I don't have much sympathy for this person in specific given their comments and behavior. But I have wondered where the line is between "new tool" and "not art." Like with a movie director, there...
I don't have much sympathy for this person in specific given their comments and behavior. But I have wondered where the line is between "new tool" and "not art."
Like with a movie director, there is work and skill to bring a vision to life, and it's often not even understood by actors at the time of filming, like with Mad Max.
So would someone with a very specific vision, working with future tools to fine tune, craft, and shape every little detail of an image be considered art? There can be beauty and art in a math proof as well, but those don't draw much of a crowd at galleries.
So I think there is a deeper conversation waiting to be had when and if the tools evolve to allow for micro adjustment, or composites, or something I can't conceptualize yet being possible with the application of vision and commitment.
I'm also reminded of art, like oil paintings of nautical settings that were quick and easy to churn out in a way that captivates many people, but it's considered "mass market" in the art world and conversations about the shape of the seagulls, etc. But that whole discussion exists because even though there are oodles of these types of paintings that are quick to churn out, they still captivate people and conjure a feeling of the sea and port.
Essentialist statements about art as intrinsically human are some of the weakest arguments in this whole debate. They rely on a rather fixed and limited interpretation of art, a concept so...
Essentialist statements about art as intrinsically human are some of the weakest arguments in this whole debate. They rely on a rather fixed and limited interpretation of art, a concept so slippery, mutable, and multiple that it is rarely clarifying.
At 42, it's weird how 20-year-olds hold such antiquated views all over YouTube.
I do believe there are very strong arguments against AI art. Chiefly the financial and emotional ones. But essentialism is so weak philosophically it makes me queasy.
As I have said previously, in my opinion, the question "Is this art?" is not the most productive one. The most productive question is is this fair?
I think you might have the age thing a bit backwards. Try coming of age as a new artist where many of the opportunities to work in professional art jobs are being crushed by skill-less prompters....
I think you might have the age thing a bit backwards. Try coming of age as a new artist where many of the opportunities to work in professional art jobs are being crushed by skill-less prompters. We've already seen instances of D&D art coming through that has ended up being AI generated... that's a slot where a new and upcoming artist could have been. I think, of all the people that should be screaming from the rooftops about AI, the younger generation is going to be the loudest and fervent about it because they're currently losing their artistic voice. It's easy as an older person (and potentially non-artist?) to not see the human side being effected. For them it's real and they're already seeing machines churn through their future.
My discomfort is exclusively about arguments from essence, which I believe to be flawed. You are seemingly describing the financial argument, which I stated to be a very strong one ;)
My discomfort is exclusively about arguments from essence, which I believe to be flawed. You are seemingly describing the financial argument, which I stated to be a very strong one ;)
I think social media conversations inevitably jump to broad sweeping essentialist statements like that because most people don't know enough about a given topic to get into actual details, and the...
I think social media conversations inevitably jump to broad sweeping essentialist statements like that because most people don't know enough about a given topic to get into actual details, and the ones that do aren't writing tweets that have mass appeal.
I'm reminded of how the meaning of art is not necessarily subjective (and arguably not at all). I loved this PhilosophyTube exploration on this issue. So in that vein, when you have an AI creating...
So in that vein, when you have an AI creating the majority of the art....there is no meaning behind the art because the AI has no emotion behind its creation.
So the question kind of becomes "Was this picture of a boat created to evoke a feeling, or was this picture of a boat created because somebody wanted a picture of a boat on a wall?"
And while both pictures can evoke the same feeling, they often don't. At least, not to somebody actively looking instead of just seeing (the same difference between listening and hearing).
And that's why The Mona Lisa, despite all its acclaim....is kinda trash. Scratch this commentary, I'm thinking of a different painting I think. One the artist considered a bit of a throwaway that the public at large became obsessed with. But my memory is failing me and I think I got it wrong.
I think this gets into the whole, is it the intent of the artist, the difficulty of the work, or the interpretation of the viewer that makes something art? For me the answer is "yes" and probably...
I think this gets into the whole, is it the intent of the artist, the difficulty of the work, or the interpretation of the viewer that makes something art? For me the answer is "yes" and probably other factors. There are probably as many ways for something to be considered art as their are ways for people to find to appreciate something.
But I'm one of those people who loves the mass market nautical paintings, oil on canvas, and will stare at them and think of time on the sea. 🙂 So my art chops are C tier.
Edit: though I have a good knowledge and understanding of art in the age of sail, including classics like Vermeer's hat, and love to look for clues to the world in those paintings like signs of trade and from where.
Your personal enjoyment of a work is subjective and that's a fine thing. I did edit in at some point about how quality that is subjective, but how it's the meaning that is often not. You enjoy...
Your personal enjoyment of a work is subjective and that's a fine thing. I did edit in at some point about how quality that is subjective, but how it's the meaning that is often not.
You enjoy that mass-market sea art. I have some of my own, three Wesley Wess Hand Cast Paper pieces I found in a thrift store. The one seashell I have is similar to this one. I found a thread where the artist himself makes an appearance. Best I can tell, there are many similar pieces, but each one is somewhat unique, given its airbrushed casted paper. I'll edit in a picture of the best one I have later as I think you'll quite enjoy. But I'm doubtful Wes gave deep thought about the meaning of the art as he was churning it out. But it's a nice accent to my room and accents the vibe I want, and that has value.
So, in a further expansion of my own views, I'd say AI art can have value....but not really meaning, if you catch my drift.
You might be interested in this post from last week: https://tildes.net/~creative/1j3s/my_hated_ai_video It actually discusses some of the things you are bringing up here as well. It's interesting...
It actually discusses some of the things you are bringing up here as well.
So would someone with a very specific vision, working with future tools to fine tune, craft, and shape every little detail of an image be considered art? There can be beauty and art in a math proof as well, but those don't draw much of a crowd at galleries.
It's interesting to me that you mention “future” tools. I personally think you can already make art from AI generated materials (as I mentioned in the article) as long as you use them as old-fashioned samples to create something new yourself. Of course, there is a separate argument about the underlying training material for the diffusion model you used and if that is properly attributed.
Alternatively, if a conventional artist uses all their own handmade art as input for a model, then I believe you can also argue that this also can be considered art.
In both scenarios, AI can already be part of what people consider art.
Although I suspect you are more or less talking about tools that give much more fine-grained control surrounding prompts and adjustments after that. Given what you mentioned in the quote below.
So I think there is a deeper conversation waiting to be had when and if the tools evolve to allow for micro adjustment, or composites, or something I can't conceptualize yet being possible with the application of vision and commitment.
The beginnings of this conversation are already there. Elsewhere on the internet, someone mentioned something along the lines of “real AI artists spend hundreds of hours in ComfyUI”. Which is a tool I was not familiar with, but looking at the GitHub repo appears to give users very fine-grained control over diffusion models. At least, much more control than I realized was possible. I don't think the controls are quite at the level yet where you can have this conversation in earnest, though.
The great thing about talking about future tools and discussions is I get to raise the question without suggesting an answer! 😂 I would agree that there are examples of art being made with AI...
The great thing about talking about future tools and discussions is I get to raise the question without suggesting an answer! 😂
I would agree that there are examples of art being made with AI tools today, though it isn't quite what I envision when I made that comment. I'm imagining, but not limiting my thoughts, to something like you can circle a little section and give technical instructions to vary the stroke detail, layer in a different color, add a vigorous stroke here in this direction, etc... Really have a tool geared towards you exactingingly bringing your specific vision to life.
Which isn't to say I think that is required for something to be art. But it is what I imagine when I hear people define art by the technical difficulty or skill required, like this article does.
The article says that he (or he through his lawyer) claims that the work was the prompt conversation with the AI, going through iterations of refinement before settling on the final render, plus...
The article says that he (or he through his lawyer) claims that the work was the prompt conversation with the AI, going through iterations of refinement before settling on the final render, plus refinement of the AI output with graphics editing tools like Photoshop.
Ehh ... To me, purely my opinion, but within the wider conversation going on here ... I don't know if "talked with an AI, then did touch-up on what it made" makes you an artist. I don't personally...
Ehh ...
To me, purely my opinion, but within the wider conversation going on here ... I don't know if "talked with an AI, then did touch-up on what it made" makes you an artist. I don't personally believe that anything AI-generated is "art", but this guy did "do" something - even if it's just editing an output from a machine.
If anything would have claim to copyright the art in question, it would be the AI - which cannot hold a copyright in the first place, so the whole point is moot.
Personally I think we should replace the term "prompting" with "commissioning", I think that clarifies the role of the human much better. If you commissioned a human artist to compose an image for...
Personally I think we should replace the term "prompting" with "commissioning", I think that clarifies the role of the human much better.
If you commissioned a human artist to compose an image for you, gave feedback and iterated a few times, and then made your own edits in Photoshop after, did you have some creative input? Yes. Could you claim to be the creator of the image? No.
I don't have much sympathy for this person in specific given their comments and behavior. But I have wondered where the line is between "new tool" and "not art."
Like with a movie director, there is work and skill to bring a vision to life, and it's often not even understood by actors at the time of filming, like with Mad Max.
So would someone with a very specific vision, working with future tools to fine tune, craft, and shape every little detail of an image be considered art? There can be beauty and art in a math proof as well, but those don't draw much of a crowd at galleries.
So I think there is a deeper conversation waiting to be had when and if the tools evolve to allow for micro adjustment, or composites, or something I can't conceptualize yet being possible with the application of vision and commitment.
I'm also reminded of art, like oil paintings of nautical settings that were quick and easy to churn out in a way that captivates many people, but it's considered "mass market" in the art world and conversations about the shape of the seagulls, etc. But that whole discussion exists because even though there are oodles of these types of paintings that are quick to churn out, they still captivate people and conjure a feeling of the sea and port.
Essentialist statements about art as intrinsically human are some of the weakest arguments in this whole debate. They rely on a rather fixed and limited interpretation of art, a concept so slippery, mutable, and multiple that it is rarely clarifying.
At 42, it's weird how 20-year-olds hold such antiquated views all over YouTube.
I do believe there are very strong arguments against AI art. Chiefly the financial and emotional ones. But essentialism is so weak philosophically it makes me queasy.
As I have said previously, in my opinion, the question "Is this art?" is not the most productive one. The most productive question is is this fair?
I think you might have the age thing a bit backwards. Try coming of age as a new artist where many of the opportunities to work in professional art jobs are being crushed by skill-less prompters. We've already seen instances of D&D art coming through that has ended up being AI generated... that's a slot where a new and upcoming artist could have been. I think, of all the people that should be screaming from the rooftops about AI, the younger generation is going to be the loudest and fervent about it because they're currently losing their artistic voice. It's easy as an older person (and potentially non-artist?) to not see the human side being effected. For them it's real and they're already seeing machines churn through their future.
My discomfort is exclusively about arguments from essence, which I believe to be flawed. You are seemingly describing the financial argument, which I stated to be a very strong one ;)
I think social media conversations inevitably jump to broad sweeping essentialist statements like that because most people don't know enough about a given topic to get into actual details, and the ones that do aren't writing tweets that have mass appeal.
I'm reminded of how the meaning of art is not necessarily subjective (and arguably not at all). I loved this PhilosophyTube exploration on this issue.
So in that vein, when you have an AI creating the majority of the art....there is no meaning behind the art because the AI has no emotion behind its creation.
So the question kind of becomes "Was this picture of a boat created to evoke a feeling, or was this picture of a boat created because somebody wanted a picture of a boat on a wall?"
And while both pictures can evoke the same feeling, they often don't. At least, not to somebody actively looking instead of just seeing (the same difference between listening and hearing).
And that's why The Mona Lisa, despite all its acclaim....is kinda trash.Scratch this commentary, I'm thinking of a different painting I think. One the artist considered a bit of a throwaway that the public at large became obsessed with. But my memory is failing me and I think I got it wrong.I think this gets into the whole, is it the intent of the artist, the difficulty of the work, or the interpretation of the viewer that makes something art? For me the answer is "yes" and probably other factors. There are probably as many ways for something to be considered art as their are ways for people to find to appreciate something.
But I'm one of those people who loves the mass market nautical paintings, oil on canvas, and will stare at them and think of time on the sea. 🙂 So my art chops are C tier.
Edit: though I have a good knowledge and understanding of art in the age of sail, including classics like Vermeer's hat, and love to look for clues to the world in those paintings like signs of trade and from where.
Your personal enjoyment of a work is subjective and that's a fine thing. I did edit in at some point about how quality that is subjective, but how it's the meaning that is often not.
You enjoy that mass-market sea art. I have some of my own, three Wesley Wess Hand Cast Paper pieces I found in a thrift store. The one seashell I have is similar to this one. I found a thread where the artist himself makes an appearance. Best I can tell, there are many similar pieces, but each one is somewhat unique, given its airbrushed casted paper. I'll edit in a picture of the best one I have later as I think you'll quite enjoy. But I'm doubtful Wes gave deep thought about the meaning of the art as he was churning it out. But it's a nice accent to my room and accents the vibe I want, and that has value.
So, in a further expansion of my own views, I'd say AI art can have value....but not really meaning, if you catch my drift.
Die zauberflöte by Mozart perhaps?
You might be interested in this post from last week: https://tildes.net/~creative/1j3s/my_hated_ai_video
It actually discusses some of the things you are bringing up here as well.
It's interesting to me that you mention “future” tools. I personally think you can already make art from AI generated materials (as I mentioned in the article) as long as you use them as old-fashioned samples to create something new yourself. Of course, there is a separate argument about the underlying training material for the diffusion model you used and if that is properly attributed.
Alternatively, if a conventional artist uses all their own handmade art as input for a model, then I believe you can also argue that this also can be considered art.
In both scenarios, AI can already be part of what people consider art.
Although I suspect you are more or less talking about tools that give much more fine-grained control surrounding prompts and adjustments after that. Given what you mentioned in the quote below.
The beginnings of this conversation are already there. Elsewhere on the internet, someone mentioned something along the lines of “real AI artists spend hundreds of hours in ComfyUI”. Which is a tool I was not familiar with, but looking at the GitHub repo appears to give users very fine-grained control over diffusion models. At least, much more control than I realized was possible. I don't think the controls are quite at the level yet where you can have this conversation in earnest, though.
The great thing about talking about future tools and discussions is I get to raise the question without suggesting an answer! 😂
I would agree that there are examples of art being made with AI tools today, though it isn't quite what I envision when I made that comment. I'm imagining, but not limiting my thoughts, to something like you can circle a little section and give technical instructions to vary the stroke detail, layer in a different color, add a vigorous stroke here in this direction, etc... Really have a tool geared towards you exactingingly bringing your specific vision to life.
Which isn't to say I think that is required for something to be art. But it is what I imagine when I hear people define art by the technical difficulty or skill required, like this article does.
Cheers!
What "work" did he do, exactly?
The article says that he (or he through his lawyer) claims that the work was the prompt conversation with the AI, going through iterations of refinement before settling on the final render, plus refinement of the AI output with graphics editing tools like Photoshop.
Ehh ...
To me, purely my opinion, but within the wider conversation going on here ... I don't know if "talked with an AI, then did touch-up on what it made" makes you an artist. I don't personally believe that anything AI-generated is "art", but this guy did "do" something - even if it's just editing an output from a machine.
If anything would have claim to copyright the art in question, it would be the AI - which cannot hold a copyright in the first place, so the whole point is moot.
Personally I think we should replace the term "prompting" with "commissioning", I think that clarifies the role of the human much better.
If you commissioned a human artist to compose an image for you, gave feedback and iterated a few times, and then made your own edits in Photoshop after, did you have some creative input? Yes. Could you claim to be the creator of the image? No.