I've been brewing on this thought for a while, but I think it comes down to, AI has no place in the arts. Machine-generated art has the appearance of what it is emulating, but no substance. Like cake made entirely of fondant. Or cardboard.
@Gargron I remember film photographers saying the same thing about digital.
Then when digital became the preferred art form of photography, they all said the same thing about photoshop and digital manipulation.
It’s interesting to behold this cycle of fear about new technology somehow invalidating the status quo, but it doesn’t. Film is still art. Digital is still art. Photoshopping and digital tweaking is the gold standard now.
AI has a place in the arts, it just makes you uncomfortable.
@owlchemist People say lots of things. The work of a photographer is inspiration, composition, framing, choice of medium, being in the right place at the right time. When that is reduced to "Generate a stunning photo of the Sistine Chapel" there is indeed nothing there left, and I for one have absolutely no interest wasting any time at all viewing an image that no human spent time and effort creating.
Difficult coming to terms with recognizing you're an organic computer? Because you are, and AI becoming as skilled, if not more so, than us, can be terrifying.
But please don't delude yourself, or try to do the same to others, thinking that you're somehow intrinsically special. Magical thinking is FUCKING DANGEROUS. Magical Thinking has driven every genocide, every war, every crusade.
AI is here to stay, and it makes damn good pictures. Don't discredit it, adapt to the new reality.
@Gargron Agree. What gives art its meaning and impact is not just how it looks or sounds. It’s also the context of how it was made, what it’s trying to say, and what it says about the people who created it.
E.g., the stunts in a Buster Keaton or Tom Cruise movie—What makes those exciting is knowing how dangerous and difficult they were to pull off, it’s not just how they look.
Art that originates from effortless automation is soulless. Its only value comes through imitiation and deception.
@Gargron
Also even if it could, like why would you automate one of the most entertaining part of being a human?
Why not automate jobs so we work less and do more art?
@Gargron Sadly perhaps there is no choice. It may well routinely outsell any direct human product. But it is also a human product if that offers any comfort. A very few humans may find a bigger audience.
That's a fair characterization at least of the current forms of AI we've seen, but it sounds like you're only considering AI in the role of an artist – that's far from "no place." The whole sentiment sounds a little to me like: "paintbrushes don't even emulate anything – they're inanimate objects that just sit there. They have no place in the arts."
@Gargron Unfortunately, for most people the appearance is what they care about, not the substance.
In some cases the situation is even worse -- they don't care about the appearance or the substance of the art itself, they just care that they're seen consuming the kind of art that presents them in the best light.
@Gargron AI art, especially when compared to original human art, is fairly easy to spot—it lacks a certain mood or vibe—it conveys no emotion and lacks a point of view. It’s something about the way it attempts to use “light”—it’s directionless and without vision. Even a Thomas Kincaid painting conveys more emotion and artistic perspective than an AI generated image.
@Gargron Well, it is actually the guy in front of the device, who defines and refines the prompt. I think it is more like variations of notes what the AI does. That is why my verdict is not that absolute.
@Gargron I think if working people owned the means of production, artists could use AI as a tool instead of being used like tools by its capitalist owners
@Gargron What if a writer uses speech to text AI to transcribe their words? What if they use it to suggest changes to grammar, or identify cliches in their writing so they can change it?
Can a photographer not use any smart phones made after 2022 because of AI built into the exposure process?
If a photographer uses AI with in painting to remove something from the background of an image is it not art?
If a video editor uses AI to remove a safety wire from a video is that not art?
@Gargron Agree. Of course if capitalism with efficient creation and consumption is all one cares about then I guess this is their good enough “art” for some? Sad and completely missing the point of actual art, but for some this may be satisfying just as Taco Bell might be satisfying to someone not in the know craving authentic Mexican food.
@darwinwoodka yes the analogy opens up that whole other issue, but clearly I should have added quotes to "food" when it relates to T Bell as that might be more accurate and show my agreement with your point! ;-)
@Gargron people said the same of photoshop and I think this may age the same way, FWIW, and I am blown away by Burt Monroy's artwork (I ran the computer labs for his photoshop classes, and he is amazing): https://www.bertmonroy.com/
Add comment