3d ago

Haven't seen this on here yet - humans don't require computers to create art... Art is inherent in us.

152 comments

If all it takes to be a "real artist" is drawing proficiently, then every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist and every performance or installation artist who can't draw is not an artist.
I don't like AI slop, but this argument against it just doesn't make sense.
- If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently
  I think you are miss-understanding the argument.
  Pro-AI folk say that being anti-AI, as a digital artist, is hypocrisy because you also used a computer. Here it is shown that, despite not using a computer, the artist is still able to create their art, because there is more to the visual arts than the tools you have to make it. This puts rest to the idea that using digital art tools is somehow hypocritical with being against AIGen.
  The argumentor is not saying that not knowing how to draw proficiently excludes being an artist. They are just saying that real artist do not need a computer program to create their arts, much like performances or installation artists you mentioned.
- It isn't saying that drawing is the only art form, just that having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist. Drawing was an example, performance art, music, and other forms of art are also criteria for being an artist.
  Hell, you don't even have to be proficient if you are able to create art that conveys something.
  every ai artist who has also learned to draw is a real artist
  Yes, they are an artist if they are able to create art although the label only matters in reference to the things they create. It doesn't mean everything they do is art.
  Using AI prompts is like using a web search to find art someone else created, it isn't creating art. Does writing down an idea for a book make someone an author? No, it does not.
  
  the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
  What is "scratch"?
  That's the whole argument against AI art.
  Did you make spaghetti with pre-made noodles?
  Did you make your own noodles?
  Did you grind up your own wheat?
  Did you make easy mac in the microwave?
  Which one is a true chef?
  Maybe
  Probably
  Definitely
  Probably not
  Does the AI make the "art" or does the artist use AI as a tool.
  The chef creates the easy mac. A person cooks the easy mac.
  Having AI create the "easy mac", then trying to claim cooking the "easy mac" makes you a chef is what's wrong
  But if you get the AI to create the noodles, sauce, meat ball seasoning, etc. And you put it all together well. Then you can claim you're somewhat of a chef.
  
  That is another good example. Using a text prompt of an AI is like microwaving a premade meal.
  But tech bros using AI who can't create anything without the AI aren't artists just like someone who can only microwave premade meals isn't a chef.
  Hell, adding some additional cheese or making informed substitutions and maybe a tiny bit of some seasoning is being a chef.
  But if you use the AI to create the meal entirely you aren't choosing the noodles, sauce, meat balls, or anything else. You are picking items from a menu at best and hoping for random chance to spit out something you like.
  Intentionally applying an AI filter to something intentionally chosen with an expected outcome could be used to create art just like algorithm based filters. But the meme is referring to people who can't actually create anything without an AI text promp.
  
  You are overthinking the details by taking examples far to literally and applying them too broadly.
  Just like if I used text prompt of an AI and created some art (assuming it doesn’t make it goofy). You’d believe that I was a great artist.
  I would think the same thing as I would if you used google search and presented some artwork someone else made as your own. Typing a text prompt into an AI generator is the same thing as typing words into a search engine.
  Passing off someone else's work as your own might fool someone into thinking you were a great artist, but that doesn't make you an artist.
  Would cover bands be artists or musicians? If all they could do was follow the “recipe”? If they add some additional cheese.
  Cover bands can also play other songs beyond what they choose to for the cover band, because they are musicians. Do you think they are limited to only that one band's songs?
  
  ~~You realize you just said photographers aren't artists, right?~~
  Edit: Someone already pointed this out. Ignore this comment. I don't delete it because Lemmy is weird about deleting comments.
  
  The other person was also wrong.
  
  According to your own delusions?
  
  having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist
  This implies photographers aren't artists though. They rely on a specific tool - the camera - and utilize it to create art. This ranges from "just" taking pictures to setting up elaborate scenes.
  Another example - for which I have forgotten the name - is art utilizing computers. Not in the sense of anything digital but rather electronic calculating machines built to beep, boop and blink. I've been to an exhibition which featured this type of art by one artist. Some were interactive, some weren't, some were (partially) broken after decades of age and some were still functioning. Most were built during the 60s to 90s by the way. I believe the artist never did created any other art, at least publicly. He was an artist nonetheless.
  I'd say AI art is art. Any definition of artistry which attempts to exclude AI art must also exclude other unconventional art forms.
  The question shouldn't be what art is or isn't anyways. Such questions often lead to gatekeeping or nazis. Rather, it should be about the meaning of art. And most of AI art has the sole meaning of looking decent. AI art cannot ever replace more meaningful art as it alone lacks much meaning. It may at most supplement it, with some artists perhaps using AI deliberately as part of a work.
  
  This implies photographers aren’t artists though.
  I mean if you think it is necessary for the person who works with sticks to grow the plant from a seed first to count as 'from scratch' that would make sense.
  It isn't about which tools are used, but the process. A photographer, without a camera, can still block off a shot and consider lighting and what exposure they would use if they had the tools handy. It is extremely likely they could do a bare bones sketch of what they would take a picture of. They are considering details and how it would impact the way the picture turns out and the feelings that might be invoked in whoever looked at the photo down the road.
  A tech bro using AI is just throwing words into a blender and seeing if something comes out. We aren't talking about possible AI refinement tools, we are talking about AI tech bros who throw shit out with shitty and inconsistent lighting, terrible textures, and other bland shit that is rehashed crap vomited forth from the AI system that is no more art than doing a web search, saving one of the results, and saying "I made this".
  
  A photographer without a camera cannot produce art though. They can imagine it, explain it and even make a rough sketch - but the end result isn't art. It's a concept for art that is not yet made reality.
  Similarly, there are differing levels of effort in order to create AI art. For instance, someone using an LLM to create an AI picture has approximately as much artistic merit as someone using their phone to take a selfie. It requires roughly the same amount of effort as well.
  But for other AI art, it can take a lot of time to get everything right. I've dabbled with Stable Diffusion two years ago and there is a lot of finetuning and parameters you had to set to get anything worthwhile. My attempts roughly looked like taking a photo with random brightness, contrast and exposure settings: like utter trash. With some time and practice one could likely get adept at manipulating whatever model one is using and generate plenty of images with purpose.
  Most AI generated images have little to no artistic merit, just like most pictures taken with a smartphone camera. But you cannot conclude that any and all art with either of those tools is therefore impossible.
  
  Similarly, there are differing levels of effort in order to create AI art. For instance, someone using an LLM to create an AI picture has approximately as much artistic merit as someone using their phone to take a selfie. It requires roughly the same amount of effort as well.
  That is correct.
  Photographs that simply document something existing are not art. The photos I take of something that catches my eye are not art if I don't bother with a minimum of framing or any kind of composition. Those are just snapshots of something existing, which is also the case with most selfies.
  But you cannot conclude that any and all art with either of those tools is therefore impossible.
  I sure can!
  A camera can be used to make art and just document things. A paintbrush can be used to make art or just paint a wall a single color without any larger context that would make it art. Tools used to make art are also able to be used to make stuff that isn't art. Even art that might look random, like Jackson Pollock's splatter paintings, were intentional with composition and purpose.
  A LLM is a randomizing copy blender. It has a vague idea of what the person is going for, but it is just mashing together stuff that was pumped into it without intent or purpose. If it gets lucky and is what the person wants, cool. It still isn't art and can't be due to just being a randomized mismash of things other people created like fancy copy machine.
  
  Now, if I told you that this picture was taken with a remote camera?
  I would call you a liar because that is clearly hand drawn based on some reference images being combined or in a very unlikely case it could be staged. There is absolutely zero chance that it was a random image from a trail cam.
  While it is possible that it could be an AI regurgitation of someone's artwork, that is far less likely because it doesn't have the weird AI artifacts that are common in something with that much detail.
  Photographers frequently make art. They can also just take pictures that are documentation. Documentation via pictures can be visually appealing without being art.
  You looking at that photo makes you feel a certain way. It has beauty. It is art.
  A lot of art is ugly and doesn't communicate the same feelings to all viewers. Some art needs to be explained for anyone to understand the intent and meaning behind it. Even unclear and bad art is still art.
  It’s the work and effort that gives the art the feeling.
  On this we agree! AI slop can be turned into art with additional work and effort. The direct results from a text prompt are not art. People who can only create images using an AI text prompt are not artists.
  
  having the ability to create art from scratch is what makes someone an artist.
  But in that case all AI artists are artists because all humans can create art from scratch. Everyone draws in the dirt.
  I'm happy considering all humans artists - I do think that - but again that means that burning a stick and drawing on a rock is just not a valid metric for being an artist.
  
  You are completely missing the point and unfortunately I cannot explain it more clearly.
  
  I'm getting flashbacks to when people, during the man vs. bear debacle, started arguing about bear muscle strength.

152 comments