What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 10 of 11)
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s not Art. It’s illustration and it isn’t created by Man. I'm not going to debate whether what I create is "Art." That's a taste argument. You can't win it and you can't lose it. I'll gladly debate the creation part, because I'm on hour 20 of a 2 minute video. Illustration is still made by someone. So is a cut. The model didn’t invent the character, write the lines, pick the takes, or sit in the editor. I did. The machine filled frames. That’s a tool. If your rule is “if a computer touched a pixel, no human made it,” then every digital photo, every DAW track, and every CGI shot in the last 30 years is also not made by man. You don’t believe that. You just don’t like this tool. A lot of the heat isn’t about quality. It’s gatekeeping. The same people who needed a gate to stay special are mad that regular people can put a finished thing on a screen. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Correct — 100k views doesn’t mean it’s high art. It does mean the “it shouldn’t exist” argument already lost. People used their time on it. That’s the only vote that isn’t a forum hypothetical. If your test is “I personally don’t count AI,” say that. Don’t pretend popularity is irrelevant when the original complaint was that this stuff has no audience and no author. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: How many people enjoy something is completely irrelevant. Correct — 100k views doesn’t mean it’s high art. It does mean the “it shouldn’t exist” argument already lost. People used their time on it. That’s the only vote that isn’t a forum hypothetical. If your test is “I personally don’t count AI,” say that. Don’t pretend popularity is irrelevant when the original complaint was that this stuff has no audience and no author. Who has said it shouldn’t exist? I’ve only seen you say that. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: I'm not going to debate whether what I create is "Art." That's a taste argument. You can't win it and you can't lose it. I'll gladly debate the creation part, because I'm on hour 20 of a 2 minute video. Illustration is still made by someone. So is a cut. The model didn’t invent the character, write the lines, pick the takes, or sit in the editor. I did. The machine filled frames. That’s a tool. If your rule is “if a computer touched a pixel, no human made it,” then every digital photo, every DAW track, and every CGI shot in the last 30 years is also not made by man. You don’t believe that. You just don’t like this tool. A lot of the heat isn’t about quality. It’s gatekeeping. The same people who needed a gate to stay special are mad that regular people can put a finished thing on a screen. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s not Art. It’s illustration and it isn’t created by Man. I'm not going to debate whether what I create is "Art." That's a taste argument. You can't win it and you can't lose it. I'll gladly debate the creation part, because I'm on hour 20 of a 2 minute video. Illustration is still made by someone. So is a cut. The model didn’t invent the character, write the lines, pick the takes, or sit in the editor. I did. The machine filled frames. That’s a tool. If your rule is “if a computer touched a pixel, no human made it,” then every digital photo, every DAW track, and every CGI shot in the last 30 years is also not made by man. You don’t believe that. You just don’t like this tool. A lot of the heat isn’t about quality. It’s gatekeeping. The same people who needed a gate to stay special are mad that regular people can put a finished thing on a screen. Crucial question: What are you creating this for? |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: I'm not going to debate whether what I create is "Art." Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: It’s not Art. It’s illustration and it isn’t created by Man. I'm not going to debate whether what I create is "Art." That's a taste argument. You can't win it and you can't lose it. I'll gladly debate the creation part, because I'm on hour 20 of a 2 minute video. Illustration is still made by someone. So is a cut. The model didn’t invent the character, write the lines, pick the takes, or sit in the editor. I did. The machine filled frames. That’s a tool. If your rule is “if a computer touched a pixel, no human made it,” then every digital photo, every DAW track, and every CGI shot in the last 30 years is also not made by man. You don’t believe that. You just don’t like this tool. A lot of the heat isn’t about quality. It’s gatekeeping. The same people who needed a gate to stay special are mad that regular people can put a finished thing on a screen. You’re wrong. I like the tool. It’s just not Art. It’s illustration. It’s not a question of taste. It has absolutely nothing to do with taste or quality. It’s a question of creation and Philosophy. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Crucial question: What are you creating this for? For fun? For personal satisfaction? It certainly isn't monetary.  |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is it? You’re wrong. I like the tool. It’s just not Art. It’s illustration. It’s not a question of taste. It has absolutely nothing to do with taste or quality. It’s a question of creation and Philosophy. Then we’re using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. I mean a person made a thing that didn’t exist, using a tool. That’s creation. Calling it illustration doesn’t change who sat in the editor. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Then we’re using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. I mean a person made a thing that didn’t exist, using a tool. That’s creation. Calling it illustration doesn’t change who sat in the editor. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is it? You’re wrong. I like the tool. It’s just not Art. It’s illustration. It’s not a question of taste. It has absolutely nothing to do with taste or quality. It’s a question of creation and Philosophy. Then we’re using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. I mean a person made a thing that didn’t exist, using a tool. That’s creation. Calling it illustration doesn’t change who sat in the editor. I think I mentioned before that this may make you a storyteller vs. an artist. I have delusions of eventually making movies using AI myself; it doesn’t make me a filmmaker, it makes me a storyteller using a different medium to share my stories with the world. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: I think I mentioned before that this may make you a storyteller vs. an artist. I have delusions of eventually making movies using AI myself; it doesn’t make me a filmmaker, it makes me a storyteller using a different medium to share my stories with the world. Fine. Call it storytelling. I’m not going to tell you your stories aren’t yours because of the toolset. That’s the part I won’t do to you, and it’s the part I won’t accept from anyone else. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Then we’re using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is it? You’re wrong. I like the tool. It’s just not Art. It’s illustration. It’s not a question of taste. It has absolutely nothing to do with taste or quality. It’s a question of creation and Philosophy. Then we’re using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. I mean a person made a thing that didn’t exist, using a tool. That’s creation. Calling it illustration doesn’t change who sat in the editor. It’s not Art. As said earlier, you can’t even legally copyright prompt-generated content, because you didn’t actually create it. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
5340
EE: 100% (4)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is it? You’re wrong. I like the tool. It’s just not Art. It’s illustration. It’s not a question of taste. It has absolutely nothing to do with taste or quality. It’s a question of creation and Philosophy. Thank you. I've been wantin to post a similar response, same idea, but you worded it better, and I lost the thread. That's the one thing I don't like about not being a member. Every other website on the planet gives you that for free. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I never said that. It’s not Art. As said earlier, you can’t even legally copyright prompt-generated content, because you didn’t actually create it. Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn’t build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn’t there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don’t get to say the house isn’t standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn’t build it. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn’t build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn’t there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don’t get to say the house isn’t standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the “AI brick” houses you want. Still not Art.  Heck, a pasted together collage of “AI bricks” actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What’s the piece about? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who is this imaginary “somebody”? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who is this imaginary “somebody”? All the Anti-AI luddites on X? The Boomers on here that say, "HuRR dUrr YoU preSseD a buTtoN." Trust me, there's tons of them. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the “AI brick” houses you want. Still not Art. Never said it was, since Art is subjective and it's dumb to argue it. |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who is this imaginary "somebody"? You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the "AI brick" houses you want. Still not Art. Heck, a pasted together collage of "AI bricks" actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What's the piece about? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn't build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn't there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don't get to say the house isn't standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the "AI brick" houses you want. Still not Art. Heck, a pasted together collage of "AI bricks" actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What's the piece about? Could an "AI brick" house, whatever that means, have any architectural merit? |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: All the Anti-AI luddites on X? The Boomers on here that say, "HuRR dUrr YoU preSseD a buTtoN." Trust me, there's tons of them. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who is this imaginary “somebody”? All the Anti-AI luddites on X? The Boomers on here that say, "HuRR dUrr YoU preSseD a buTtoN." Trust me, there's tons of them. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the “AI brick” houses you want. Still not Art. Never said it was, since Art is subjective and it's dumb to argue it. It’s never dumb to discuss the philosophy of what is and what is not Art. This has been debated by the smartest people in history. If you can’t make a stand, ask yourself why. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Torf: Could an "AI brick" house, whatever that means, have any architectural merit? Originally Posted By Torf: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn't build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn't there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don't get to say the house isn't standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the "AI brick" houses you want. Still not Art. Heck, a pasted together collage of "AI bricks" actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What's the piece about? Could an "AI brick" house, whatever that means, have any architectural merit? Maybe the point of the conceptual art “AI Brick House” is that it collapses like a poorly constructed argument… |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Straw men are lazy efforts. It’s never dumb to discuss the philosophy of what is and what is not Art. This has been debated by the smartest people in history. If you can’t make a stand, ask yourself why. Because I need to finish this video by Friday? I'm not here to debate "What is Art" or "Is there a God." You have fun with your heady subjects. I'm here to tell people who post and cry about "AI Slop" to go eat a dick. 
|
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
 The Creation- Painter Man |
A Fostered Love of Guns and Country
NRA Benefactor
NRA Benefactor
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Fine. Call it storytelling. I’m not going to tell you your stories aren’t yours because of the toolset. That’s the part I won’t do to you, and it’s the part I won’t accept from anyone else. Originally Posted By RarestRX: Originally Posted By macman37: I think I mentioned before that this may make you a storyteller vs. an artist. I have delusions of eventually making movies using AI myself; it doesn’t make me a filmmaker, it makes me a storyteller using a different medium to share my stories with the world. Fine. Call it storytelling. I’m not going to tell you your stories aren’t yours because of the toolset. That’s the part I won’t do to you, and it’s the part I won’t accept from anyone else. I didn’t say they weren’t yours, why are you saying that? You’re a visual storyteller. That’s awesome, I mean that. I encourage creativity wherever I can. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: I didn’t say they weren’t yours, why are you saying that? You’re a visual storyteller. That’s awesome, I mean that. I encourage creativity wherever I can.  I'm just lashing out, not necessarily at you. The Anti-AI peeps are just tiresome (mostly on X, not so much here). |
The long term future is a mash up of Idiocracy and 1984. "Ow, my balls" meets "He loved Big Brother". The boot on your face will likely be a big red clown shoe, but it'll be there regardless. - pmacb
|
Originally Posted By RarestRX: Then we're using different dictionaries. You mean Art as a sacred category that only counts if a human laid down every mark. I mean a person made a thing that didn't exist, using a tool. That's exactly how a lot of people feel, but it fall apart applied to basically any other medium traditionally considered art. When you start pulling at the threads of dissent, the results get pretty absurd The only 'pure art' if such a thing exists is the dance, song, and fingerpainting of toddlers. Everything else is tainted by varying degrees of theft, motivation, and tools. There is no ruleset that can describe why a person prompting AI is not creating art, that does not also reduce most music, photography/film, and even basic mediums like painting to basically the mastery of tools to create derivative work.People just don't like AI yet because it cheapens their expertise. They'll get over it. Similar rejections happened across the Renaissance, early cameras, electronic music, and what we consider contemporary art. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who or what creates it. It must be created by Man to be Art. A beautiful tree is not Art. A sunset is not Art. A picture of a sunset or a tree generated by AI Is not Art. Art must be created by Man -otherwise it is not Art. So if a human uses AI to generate some portions of a image, heavily modifies it, reprocesses it through AI giving it more specific instructions to get the image to look like they want, then that is art. As much so as throwing a bunch of paint on a canvass with no skill or taping a banana to a wall. This also would mean that "illustrations" and "cheap crap made for mass entertainment" can also be art, especially if drawn 100% manually by a human. |
|
Originally Posted By Ehtacs: That's exactly how a lot of people feel, but it fall apart applied to basically any other medium traditionally considered art. When you start pulling at the threads of dissent, the results get pretty absurd The only 'pure art' if such a thing exists is the dance, song, and fingerpainting of toddlers. Everything else is tainted by varying degrees of theft, motivation, and tools. There is no ruleset that can describe why a person prompting AI is not creating art, that does not also reduce most music, photography/film, and even basic mediums like painting to basically the mastery of tools to create derivative work.People just don't like AI yet because it cheapens their expertise. They'll get over it. Similar rejections happened across the Renaissance, early cameras, electronic music, and what we consider contemporary art. For example: a photographer can spend a lot of time thinking about and setting up a shot, and editing it in post process to get it to be an absolutely stunning picture. At the same time, billions of people taking billions of random pictures can randomly (randoms scenes, random lighting, semi-random camera settings, etc.) and get an absolutely amazing image as well. Sometimes it can be hard to tell them apart. That's what AI does to digital art. Most is crap. Occasionally something good is produced. Which is hard to tell apart from someone who painstakingly made "traditional" digital art. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: So if a human uses AI to generate some portions of a image, heavily modifies it, reprocesses it through AI giving it more specific instructions to get the image to look like they want, then that is art. As much so as throwing a bunch of paint on a canvass with no skill or taping a banana to a wall. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who or what creates it. It must be created by Man to be Art. A beautiful tree is not Art. A sunset is not Art. A picture of a sunset or a tree generated by AI Is not Art. Art must be created by Man -otherwise it is not Art. So if a human uses AI to generate some portions of a image, heavily modifies it, reprocesses it through AI giving it more specific instructions to get the image to look like they want, then that is art. As much so as throwing a bunch of paint on a canvass with no skill or taping a banana to a wall. This also would mean that "illustrations" and "cheap crap made for mass entertainment" can also be art, especially if drawn 100% manually by a human. Your leap lacks logic. Makes no sense. All Art must be made by man. That does not mean that everything made by man is art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: So if a human uses AI to generate some portions of a image, heavily modifies it, reprocesses it through AI giving it more specific instructions to get the image to look like they want, then that is art. As much so as throwing a bunch of paint on a canvass with no skill or taping a banana to a wall. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who or what creates it. It must be created by Man to be Art. A beautiful tree is not Art. A sunset is not Art. A picture of a sunset or a tree generated by AI Is not Art. Art must be created by Man -otherwise it is not Art. So if a human uses AI to generate some portions of a image, heavily modifies it, reprocesses it through AI giving it more specific instructions to get the image to look like they want, then that is art. As much so as throwing a bunch of paint on a canvass with no skill or taping a banana to a wall. Why are you guys getting so wrapped around the axle on this? We’ve defined it six ways from Sunday. This also would mean that "illustrations" and "cheap crap made for mass entertainment" can also be art, especially if drawn 100% manually by a human. Illustrations are commercial art. Entertainment is entertainment. Thank you for attending my TED talk. 
|
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: This is about "art." It's a philosophical discussion that goes back thousands of years. Throughout History there have always been those who seek to diminish the importance of Art and erode the concept and value of Individual Creation. The enemies of Western Civilization have been at the forefront of these attacks. Sometimes the attacks are based on a concerted, ideological effort to undermine the idea of the Creative Individual. Those ideologues then harness the suspicious ignorant masses. Fine Art is an intellectual, elitist pursuit. This has always been the case. That's why the Communists sought to undermine individualism reflected in Art. The Communists of the last would love AI "art." |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No it's not. AI cannot create art. Your leap lacks logic. Makes no sense. All Art must be made by man. That does not mean that everything made by man is art. What if the human made the art, and the AI improved it? What about a non-AI, traditional computer algorithm for manipulating images? can humans make art with that? It was your definition. Not mine. What makes something art: According to you, multiple requirements: 1) Human made 2) ????? |
|
Originally Posted By Hadrian: This post adds the context that explains why you're arguing with such fervor. It's a religious issue to you. You should've posted this on the first page. Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: This is about "art." It's a philosophical discussion that goes back thousands of years. Throughout History there have always been those who seek to diminish the importance of Art and erode the concept and value of Individual Creation. The enemies of Western Civilization have been at the forefront of these attacks. Sometimes the attacks are based on a concerted, ideological effort to undermine the idea of the Creative Individual. Those ideologues then harness the suspicious ignorant masses. Fine Art is an intellectual, elitist pursuit. This has always been the case. That's why the Communists sought to undermine individualism reflected in Art. The Communists of the last would love AI "art." No. It’s a Philosophical issue. It’s about the Agency of the Individual. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: What if the human made the art, and the AI improved it? What about a non-AI, traditional computer algorithm for manipulating images? can humans make art with that? It was your definition. Not mine. What makes something art: According to you, multiple requirements: 1) Human made 2) ????? Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No it's not. AI cannot create art. Your leap lacks logic. Makes no sense. All Art must be made by man. That does not mean that everything made by man is art. What if the human made the art, and the AI improved it? What about a non-AI, traditional computer algorithm for manipulating images? can humans make art with that? It was your definition. Not mine. What makes something art: According to you, multiple requirements: 1) Human made 2) ????? Your characterization of my “definition” is fiction. Why does “According to you…” always come before something nobody said? |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your characterization of my "definition" is fiction. Why does "According to you " always come before something nobody said? Lets straigten it out. Lay out all requirements for what art is, in your definition, then we can see if a human using AI can meet that definition. Pretty simple. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Fine. I assumed it was a definition in the post I quoted. Lets straigten it out. Lay out all requirements for what art is, in your definition, then we can see if a human using AI can meet that definition. Pretty simple. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your characterization of my "definition" is fiction. Why does "According to you " always come before something nobody said? Lets straigten it out. Lay out all requirements for what art is, in your definition, then we can see if a human using AI can meet that definition. Pretty simple. You “assumed”? Your tedious manner of mischaracterizing things makes that seem fruitless. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You "assumed"? Your tedious manner of mischaracterizing things makes that seem fruitless. ETA::Multiple pages ago I laid out my definition of art. You claimed it was wrong. If you have created a post which laid your definition out since then, I apologize, please provide a link. If not, IMHO it goes to show you are just evading the ability to be pinned down by your own premise for fear of your premise is wrong. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Lol. Perfect example of someone who doesn't have an argument. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You "assumed"? Your tedious manner of mischaracterizing things makes that seem fruitless. You literally prove with every post that you were never taught or never understood basic logic. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You literally prove with every post that you were never taught or never understood basic logic. ETA::Oh, and it bet it would chap your ass that a guy who isn't formally trained in logic has a more logical understanding of AI and art than you....who is so much superior.  ETA2::Oh, and I do know enough that attacking the character of someone rather than their argument shows that you have a weak argument. Or do you want to ignore that inconvenient fact? |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: ETA::Multiple pages ago I laid out my definition of art. You claimed it was wrong. If you have created a post which laid your definition out since then, I apologize, please provide a link. If not, IMHO it goes to show you are just evading the ability to be pinned down by your own premise for fear of your premise is wrong. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You "assumed"? Your tedious manner of mischaracterizing things makes that seem fruitless. ETA::Multiple pages ago I laid out my definition of art. You claimed it was wrong. If you have created a post which laid your definition out since then, I apologize, please provide a link. If not, IMHO it goes to show you are just evading the ability to be pinned down by your own premise for fear of your premise is wrong. I am 100% certain that you have never defined Art. You HAVE described things as Art that are definitively NOT Art. Aesthetic decisions, modification to material, medium. Conceptual and/or expressive content. A hard and fast definition is elusive. But it is easy to identify what is NOT Art. But if you lack deductive reasoning, you’ll never quite get it. Art must be made by Man, and the intent of the Artist is to create…Art. Not an illustration. Not a decoration. It’s not a simple concept, and anyone with a simple definition is a fool. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
| I like art in general. We go to museums. We are all into art in my house, mostly drawing or sketching. I actually like AI art. It is better than anything in the "Modern Art" wing in any museum, or some banana taped to a wall. I'm really fond of the Sci Fi stuff out there. I'm involved in the custom knife world, and everybody and their brother is getting a CNC machine and making knives now. Same thing. Just do better at whatever you do. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Maybe the point of the conceptual art "AI Brick House" is that it collapses like a poorly constructed argument Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Torf: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn't build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn't there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don't get to say the house isn't standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the "AI brick" houses you want. Still not Art. Heck, a pasted together collage of "AI bricks" actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What's the piece about? Could an "AI brick" house, whatever that means, have any architectural merit? Maybe the point of the conceptual art "AI Brick House" is that it collapses like a poorly constructed argument |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I am 100% certain that you have never defined Art. You HAVE described things as Art that are definitively NOT Art. A hard and fast definition is elusive. But it is easy to identify what is NOT Art. Bullshit. That's not philosophy. That not science. That is not even logic. That is personal opinion masquerading as a definition. This is the logical failing of your position and why people are arguing with you so much in this thread. "I don't know what it is, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" is how your posts come off. But if you lack deductive reasoning, you'll never quite get it. Ah yes, a personal attack. Great logical. Much reason. Very consistency. Art must be made by Man, and the intent of the Artist is to create Art. So, how much can the "man" use computer assisted tools to make said art if their intention is the same as a artist working in a non-digital realm? Does it matter if the computer tools are used are just dumb, blind, minor prost processing? What about as part of the image creation? As the main form of the image creation? Does it matter if the digital tools are AI or just algorithms? If so, why? If the artist intent is there and all that jazz? Not an illustration. Not a decoration. My definition of art, which you objected to, includes illustration and decoration as being on a spectrum of "art." That's fine. I don't set worldwide definitions. Is that art? What if I did that digitally using an old version of photoshop, with no AI at all? What if I gathered the images, made a rough draft, and had AI clean it up? What if I had AI do it all together. For me, clearly, its a spectrum. One is impressive and takes skill to create. One is slightly less impressive. One is less impressive than that. And one is not impressive at all. Even though they all could serve the same (or similar) purposes as one another. |
|
Are you making art to express yourself, or are you making it because someone asked or told you to? If you sublet your creativity it is not art. If you are commissioned to create it, it’s commercial art. If you made it because you have a thing inside you that you need to get outside of you… that’s art. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Torf: It's just a question. I don't even know what the term means. Originally Posted By Torf: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Torf: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By RarestRX: Listen, we're in the weeds. Here's my point: Somebody looks at a house I built with AI bricks and says I didn't build it. Yes I did. I designed it, I placed the bricks, I mortared them. It exists. It wasn't there before. You can hate the color. You can hate the architecture. You don't get to say the house isn't standing. That's my angle on this whole debate. You are debating an imaginary foe. Make all the "AI brick" houses you want. Still not Art. Heck, a pasted together collage of "AI bricks" actually does sound like a decent piece of Art. What's the piece about? Could an "AI brick" house, whatever that means, have any architectural merit? Maybe the point of the conceptual art "AI Brick House" is that it collapses like a poorly constructed argument Neither do I. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Just one example: what if I made a giant mural that was a bunch of newspaper clippings from Watergate that, when assembled, looked like the face of Richard Nixon? Lets assume I had all sorts of artistic reasons for doing so, sufficient to satisfy all the hoity toity art requirements and credentials. Is that art? What if I did that digitally using an old version of photoshop, with no AI at all? What if I gathered the images, made a rough draft, and had AI clean it up? What if I had AI do it all together. For me, clearly, its a spectrum. One is impressive and takes skill to create. One is slightly less impressive. One is less impressive than that. And one is not impressive at all. Even though they all could serve the same (or similar) purposes as one another. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I am 100% certain that you have never defined Art. You HAVE described things as Art that are definitively NOT Art. A hard and fast definition is elusive. But it is easy to identify what is NOT Art. Bullshit. That's not philosophy. That not science. That is not even logic. That is personal opinion masquerading as a definition. This is the logical failing of your position and why people are arguing with you so much in this thread. "I don't know what it is, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" is how your posts come off. But if you lack deductive reasoning, you'll never quite get it. Ah yes, a personal attack. Great logical. Much reason. Very consistency. Art must be made by Man, and the intent of the Artist is to create Art. So, how much can the "man" use computer assisted tools to make said art if their intention is the same as a artist working in a non-digital realm? Does it matter if the computer tools are used are just dumb, blind, minor prost processing? What about as part of the image creation? As the main form of the image creation? Does it matter if the digital tools are AI or just algorithms? If so, why? If the artist intent is there and all that jazz? Not an illustration. Not a decoration. My definition of art, which you objected to, includes illustration and decoration as being on a spectrum of "art." That's fine. I don't set worldwide definitions. Is that art? What if I did that digitally using an old version of photoshop, with no AI at all? What if I gathered the images, made a rough draft, and had AI clean it up? What if I had AI do it all together. For me, clearly, its a spectrum. One is impressive and takes skill to create. One is slightly less impressive. One is less impressive than that. And one is not impressive at all. Even though they all could serve the same (or similar) purposes as one another. You are mistaken about art having a simple definition. I have difficulties saying it in a simple manner. I’m in good company. Regarding your fictitious two art pieces: They both sound like art. And you are correct, the big collage is far more impressive. What purpose? They both sound very different. Scale and effort carry and convey content just as much words and image. A tiny elephant or a giant mouse. A tiny mouse or a giant elephant. Not the same purpose. That you say “hoity toity” indicates disdain for art and artists. You seem to be trying to make a case for crap that anyone can make being art. Why? Why dilute good art with bad? Here’s an idea… Post the best piece of art that you have ever created.
|
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are mistaken about art having a simple definition. I have difficulties saying it in a simple manner. I'm in good company. Regarding your fictitious two art pieces: They both sound like art. And you are correct, the big collage is far more impressive. What purpose? They both sound very different. Scale and effort carry and convey content just as much words and image. A tiny elephant or a giant mouse. A tiny mouse or a giant elephant. Not the same purpose. That you say "hoity toity" indicates disdain for art and artists. You seem to be trying to make a case for crap that anyone can make being art. Why? Why dilute good art with bad? Here's an idea Post the best piece of art that you have ever created. I have no agenda other than recognizing where this is all headed, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. As for the agenda for the art in the example, lets assume the agenda was identical in all cases. Just in one case it is a human artist exercising human skill to do all of the work, on the other end it is a human artist making a tool do ALL of the work, and the examples in between are mixtures of both. For me, like it or not, it is going to be a spectrum, especially as AI gets better. You draw the line at some of those example being art and some of them not being art. I say they all are (again, everything else equal, the tool and the skills, or lack there of, is the only thing varying), even if the AI one is very unimpressive. I've already said that I'm not an artist, and part of my criteria about what makes "art" (or even illustration or decoration) "good" is if I can do it. If I can do it, its not impressive, and has less value (again, banana taped to a wall. Is it "art"? Doesn't really matter. Its not impressive in the least. We all have visions of things in our dreams, that if framed on a wall in a gallery could be considered "art"). There is definitely AI art out there, significantly crafted by humans, that you or I could not make the AI (at least, with current models) produce even if we tried, as there may be a human exercising a decent level of creative control (note, some AI art involves humans editing and modifying parts of the image, and then re-running it through AI). That doesn't mean it is as impressive as a painting that I find hideous, but that none the less, clearly took a high level of human skill to create. As AI gets better, and removes those requirements, it makes distinguishing between "real art" and just more mass produced "slop" harder, and harder to tell. You may not like it, but its gonna happen. The same thing is happening in many industries: AI does things in the digital world better and better as times goes on. It doesn't create paintings or replace toilets. So if you are good at painting or plumbing, you are harder for AI to compete with, than say, an artist who works 100% in the digital realm. May be sad, but its true. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: I have a distain for gate keepers who want to pretend that this all some sort of mystery that "the common man" can't understand. As if they aren't smart enough to even think about. That is just bunk. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are mistaken about art having a simple definition. I have difficulties saying it in a simple manner. I'm in good company. Regarding your fictitious two art pieces: They both sound like art. And you are correct, the big collage is far more impressive. What purpose? They both sound very different. Scale and effort carry and convey content just as much words and image. A tiny elephant or a giant mouse. A tiny mouse or a giant elephant. Not the same purpose. That you say "hoity toity" indicates disdain for art and artists. You seem to be trying to make a case for crap that anyone can make being art. Why? Why dilute good art with bad? Here's an idea Post the best piece of art that you have ever created. That’s why there’s so much crappy stuff out there. That’s why we have Justin Bieber. I have no agenda other than recognizing where this is all headed, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. As for the agenda for the art in the example, lets assume the agenda was identical in all cases. Just in one case it is a human artist exercising human skill to do all of the work, on the other end it is a human artist making a tool do ALL of the work, and the examples in between are mixtures of both. For me, like it or not, it is going to be a spectrum, especially as AI gets better. You draw the line at some of those example being art and some of them not being art. I say they all are (again, everything else equal, the tool and the skills, or lack there of, is the only thing varying), even if the AI one is very unimpressive. I've already said that I'm not an artist, and part of my criteria about what makes "art" (or even illustration or decoration) "good" is if I can do it. If I can do it, its not impressive, and has less value (again, banana taped to a wall. Is it "art"? Doesn't really matter. Its not impressive in the least. We all have visions of things in our dreams, that if framed on a wall in a gallery could be considered "art"). There is definitely AI art out there, significantly crafted by humans, that you or I could not make the AI (at least, with current models) produce even if we tried, as there may be a human exercising a decent level of creative control (note, some AI art involves humans editing and modifying parts of the image, and then re-running it through AI). That doesn't mean it is as impressive as a painting that I find hideous, but that none the less, clearly took a high level of human skill to create. As AI gets better, and removes those requirements, it makes distinguishing between "real art" and just more mass produced "slop" harder, and harder to tell. You may not like it, but its gonna happen. The same thing is happening in many industries: AI does things in the digital world better and better as times goes on. It doesn't create paintings or replace toilets. So if you are good at painting or plumbing, you are harder for AI to compete with, than say, an artist who works 100% in the digital realm. May be sad, but its true. I agree 100% that “digital artists” (pre-AI) are doomed to extinction. As are illustrators who made stuff like Sci-Fi book covers or medical book illustrations. They will be replaced like entry level coders and paralegals. AI creates stuff that looks just like theirs. Makes one question whether it was art to begin with. AI can’t make a great painting. It makes images and illustrations. Here’s an idea: Post the greatest art you ever created. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: I have a distain for gate keepers who want to pretend that this all some sort of mystery that "the common man" can't understand. As if they aren't smart enough to even think about. That is just bunk. I have no agenda other than recognizing where this is all headed, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. As for the agenda for the art in the example, lets assume the agenda was identical in all cases. Just in one case it is a human artist exercising human skill to do all of the work, on the other end it is a human artist making a tool do ALL of the work, and the examples in between are mixtures of both. For me, like it or not, it is going to be a spectrum, especially as AI gets better. You draw the line at some of those example being art and some of them not being art. I say they all are (again, everything else equal, the tool and the skills, or lack there of, is the only thing varying), even if the AI one is very unimpressive. I've already said that I'm not an artist, and part of my criteria about what makes "art" (or even illustration or decoration) "good" is if I can do it. If I can do it, its not impressive, and has less value (again, banana taped to a wall. Is it "art"? Doesn't really matter. Its not impressive in the least. We all have visions of things in our dreams, that if framed on a wall in a gallery could be considered "art"). There is definitely AI art out there, significantly crafted by humans, that you or I could not make the AI (at least, with current models) produce even if we tried, as there may be a human exercising a decent level of creative control (note, some AI art involves humans editing and modifying parts of the image, and then re-running it through AI). That doesn't mean it is as impressive as a painting that I find hideous, but that none the less, clearly took a high level of human skill to create. As AI gets better, and removes those requirements, it makes distinguishing between "real art" and just more mass produced "slop" harder, and harder to tell. You may not like it, but its gonna happen. The same thing is happening in many industries: AI does things in the digital world better and better as times goes on. It doesn't create paintings or replace toilets. So if you are good at painting or plumbing, you are harder for AI to compete with, than say, an artist who works 100% in the digital realm. May be sad, but it's true. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are mistaken about art having a simple definition. I have difficulties saying it in a simple manner. I'm in good company. Regarding your fictitious two art pieces: They both sound like art. And you are correct, the big collage is far more impressive. What purpose? They both sound very different. Scale and effort carry and convey content just as much words and image. A tiny elephant or a giant mouse. A tiny mouse or a giant elephant. Not the same purpose. That you say "hoity toity" indicates disdain for art and artists. You seem to be trying to make a case for crap that anyone can make being art. Why? Why dilute good art with bad? Here's an idea Post the best piece of art that you have ever created. I have no agenda other than recognizing where this is all headed, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. As for the agenda for the art in the example, lets assume the agenda was identical in all cases. Just in one case it is a human artist exercising human skill to do all of the work, on the other end it is a human artist making a tool do ALL of the work, and the examples in between are mixtures of both. For me, like it or not, it is going to be a spectrum, especially as AI gets better. You draw the line at some of those example being art and some of them not being art. I say they all are (again, everything else equal, the tool and the skills, or lack there of, is the only thing varying), even if the AI one is very unimpressive. I've already said that I'm not an artist, and part of my criteria about what makes "art" (or even illustration or decoration) "good" is if I can do it. If I can do it, its not impressive, and has less value (again, banana taped to a wall. Is it "art"? Doesn't really matter. Its not impressive in the least. We all have visions of things in our dreams, that if framed on a wall in a gallery could be considered "art"). There is definitely AI art out there, significantly crafted by humans, that you or I could not make the AI (at least, with current models) produce even if we tried, as there may be a human exercising a decent level of creative control (note, some AI art involves humans editing and modifying parts of the image, and then re-running it through AI). That doesn't mean it is as impressive as a painting that I find hideous, but that none the less, clearly took a high level of human skill to create. As AI gets better, and removes those requirements, it makes distinguishing between "real art" and just more mass produced "slop" harder, and harder to tell. You may not like it, but its gonna happen. The same thing is happening in many industries: AI does things in the digital world better and better as times goes on. It doesn't create paintings or replace toilets. So if you are good at painting or plumbing, you are harder for AI to compete with, than say, an artist who works 100% in the digital realm. May be sad, but it's true. Imagine if Star Trek replicators were somehow invented. Would you be a cook? What if instead of preset dishes, the computer just responds to a voice prompt. Something like "make me a meal based on beef, using a formal theme". It spits out a meal that may taste good, but did you cook it anymore than if it was predefined? I'll admit that I don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but cheap slopified "art for the masses" does nothing but cheapen the term. Look at how much garbage art was already floating around years ago when everyone wanted to copy Bob Ross. |
"This is a free country, and I have the permits, background checks, licenses, and tax receipts to prove it." --Zippster (4/10/13)
|
Dumbing down art “for the masses” is what the Communists and the Nazis did. Social Realism was their favorite. Looks a lot like AI stuff. The intent is to tear down Individual Creation in favor of something for all the masses. Nothing is special. No one is talented. ANYONE can do it. If the common man can’t understand it, it’s bad. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Torf: This isn't a stellar case for the merits of AI. Imagine if Star Trek replicators were somehow invented. Would you be a cook? What if instead of preset dishes, the computer just responds to a voice prompt. Something like "make me a meal based on beef, using a formal theme". It spits out a meal that may taste good, but did you cook it anymore than if it was predefined? I'll admit that I don't know exactly where the line is drawn, but cheap slopified "art for the masses" does nothing but cheapen the term. Look at how much garbage art was already floating around years ago when everyone wanted to copy Bob Ross. You may not like, it, but that's where this is all heading. Art has always been a spectrum. AI is just accelerating it to people who don't want to take the time to do it themselves.
|
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not everyone is capable of making or even recognizing good art. That's why there's so much crappy stuff out there. That's why we have Justin Bieber. I agree 100% that "digital artists" (pre-AI) are doomed to extinction. As are illustrators who made stuff like Sci-Fi book covers or medical book illustrations. They will be replaced like entry level coders and paralegals. AI creates stuff that looks just like theirs. Makes one question whether it was art to begin with. AI can't make a great painting. It makes images and illustrations. Here's an idea: Post the greatest art you ever created. |