Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Not suprised, Miyazaki’s art is deeply concerned with what it means to be human, and the beauty to be found there.
The art style is an superficial aesthetic of that beauty, not the heart of it.
And none of that heart is in ai generated images. They’re souless immitations that ape the substance of his works without having any. Like how hallmark pretends to depict “love” with paper thin characters and sanitizes it of any real substance or meaning
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s striking isn’t it how the debate around generative AI is essentially drawn along the line that separates good taste from bad. To win the debate we’re going to need really good art.
anonymous_in_atl@ani.social 1 week ago
Or a lot of irish car bombs, and I don’t mean the drink
tankplanker@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s a fundamental issue understanding what art is for sure. People who could really draw well could already copy his style perfectly, but just because you can perfectly copy it doesn’t make it original, and thus have the same value. It’s not that it has no value, just considerably less value than his films.
It’s that total lack of originality with AI slavishly copying a style like this that shows its lack of creative value. It’s like pressing play on a keyboard programmed with 20 top tunes of the 80s and randomly pressing the high hat key.
Sure, it enables someone who can’t play the piano to “play” a song, but not really. It’s the same getting AI to copy by rote someone else’s style they developed, it requires no effort or application of originality.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think you’re barking up the right tree, but the way I’d put it is this: it gives people the ability to specifically imitate an aesthetic without ever engaging with the thinking that underlies that aesthetic. It’s almost instantly anti intellectual, in that way.
Ghibli’s art comes from a profound love for liveliness, wonder, nature, and beauty that also respects the pain endured by its subjects. People talk shit on Ghibli as “the Disney of anime” but it’s a backhanded compliment at worst because I think they’re obliquely referring to how well Miyazaki executes on those feelings.
Bleys@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It definitely tracks that this same post in Reddit is overwhelmed with people supporting OpenAI on the matter.
known_unknown@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I think the show Arcane is one of the best examples of commercially released art in recent decades; interestingly, what happened is people actually accused it of using AI where there was none. Also Variety et al did a whole round of balking that anyone would invest in something so frivolous as serious animation for adults
There’s always gonna be Capitalists who try and commodify art, but fundamentally humans are the the only ones who can make NEW insights that resonate with people RIGHT NOW. If AI IS ever able to observe the world and reflect on it and offer something new, in the way humans are, it would still be from their own perspective, not ours.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 week ago
And much like that line, people confuse their personal taste for some kind of universal Truth that has to apply to everyone.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I owe you anon-joke answer. It’s not just a matter of personal taste here. Art is fundamentally the study of choice. A product that entails no actual choices is not art, even if you have a salable product that happens to be pretty. All genAI lacks the underlying meanings that evoke thought.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The premise here is that AI is generating art. That’s simply not true. People make art. AI is a tool not an artist. ‘AI art’ is art made by people using AI tools. The paintbrush doesn’t understand underlying meaning, it is a tool used by a person to create art. A diffusion model doesn’t understand meaning, but it also doesn’t create anything by itself. it is a tool that a person chooses to use.
The person chooses what to generate, what to manually create and how to mix those elements to create a composition that they, a human person, decide is what they want.
It’s no different than using Krita or Photoshop, with their various plugins and image manipulation capabilities (which also don’t understand meaning), to create art.
It’s just a tool, there is no ‘AI art’, it is all created by people.
If I throw a bucket of paint on a canvas and call it art. You can say that it is bad art, but saying that it is not art because the bucket of paint doesn’t understand art is nonsense. The same is true of any other tool that a person chooses to use to make art.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’ll take that L if you find me one professional artist who uses genAI and not ironically.
e0qdk@reddthat.com 1 week ago
I know a graphics designer personally (from work) who used an AI generated video clip as part of a proposed background video for the landing page of a marketing-style website that was getting a refresh on one of our projects. That one ultimately didn’t end up getting used – not because it looked bad, but because of other branding considerations. Frankly, I’m glad that he didn’t have to put much effort into making something that ended up getting canned.
There’s a LOT of art out there that’s functional. Few people stop and pay attention to it as art in itself – and it rarely lasts more than a few years before getting swapped out for something else in rebranding – but someone with design sense still needs to make it or a product will be less appealing.
Kuinox@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Grimes, shared AI that copy her voice, claim to use AI: time.com/7212502/grimes-ai-art-interview/
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There were images created, in part, by generative AI in some recent Call of Duty game. The person who created the piece was employed professionally by the studio that makes the game.