What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 11 of 11)
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: I argue that its all art. Its a spectrum. From good to crap. Always has been. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: 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. If everything is art, then nothing is art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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.  No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are.
|
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Godwins law? This is a religious discussion afterall. No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: 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. No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are. Post some art that you have created. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If everything is art, then nothing is art. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: 1) I never said 'everything' is art. Seems to me you are now doing what you accused me of doing earlier. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If everything is art, then nothing is art. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. You literally said that. You said: “I argue that its all art.” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You literally said that. You said: "I argue that its all art." "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Why? Sounds like an irrelevant red herring to me. I already stated I'm not an artist. You don't need centralistic gate keeping to discuss what is happening in the world. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Post some art that you have created. You don't need centralistic gate keeping to discuss what is happening in the world. Interesting “I’m not an artist” insight into the whole “it’s all art” philosophy. The disdain is apparent. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: "its all", as in, the examples of things on the spectrum of things we were discussing. "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You literally said that. You said: "I argue that its all art." "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). Gatekeeper! |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Interesting "I'm not an artist" insight into the whole "it's all art" philosophy. The disdain is apparent. We are just as smart as you, and just as capable of having valid opinions, and you hate it. Reminds me of "I am the science" Dr. Fauchi absolutely hating the fact that common people with unrelated degrees and even with high school diploma's knew he was lying at various points of Covid. Don't take yourself too seriously. Your opinion, just like mine, is just that. An opinion. I will grant, that due to your technical skills, would be a better judge at what painting takes more skill to produce than another similar painting than I would. No question about it. For this reason I promise I'll never sign up to judge an art contest. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Gatekeeper! When I take a picture of some bullshit I bought to show my dad, I literally don't think about how it looks from an artistic perspective. I want to make sure he can see the thing. There is no psychology involved. There is no aesthetics involved. Its a tool I am using to show him a thing that I can't hand him right now. Generally people who produce things for public consumption do think about those things. Even medical illustrators, I assume, consider various factors as to what colors, contrasts, and techniques to best show the image. You may say those are not "artistic considerations" since their purpose is different, which is fine, and that's your opinion. Comic books and scifi covers? How are these people not putting artistic thought into their images? Isn't that part of their job? |