Comment

Comment on A cartoonist's review of AI art, by Matthew Inman

ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

It’s impressive technology, and I understand that it’s exciting, but it’s not art.

I would add that a lot (most?) graphical elements we encounter in daily lives do not require art or soul in the least. Stock images on web pages, logos, icons etc. are examples of graphical elements that are IMO perfectly fine to use AI image generation for. It’s the menial labour of the artist profession that is now being affected by modern automation much like so many other professions have. All of them resisted so of course artists resist too.

source

Sort:hotnew top

agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The most generic logo from ten years ago still was made with choices by a designer. It’s those choices that make a difference, you don’t choose how things are executed with ai

source
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  But you still choose the final result…for something like that, the how is really quite irrelevant, it is just the end result that matters and that still remains in the hands of humans as they’re the ones to settle on the final solution.
  
  source
  - ech@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    the how is really quite irrelevant
    
    That’s our point. The how is entirely relevant. It’s what makes art interesting and meaningful. Without the how and why, it’s just colors and noise.
    
    source
    ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    it’s just colors and noise.
    
    But that’s exactly my point; logos, icons, stock images etc. are already nothing but noise meant to just catch the eye…might as well just get it auto-generated.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - agent_nycto@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    That’s like saying you cooked a chicken sandwich because you ordered it off the menu.
    
    source
    ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I’d argue it’s more like creating the menu, specifying the contents of the menu but having someone/thing else actually make the food.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
laxu@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I’d argue that logos are a hugely expressive form. It’s just that 90% of them are basic ass shit tier stuff.

AI has basically raised the level of “shit tier” pretty high. I sometimes go check out Hotone Audio’s Facebook page to see if there are new firmware updates for my device, but they mainly peddle pointless AI slop marketing images. I’m sure there are tons of companies like this.

It’s the literal example of the marketing person being able to churn out pictures without an artist being involved, and thus the output is a pile of crap even more vapid than stock photos.

source
ech@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The impact on livelihoods is important, but it’s ultimately unrelated to defining what art is. My consideration of art is not one born of fear of losing money, but purely out of appreciation for the craft. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to suggest all the criticisms against generated art is solely borne of self-preservation.

In regards to corporate “art”, all the things you listed, even stock images, are certainly not the purest form of artistry, but they still have (or, at least had) intent suffusing their creation. I suppose the question then is - is there a noticeable difference between the two for corporations? Will a generated logo have the same impact as a purposefully crafted on does? In my experience, the generated products I’ve noticed feel distinctly hollow. While past corporate assets are typically hollow shells of real art, generated assets are even less. They’re a pure concentration of corporate greed and demand, without the “bothersome” human element. Maybe that won’t matter in their course of business, but I think it might. Time will tell.

source