A good point about artists and their debate with AI
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Both can be true. A bunch of human artists are retarded weirdos. Humans still make the best art and, while AI art is intriguing, I do think it takes some of the magic that makes "art" "art" out of it. Art is, in my opinion, intrinsically human.
It does bring up some interesting philosophical questions though, about art and humanity as a whole. What is the correct answer, when AI does do art "better" than the greatest human artists? And...what about when they do everything else better too? Are humans just obsolete?
I know we've struggled with the questions of automation for much longer than the recent AI discussion, but we're definitely getting closer and closer to "replacing" humans, and that does raise some hard questions.
Back to art...my Luddite take; AI art is interesting and cool, but isn't art in quite the same way as traditional art. Call me old fashioned, call me a human supremacist or protectionist, whatever, but that's how I feel. Humans make art*, computers don't...exactly.
* And pretentious trash they call art, to OP's point.
You still have to have a sense of taste and aesthetics and restraint to get something good out of AI art tools. If you don't, or you're Indian, you end up making the same ugly repetitive shit you see in the comments of every Civitai model page.
Those tools don't actually do the work for you.
That's like saying the different brushes (or any other tool in literal any job) you use does the work for you. Power tools aren't doing your job for you. They make it easier and quicker. Even a CNC machine isn't doing your job for you.
But that's precisely the point. AI is another tool. An extremely overhyped tool that only produces dogshit in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. It has it's uses but like always it can't actually replace human input.
The only artists who need to fear AI are those who are so shit at their job that shitty AI art can actually replace them. Because 'art' fully generated by AI is generally dogshit.
Art is stagnant, that's why you see things like banana on wall.
Wittgenstein did a number on them and Foucault solidified being a subversive retard as the evolution of art, artists (even pop artists) haven't recovered since, they think making trascendental art is useless and lowbrow
The art scene maybe. Art is art, though, and can be whatever people create.
It is sad though that, by and large, good/great art won't ever be popular in the current zeitgeist. So I agree with you on that; modern nonsense has ruined a bunch of the stuff surrounding art, which has diminished the art scene, and popular art.
Banana on a wall is money laundering. Post modern dadaist "art" is tax evasion and money laundering.
Well that and fucking underage boys.
A bunch of turned-off Dell Windows 95s aren't sitting in the corner of a storage closet spontaneously forming art. (If anything, that sounds like an "artist art" exhibit).
Someone picks up a paintbrush, balances an easel, puts hair to palette to canvas.
Someone picks up a digipen, powers their tablet, puts silicone to glass.
Someone picks up a 4090, accumulates loras and prompts, puts photoshop and inpaint.
When does "art" cease to become "art"? When does "artist" cease to become "artist". In all three cases, the "artist" has viewed thousands of works of art, studied their dimensions and what makes art popular/good or not, and applied those learnings to the result. They copy shortcuts and "secret techniques". They trace, sketch, record images to their minds for reference later.
If you're against AI art, you should also be against the standard idea of painting on canvas. Can you imagine not making your own paints? Not making your own paper? How is it even art if such processes are automated for you?
Some AI outputs are fundamentally still art because it's genuine human expression, but the automation of a vast portion of the art does limit its capacity for expression as well. Automated processes are great for efficiency, but limited in some aspects as creative options.
When I get the AI contest up and running, expressiveness will be weighted equal or greater to quality of detail.
I will say, I don't think art is supposed to be efficient. Part of art is that it is, to some extent, pointless. It's not about doing it the best way.
Good point, but if something is supposed to be pointless - because that produces materially different results - it is no longer actually pointless. Lol
Andy Warhol is a perfect example for efficiency. Not saying I am a fan but we've all seen some of his famous pieces, he made it all an efficient machine to produce works some people consider art. I could see AI be similar, different, easier and faster expression but an expression nonetheless.
I can't say I've noticed any art produced in the past 10 years, let alone 'the best art'.
Every single piece of fanart you’ve ever seen of a character from a show/game/movie/etc
well....to a point
agree with the overall sentiment, though, and certainly anime has maintained a relatively high standard of excellence.
Hey! I spotted the one guy who hasn't watched "Frieren: Beyond Journey's End" 😁
There's all sorts of great art made every year across every medium. Now finding it is not easy as there's endless mountains of dreck to climb over to get to it.