Originally Posted By fatalerror113:
I argue that its all art. Its a spectrum. From good to crap. Always has been.

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:
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:
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:
"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 guns762:

Really like that 1st image.   Very Aztecish.  

Originally Posted By JQ66:



Nice try but she has brown eyes.  
Should be green or blue.

Originally Posted By Klee:



Illustrations can definitely be art.

You have such a narrow view of art that it blinds you.

Originally Posted By Klee:



Illustrations can definitely be art.

Originally Posted By macman37:


Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement.

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.”  Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.”  All artists are self-taught.

If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats.

Originally Posted By macman37:


I’m simply using the commonly accepted/accessible term that people know so when I say “folk art” the images conjured in people’s minds are the ones I’m trying to put there.

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


I know.  I’m just showing respect for the art of the common man.  

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


Yes, art needs a soul.

Pollack was extremely talented.

Originally Posted By JKrammes:



You're going to have to explain this statement. Unless I have never seen any other example, Pollock's work could be done by a 5 year old.  And yes.  I will post some of my art.  I was better with oils at 17 than any of the Pollock pieces I have seen.  There is a difference between not liking something, and it not being good.

Originally Posted By fatalerror113:
I think you misunderstand how AI works (or at least, the direction it is headed if you believe it is "not quite there yet").

Lets look at music.

Its more akin to listening to all current popular songs on the radio, breaking them down into a mathematical description of the music, and creating an algorithm to approximate that formulation, and then using said algorithm to generate new music with various permutations of the algorithm. It is not necessarily directly copying the music. Arguably musicians have been "stealing" formulations from one another for literally millenia (knowingly or unknowingly). Tweaking the instruments, the timing, the progression to produce something that is "different enough" to be recognized as original (heck, its part of the reason why gatekeepers wanted to hate on Nickelback...too formulaic.) Its the nature of working in a limited space (only a certain number of things sound good to the human ear. Musicians are ultimately constrained by that reality and their own experiences).

Arguing the difference between human variability in synthesis and output vs. algorithmic variability in  synthesis and output is a pretty nuanced and challenging discussion. The only real objective difference is, in my mind, that not every human can do it. It doesn't matter if you are the smartest person on earth, you may still be an absolutely shitty artist (especially if you are limited to using only traditional tools available from decades past.) And that's okay.

Conversely, any person using a computer that is not limited by the system requirements, can run any algorithm they want to (AI or not). Thus they can produce results that would be considered appealing based on criteria that would traditionally be used to evaluate manually created art. But ultimately, the results themselves are completely unimpressive from an "artistic" standpoint due to the manner of their creation, regardless if the products they used AI to create were indeed art (by anyone's definition) or not. The problem is, without the context of its creation, it may be hard to tell the difference (some argue we are pretty close to there already, but even if not now, in the future it becomes a "problem" as AI gets better and better at minimizing the "tells" for AI generated content.)

Originally Posted By fatalerror113:
Based on what?

Yes, they "stole" a bunch of stuff on the internet (art, non-art, everything) to train the models. That has its own possible implications since they are creating a "machine" from it.

I know early models had problems with directly copying things.

But each new model get better at "reshuffling" things so it is not an exact copy of anything. Again, very similar to how the human brain works, like it or not.

Eventually it will get to the point where it is hard to tell what is AI and what isn't. Doesn't make AI art impressive. It just makes it a fact of life that doesn't care about your feelings on the matter.

Originally Posted By JKrammes:



You're going to have to explain this statement. Unless I have never seen any other example, Pollock's work could be done by a 5 year old.  And yes.  I will post some of my art.  I was better with oils at 17 than any of the Pollock pieces I have seen.  There is a difference between not liking something, and it not being good.

Originally Posted By macman37:


Honestly: Many artists have tried to replicate his paintings. All have failed.

There was a freneticism in Pollock’s work that historians are calling unique, his unique “fingerprint”.

Originally Posted By JKrammes:


You can't help?  LOL.  I guess a commoner like me will just never understand the Aristocracy.

Originally Posted By Hadrian:
How heavily were you influenced by Pollock in doing your painting above?

Originally Posted By fatalerror113:
The same thing can be said about the human brain, and human artists to a lesser degree.

Again, for a more technical situation, if you analyzed music formulaically, created a dumb (non AI) algorithm based on that formulation, tweaked some inputs, it could generate original music. Original music that follows similar patterns seen in existing music, but original none the less.

Originally Posted By JKrammes:


You can't help?  LOL.  I guess a commoner like me will just never understand the Aristocracy.

Originally Posted By Hadrian:
How heavily were you influenced by Pollock in doing your painting above?

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Do your own work.  Put in the effort.

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:


Yes!  That painting was 100% influenced by Pollock.  

Originally Posted By JKrammes:


I do.  I hand draw mechanical drawings, then make it with my hands.  Some pieces are hand sculpted too.  Functional Art.  What kind of art do you create?