- This topic has 39 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As a kitbasher at heart, I see AI as another tool in my toolbox; another way to create bits and pieces to mash together for the final result I've got in mind.
I wouldn't necessarily say that results straight from the AI without any edits would qualify as art. It's a grey area, I suppose. A photo straight from a camera could be art, so AI art straight from the AI as well...?
I know this is probably an opinion thing but here are 2 photos. Which would you say is more creative artistically?
Here are 2 pictures of art. One was made by an artist the other made by an AI using the artist as one of its references. Which is more creative artistically?
Let's contemplate a gallery of art composed by no one. Probably already exist online. To our right is Beta00203-C composed by Amiga 2028 and to our left is the wonderful Zed233-03 composed by AppleX2
Perhaps more relevant is whether or not the AI people consider themselves artists.
Merriam-Webster definition : a person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination. According to that it would appear they're not.
It isn't surprising that in an age of instant gratification and the desperate social media desire for affirmation from others, where "likes' is what life is all about, that AI fits nicely in with that mind-set. I blame Andy Warhol LOL for saying, "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." No they won't and 99.99% of us don't deserve to be.
@D0gg0d Beksinski is a personal favourite of mine. Having said that, both of those pictures are awesome. Is one more artistically creative than the other? I'm not interested in arguing semantics, definitions and labels. I'm interested in enjoying art and both of those pictures bring me enjoyment.
Now with a human artist you can look into that artist and find out their personal story, maybe even their story behind the art and that can be a fun addition to a piece of art that maybe gets you thinking about things you might not have before. Without doing that, my own head provides context and story to both of the pictures regardless.
I don't particularly care for either of the first two pictures, but the nature picture does bring up a salient point. I can't think of anything that is a better analogue to ai generated art than nature itself. There isn't a piece of human made art that I have ever stood contemplating longer than I have some scene I've stumbled across out in the wild. There's no guiding hand there, it's the world's greatest random number generator and it still manages to stun me with it's artistic beauty and horror. Winter in the woods next to a stream is one of the most spellbinding images I've ever experienced, replete with stories conjured by my mind on many an occasion.
Nor is there some special power imbued by calling something or someone art or artist. Personally, if someone thinks something is art, it's art. If they think they are an artist, they're an artist. It changes nothing about my life and I'm in no way obligated to enjoy their art.
What I find interesting about AI generated art is that it's easy to see how it can - and will - be used both for kitbashing and blocking for initial concept art and also as a post work refinement tool. Many current professional artists are already using it to speed up concept work and I'm sure we'll see most future digital artists (even any artist working on concepts for physical artworks) begin to use it as a standard part of their everyday tools. Just as they use many tools that were formerly derided as not creating "real" art or called "cheating" such as digital art tools, 3D art tools and kitbashing/blocking.
Cut a computer off from all outside input then ask it to draw a picture of what it is thinking. It should have the ability to condense all past data into an image it "thinks" about. Then we can ask the computer, why pick this image. How does this image make it "feel".
Was this Elephant taught to repeat a process to produce art or is the elephant aware of what it is doing. Is there a difference? Is telling a computer to select random images teaching it to be an artist. Is it conscious of the meaning of the art or is it just a bunch of electronic impulses tied together?
We can say art is everything. A car is art. A flower is art. The mouse I am using is ergonomic and therefor art. Does the creator understand that its art? Does it matter if it doesn't and another perceives it as art. All this philosophical BS.
AI art is art. Its a cumulation of others art kit bashed into a random amalgamation based off someone's software algorithm. My "hang-up" is it isn't yours. The elephant has more of a claim on its picture than you have on a random number generator IMHO. You typed in words. The computer selected the images. The computer guessed at how to assemble them. The computer did the work. You could type forever and never get the exact image you had in mind. What you are getting is what you are willing to accept from the computer. It could give you an image better than you imagined so you kept it and then took credit for it.
I think I can compare it to "modern music". Samples of old songs, mixed with a standard beat.
As a musician ( Big word, I play) I never understood guys with two turntabels an a samplre calling themself musicians..
Same goes with IA
As said above, all the skill of making nice art will be lost in the end.
We say to our PC...
Mak a picture of a blue cat in an orange tree on a sunny day.
And Poefff!!!! There you are.As with al technical stuff, I guess IA can be used , but I hope the craftsmanship of artist's stays
This is funny. I got a notification that someone had replied to this thread but it wasn't started by me.
Rank:
It will be interesting to look back on this thread in 2-5 years, if the site still exists then....
I am sure I thoughts will have changed.@jmkmail
"There isn’t a piece of human made art that I have ever stood contemplating longer than I have some scene I’ve stumbled across out in the wild. There’s no guiding hand there, it’s the world’s greatest random number generator and it still manages to stun me with it’s artistic beauty and horror. Winter in the woods next to a stream is one of the most spellbinding images I’ve ever experienced"
Oh.. I believe that IS an "artist's" work... sorry you don't know him 😉@gaver I liked the idea of a blue cat in an orange tree, so I had a chat with Stable Diffusion...
None of these was the image I had in my head.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
