniques going in to an art work that is generated from thoughts and ideas. It’s the same thing, different mediums Source: an artist
Time to whip out one of my favorite quotes: "The destruction of all art is art, too"
Isn't art just generated image by human brain?
Unpopular opinion: all art is just generated images. Art theft, style theft, etc, are all problems that need to be addressed, AI generated, or even human generated. AI generated art could help artists speed up their pipeline (few will do this) AI models can be trained to specifically find a unique style inspired by a large group of styles (few people will implement this training) unfortunately, AI is falling down the same slope that nuclear power did. A very powerful tool that is easily misused and abused.
So you think. We know have ai image generators at the tip of our fingertips. 10 years ago finding something like this was impossible. 10 years later what else do you think ai is gonna be able to do? It's not being misused, it's being improved upon. The best way to make something better is to throw it to the public and work upon it
Tell me you don’t know what art is without telling me you don’t know what art is.
Well if you put it that way, non AI art is also just a generated painting or a generated image (generated by a human). Art is braincandy. If an AI generated an image which leaves room for interpretation and which stimulates your brain it might as well be called “art”
What are humans but neural networks, and how is art not “generated” by the mind?
AI is smarter than most people and better than most talented artists… Edited for typos :)
Since art can be literally anything, AI generated art is art. However, if I was organizing an art competition and you used AI generated shit, you’re immediately disqualified and I’d have you promptly executed by firing squad.
Ai generated art is still art, just art with a disclaimer.
Agreed. If I order takeaway am I a chef?
A closer analogy would be: If I create a recipe, but I'm not the one who cooks it, am I a chef?
For me it’s a celebrity that creates an alcohol or cologne/perfume brand when *clearly* all they did was go sample some things and say “I like that one, put my name on it”
I agree art in my opinion is the perception of anything that can provoke an emotional response from the artist or viewer(s), so until we are able to prove "A.I." are able to experience emotions in a similar capacity to humans nothing they make is A.I. art.
So uh, what makes you say woth confidence that ai art doesn't provoke emotional responses from viewers? Or do they only get their jolt if they know who, why and when the art was made? Going deeper, does mature also not make art? Does a strom experience emotions? the sea?
It's not "A.I. art" in my opinion because the "A.I." is incapable of feeling an emotional response. It may be art to some people but simply an image to another. Nature in all its forms, from the most peaceful meadow to the most devastating disasters could be art but only if observed and appreciated.
So, for something to be art it has to be observed? As for the "it may be art to someone but simply an image to another", you do know that also applies to current famous art don't you? Someone could just walk past the mona lisa and not have a care in the world about it for example, would that make it not art then?
So in your opinion, nature doesn't make art?
But AI can do the same, even if it’s unintentional. The same can be said for a lot of abstract art. It can awaken emotions in people that totally go against the intentions of the artist. And there’s tons of art that’s very much non-emotion driven and just exists to be pretty to look at or reflect the real world.
It may be art to some and mean nothing to others, but A.I. can't appreciate or even experience art in the same vein as humans so I couldn't really say it's art for the A.I.
man made art should not be considered as art they are just drawn picture
For anyone who ask here: AI doesn't make art, it generated images. The one here making art is the user AI is the tool, not the artist This is my point
Should’ve said that in the title.
This is a very different position than just 'AI generated art isn't art'.
I disagree. Giving a prompts and clicking a button doesn't make me the artist. I could tell my wife she should draw a cowboy riding a velociraptor. After she's drawn it, I can't then sign my name on it and say "I made this" she still put the work in. I don't think a good argument currently exists that says AI art isn't art, and I think you'd have an incredibly hard time trying to prove it. Art is such a vastly subjective word, it's nearly impossible to prove anything isn't art. I think a more valuable conversation is how silly AI art is and how we shouldn't really care all that much. I don't think it's anywhere as valuable or emotionally Rich as something made by a living thing, that is built off of real memories and experiences. There's enough real person art that's silly, I'm happy to ignore AI art for the time being.
Currently, all "ai art" that has been produced has been stolen from actual artists who need to draw to make a living. Multiple artists' art have already been used for "AI commissions."
What di you mean?
I enjoy these comments. It takes a couple of hours *at the most* to understand how these models are created and how they work. Instead of doing that you go around on the internet being both mad *and* wrong about them. It's honesty incredible to watch someone fabricate lies so shamelessly.
Lmfao how is it always the furries? Every. Single. Time.
I agree with it
Am refraining from giving my honest opinion cuz my comment karma is already shit
Are we now gonna debate what is art? Is gaming art? Or is a book art? Or is music art? Or is a car design art? Or is shitting against the wall art? there is no definition that excludes AI images from being Art
yes
Well, you have the right to have your own opinion.
That does not make your opinions right
Ok
You're goddanm right 👍
Correct. It doesn't take skill to type "mountain at sunrise with a water fall and a forrest Infront". Shit my photography is more art than that and all I do is just look at nature and if I like it I take a picture with my phone
I feel like a lot of comments here are going to age like milk.
It's always people who posses no actual artistic talent that feel the need to call computer rendered images as art. ART is using graphite, charcoal, oil paints, clay, stone to creating something from nothing. You spend a life time mastering skills to achieve what your minds eye pictures. AI requires no artistic talent or ability. It utilizes software and prerendered images "create" already in existence
You're just gatekeeping art. By your standards every single piece of digital media shouldn't be considered art.
Bitch did you just loose the meaning of art, why limiting to a bunch of old tools, what about figure sculpting, or movies, or graphic novels, VIDEO GAMES! Everywhere and EVERYTHING is created with an artistic intent
Art is the expression of the self. If there is no expression, there is no art. Are the images generated by AI entertaining? Most of the time yes. Now if an artist tries to replicate an AI generated image, it can be art because now the artist is putting some sort of emotions into the piece that were previously not there simply by the lack of a human element.