Comment by soulofmischief
4 days ago
> many, many artists share this point of view
Bandwagon fallacy.
> slop-generating
Strawman. I never said what level of quality I find acceptable to sign off on.
> algorithmic regurgitation
Computational generative art has been practiced since the 1950s, and mathematically-derived generative art has been done by hand even farther back since at least the 19th century. Is a century not long enough time for people to accept it as a valid form of expression?
> the basic definition of an artistic creation ... disgustingly vapid and far from art
Gatekeeping, and No true Scotsman fallacy. Art is subjective.
> Comparing this to typing, editing, calculating and reprinting tools like the ones you mention is laughable and factually wrong
As I mentioned in a sibling comment, you also have missed the point of the analogy. I won't rehash what I said there.
> Even a calculator isn't the same
The accuracy and social validity of calculators were distrusted for a long time, and computers as well.
> It doesn't create your mathematical equations for you
It takes care of a lot of what was considered by many to be essential duties for any self-respecting mathematician of the era. Photoshop and cameras were similarly criticized. Learn some art history before dismissing this stuff.
> But to have AI create for you while calling yourself an artist is simply lazy intellectual dishonesty
You clearly have little idea how artists are integrating these tools into their work, and how it is allowing them to think and operate at a higher level, just like digital painting did to traditional painting, even though many felt "technique" was lost or ignored, they themselves ignore all of the new technique that comes with mastering new creative tools.
If you don't like the art, fine. If you don't like it solely on the basis of how it was created, that's fine, but it is by definition bias. But it's arrogant to go even further and start declaring what is and isn't art, and who is and isn't an artist. That is not for you to decide. Furthermore, your argument is riddled with fallacies and needs serious review.
What i'm seeing here are the arguments of an apparently typical AI bro completely missing the forest for the trees.
I do art, photography and painting both, and most of my friends and acquaintances are artists of some kind or another too and generally among all of them as far as I know, the idea of having a visual regurgitation algorithm make your visual and textual (and now video) creations for you is anathema to artistic creativity.
Sure, there are artists who use AI to create interesting projects that I would call art, because the main crux of the work requires their creative construction and integration of elements and narrative, regardless of the final form it takes.
On the other hand, some idiot spending a couple minutes on a prompt to create a dozen variations of a cat making a mouseburger is not art, it's someone playing with some digital visuals.
And yes, I declare myself completely able to say that shit like that isn't art, and that the kind of person who'd claim it to be so because they couldn't pull a bit of their own effortful creativity out of their ass has no idea what art is or represents.
If you have a camera, you still need to take it to places and set up compositions. It takes effort, and there's a distinct difference between someone who learns to do it well vs. someone who has no clue except for an occasional, incidental lucky shot. Becoming a photographic artist lies in the gradient we move along between these two extremes, in sometimes unusual ways that are saturated with human creative narrative and effort. The same goes for other forms of creative expression.
Photoshop is a bit more tricky, and especially now, that it includes Firefly AI tools for completely rebuilding photos into... something else. but if one is serious about respecting their own learning curve of photography, they try to not let it take away from the essential message they were trying to communicate with the human-made photos they took in the first place. So on and so forth.
Bottom line: art is many things, and we could debate that, as well as questions of quality and preference, but it emphatically isn't the wholesale regurgitated, instant productions of a completely unthinking algorithm.
> What i'm seeing here are the arguments of an apparently typical AI bro
Ad hominem and a clear display of bias. You know nothing about me, my history or capabilities.
> Sure, there are artists who use AI to create interesting projects that I would call art
> And yes, I declare myself completely able to say that shit like that isn't art
Gatekeeping, again.
The rest of your post regurgitates your previous post, and completely fails to address my previous rebuttal. Your argument is disingenuous, tired and still riddled with issues. Take the L and learn to not arrogantly force your world view onto other creatives.
If your being "creative" consists of nothing more than having an AI vomit things up for you with no input on your part except for some prompts, you're not a creative. If my argument above seems repetitive, it's because i'm trying to hammer home a point that should be obvious, and is obvious to any number of people who exercise real creativity, regardless of its medium.
Also, ad hominem is fine as long as it doesn't form the main thrust of an argument.
1 reply →